Conceptual art as Art

[sin]

For my Theory of Knowledge class, in HS, we're doing Oral Presentations on ethics issues blah blah blah, so I asked my Prof. if it was OK if I analyzed what made art art and how I could/would/can (if I can) justify conceptual/fantasy/sci-fi/anime art as art. I'm trying to throw this in the faces of those dinosaurs who believe that the kind of art we (sorry for including myself with the wonder-artists out here, Landmate, El Coro, Bengal, Android etc etc) isn't really art. My art prof. kept calling my stuff 'cartoons' or 'fantasy-art', which, I guess it is, but she grades me down and disrespects me and my art, because of it's nature. So I'd like your opinions on how this kind of art is justified as art! What makes art, art? Now bear in mind, this project I'm doing can't and will not include OPINIONS, so I'm not shamelessly posting to grab meat for my presentation, I'm just curious what you guys think!

Thanks,
--Evan

[cucaracha]

concept-art and comics are art, imho.

The definition of art could be sth which impresses you and which inspires you.
Art leaves memories and causes emotions.

Under all that facts, concepts and cartoons (such as music, fine art, sculptures, architecture, etc.) is art.

cu

[R_M]

Originally posted by cucaracha
concept-art and comics are art, imho.

The definition of art could be sth which impresses you and which inspires you.
Art leaves memories and causes emotions.

Under all that facts, concepts and cartoons (such as music, fine art, sculptures, architecture, etc.) is art.

cu

Not sure it holds...by this definition anything is art

[cucaracha]

Originally posted by R_M


Not sure it holds...by this definition anything is art

to an artist, yes :)

It's the artist's job to give that to other people. I hope you know what I mean, it's not easy to say..

cu

[egerie]

Isn't comic art considered the 8th art ?.. What your teacher is found is probably more classical fine arts.. It doesn't mean that other forms of expression aren't art.

I used to have extremely conservative teachers as well.. and for my final project in one class I wanted to do something digital related but it wouldn't be received due to not being recognised as art. :rolleyes: But that's a whole different ball game........

[R_M]

Cucaracha> yeah I get it, just not sure I agree, let me think 'bout it.

we'll never get the definition of art right, so maybee we should try to define the term "artist" first.

Am pretty sure you need to be poor to be one :D

[sin]

alright then, define artist :D.
Dictionary.com defines art as
Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.

The study of these activities.

The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.

High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.

A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.

A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.

A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.

A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.

Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.

Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: ?Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice? (Joyce Carol Oates).

arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.

Artful contrivance; cunning.

Printing. Illustrative material.

[Nimrod]

I define art as any form of creation, any instance in which you start with nothing and through some deliberate action end with something you can put your name on and call yours (even if you take a urinal and turn it on it's side and sign it :D). Food can be art, music can be art, engineering can be art, dance can be art, movies can be art, and I think anything someone applies with some media to a flat surface is most certainly art, even if its a big breasted cyborg carrying a laser bazooka. it might not be the most meaningful, the best, the most emotional, or anything, but it's still art.

Art can be any way in which we try to communicate to another person, also. Speaking can be art, and writing can be art. Visual art is just the way we 'artists' (by that I mean illustrators, painters, those who are considered artists by the general public) communicate to others because ususally its the best way we know how to really tell somebody something about what we are feeling, the way we feel.

[tyboogie]

yea, but is art art?

[conor]

may I refer you to this book (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2T8PDJ9LJY&sourceid=00013038426996624545&bfdate=04%2D29%2D2003+21%3A40%3A46&isbn=006097625X&itm=1) if you were going to delve into comics as a form of artistic expression. it's a good, overt and simple book to follow, and talks specifically about the medium as an art form among other things.

one nice liberal explaination of art in that book is that art is any action, thought, or stroke which is not made with the desire to reproduce or to survive. so running from a angry bear is not art, nor is pursuing a naked lady with specific desires in mind.

the reason most people have problems with introducing most new art mediums into the 'real' art strata is because of the way in which they were introduced into the world.
for example, lets take the two most obvious ones, comics and concept art.

comics were primarily introduced in the 20th century, primarily in america. These comics told small tales in newspapers, which developed a story one strip of a time. They were the frosting on the cake, they held no real substance. No aesthetics were delved, no societies analyzed. There was no wit or satire, for most jokes were of low brow humor. basicly, they were a form of communication or expression (as all art forms are) being used to sell 2 cent newspapers. Over 70 years this had been happening in America. Phrases such as 'thats comic book talk' display this trend. As a result of this poor introduction, the comics of today must fight to attain status among the other art forms. you can't argue and theorize in order to change a mindset. this kind of change must be a result of hard proof.

now concept art. firstly, what really is concept art? concept means a general idea (interpretation of dict def). art means a mode of expression (2 second def, forgive moi), so concept art is a general idea expressed in a mode of expression? but fine art paintings can be a general idea as well. So really, were not talking about the definition of the phrase, but rather the connotation. the connotation is a drawing designed to provide a basic idea for companies working out ideas for their product.

concept art today is being used to express the basic idea. to prove to those who have money that this idea will sell, that it looks marketable. The concept art also becomes the property of the company as a result the image has no say in the end project. the image may be a perverted and manipulated to suit the market. Also, traditionaly concept art is made with the desire to sell it. Most people don't hang up concept art on their wall, they hang landscapes and abstract paintings.
however, what concept art is to most of us(atleast to me i suppose), is drawing. drawings we can do of enviroments, people, animals, aliens and all sorts of subjects. And once we get good enough, we can create these drawings for companies using their idea in order to earn money ( :D ). But like any art, our personal feelings show through in out concepts. this, one could consider, is the true test of whether something is an art. However, companies dont really like this. they want something realistic and tangible.

im not really going anywhere, and i want to draw, so ill leave it at this. hope i made some points in this jumble.

[sin]

very eloquent conor! (good name btw, any relation to conor oberst? :P). But erm what does 'be careful sin, you gots da shotty in yo hands' mean?

Anyone elsy wanna voice any counter poitns or anything?

[jester]

We've got a saying in Germany (Kunst kommt von Können, lit. art derives from being able) that says it all IMO. And since concept artists are very much "able" what they produce is art. I know about that academic artists' view that as soon as art is "employed" in one way or other it declines from being art. That's rubbish, because even they use their art for certain aims.

Just my 2c

Jester

[Android]

concept art is one of the last surviving fields of "art" that actualy celebrates and still values the accedemic lessons of the masters like anatomy, form, shape, color composition, value and line quality, that counts for something for sure

[gekitsu]

andrew hit my opinion 100%.

i mean: the archetype of artist and art, the old masters and fine art, is basically the field of conceptual art, illustration and the like today.
in the former days, it was like: "paint a portrait of me daughter and i'll give you some bucks"
wasn't it bouguereau who said "i lose 20 franc everytime i pee"?
aren't these all celebrities in sergent's portraits? (well, most of them) people who paid him for what he did?

edit: just re-read that paragraph... i don't want to say that everything that is made on comission is art and what is done freely is not...
but the stuff the old masters did on comission most of the time had something to do with the skill to display something. in their times, it was the face of the daughter of someone else, today it is the vision of someone creating entertainment. not so big a difference, when compared to ink blobs and red squares...

those modern things like "expressing your inner self", i.e. seeing yourself so important that all the world needs to ponder about your likes and dislikes, the color of your pants and whether you prefer strawberry pudding over vanilla or vice versa were for sure not the issue they are today.
not even to speak of the attitude "let's make something incredibly stupid. it will be art. people will call me stupid but what are people and what do they understand of the ways of the true artist?"

i also find it ridicolous to ask "what does the artist want to tell us?" when looking at a portrait by some old master. what the hell? i mean, it was like "i hope the old fuck will like the painting or i'll never get anything to eat" and not "let me tell the world my thoughts about the world, our system, my life, my taste and use a portrait of a girl as the perfect medium for that."

i told that my art teacher and he was one of the likes of jens' teacher.
i never saw a hue of red like that in anyone's face before :)

i came to the point that the term "art" and "artist" has changed its meaning recently. according to that, i now strive to be a good craftsmen in the field of drawing and painting, not necessarily an artist.

[sin]

im very pleased with all the responses! yay! but ok now its my turn: ::deep breath::

i believe that art is ::another deep breath:: well, it's certainly subject to serious interpretation. (Lol brilliant statement, evan...:S). Art can be anything created with intention, with a purpose to illicit some kind, any kind, of reaction from someone. This though, discludes the art for the sake of art argument, because there are plenty of artists who create art for no one to see, just their own pleasure. But doesnt that illicit a response from someone? isnt the artists someone? hah! there we go, i recall the quandries of art, one of them being that forgeries cant be art and nature isnt art. Im not sure if this correct, but it sounds right.

lol but i digress; ive gone and confused myself...::rubs head::: go, talk amongst yourselves...

[Muttonhead]

This is an interesting debate.

Recently I went to see a show of DaVinci drawings at the MET in NYC, and I found myself laughing out loud while looking at his sketchbooks because it occurred to me that he did the same things back then that those of our ilk are doing NOW! DaVinci was a concept artist: weapons, vehicles, buildings, machines, and STRANGE LOOKING people/creatures!

I even saw a little cartoon that he drew of some guy blowing one of those long trumpets into the ear of another guy who look very annoyed! Of course, the caption had some bogus explanation proposing that there was a "meaning" behind this piece, but I saw it for what is was: a cartoon!

And I would imagine your teacher wouldn't dare argue that DaVinci isn't a real artist.

I think the problem is with subject matter. Somehow, using your imagination and artistic skill to create something that does not exist on this world, or inspires a sense of adventure and fantasy is seen as being juvenile or unsophisticated.

Keep in mind, you should definitely point out that though you consider concept art to BE art, doesn't mean that you think all fantasy/concept art is GOOD art, because there is plenty of BAD, and often the bad stuff gets top billing (Boris Vallejo and Rob Liefield come to mind), but that is often the case with "HIGH" art as well: Salieri was more popular than Mozart in his day, but who cares about Salieri anymore?

I think you need to find fantasy art that shows off the very best things about art: ideas, emotion and skill. Find fantasy art that has depth, and meaning, because there is plenty that does! Concept art is definitely more on the side of commercial art, but show me an artist who doesn't have clients, and I'll show you a failed artist.

-Muttonhead

[R_M]

Vincent van Gogh

[tyboogie]

hahaha--mutton

i saw the same show of da vinci at the met and was commenting to a friend that his distorted faces/portraits looked like they belonged as aliens in star wars---


i think alot of common people who would see the level of stuff that goes on here as art--i think the avg joe would be impressed if they browsed this sight. but unfortunatley i do think our industry ( games and comics more than film) suffers from juvenile subject matter. it is for a juvenile audience still playing out power fantasies. i hope this changes more in gaming than anywhere else

dont get me wrong im the biggest fan you can find of action/adventure entertainemtn--sci--fi / fantasy etc. i love escapism--its why i do what i do!!!!

but until we really push our generations mediums ( games, comics, animation) in some new directions they will continue to be viewed as juvenile--

but i also think its a generation thing--like when we have kids, games will be much more accepted and a part of global entertainment---so it will be more accepted as a medium--where as the baby boom generation only thinks of games for what they were when they first hit the market --for kids---like animation--and i think the mature subject matter helps--but again i think really pushing the envelope of teh MEDIUM will help gain acceptance and open peoples eyes



but thats just my opinion--i could be wrong

holy shit what a rant!!!

[gekitsu]

Originally posted by R_M
Vincent van Gogh

weren't his very early works "commercial", too?

[sin]

I really do agree with everything you guys are saying, especially muttonhead.

Erm, Abel wrote a book called 'Man is the Measure' and in the section about art, and the five quandries and such, it defines are as anything where materials were gathered, with the intent to create something that evokes any kind of feeling.
**Not verbatim, is there any way we can all come to an agreement on the definition of art?

[R_M]

Originally posted by gekitsu


weren't his very early works "commercial", too?

to lazy to do research, but he defenatly didn't sell anything later on, and if I remember right he died pretty much unknown.
By any mesure he wasn't a succesfull artist when alive, he got on by teaching.
this is all from memory, so I could be mistaken, feel free to corect anything. (don't mean my spelling)

[jester]

As far as I remember van Gogh sold his pictures to his brother... it's quite for sure that the German tax office would have regarded him as not a "serious artist" :D

Jester

[sin]

So, what does everyone think? How can concept art be justified as art? any other thoughs?

[Tedsuo]

Sin, turn the question back at him.

Hypothesis: The renaissance art world functioned in the same manner as the conceptual art world today. Patrons hired artists to lend their talents to visualize scenes of their choosing. Since the subject matter was often biblical, it was by definition conceptual in nature, as opposed to literal painting such as portraiture. All biblical paintings are concept paintings. Michelangelo painted biblical scenes. Michelangelo was a concept artist. As to modern concept art being stylized and cartoony, I ask whether it is any less stylized than the works of the high renaissance and earlier. As to many modern concept/comic artists not functioning on the level of Michelangelo- well, many of his contemporaries weren't all that great either. I believe the works of the greatest modern concept artists stand up to any definition of art you care to mention.


Hope that helps!

[weapon82]

I like people who can draw. Alot.

[sin]

tedsuo you're my hero...^_^!!

very nice

[WildSpruceMoose]

Art in my words is how one expresses themself through means of fabricating an idea or emotion that is unique.

EDIT: so if you do a concept and look at it many may see only a functional picture used for the modellors... Analyse, though and you will see your emotions and expressions at the time of the creating will also be a large part of it.

Basically if prof.s don't believe that concept art for the industry is art, show them el coro's, android's, hurricane's, jason manely's, mcotie's, Landmate's, nimrod's, etc...(didn't mean to miss anyone) work and see what they say. lol

[jrr]

Originally posted by R_M
Vincent van Gogh

lol,
wah? lol confounded!

[R_M]

Originally posted by jrr


lol,
wah? lol confounded!

what do you mean?

[Erik]

I walked past an art gallery today. There were two exhibitioned works.

One was a giant clay pizza of 2 meters (6 feet) diameter, painted. It was a pepperoni.
The other was a painting of about 90 x 60 cm (3 x 2 feet) that was gray, applied with a big brush, sloppily filling the paper (you could see the brush had been following the paper outline) and then scratched a bit with a sharp object. Then the artist had applied a thigk black brushstroke and below that a thick yellow one.

Both pieces were priced at around 2000 euros (same amount in dollars).

The pizza had something, it was fun to look at and nicely crafted. But it's more decoration than art. The second one really really sucked in my opinion. If that is art so is a spraypainted brick.

My point is: if these things are supposed to be art nowadays by these same critics that say that concept art (of quality) is not, then why bother even to go in discussion with them? We just spraypaint some bricks, make up stories about how they relate to our miserable childhoods and get rich already!

These so-called art-connaisseurs mostly can't draw a straight line with a ruler. That's why they criticise so much. They simply don't know the difference.

[WildSpruceMoose]

LoL nice one Erik, although those rich folk really go for weird art that makes absolutely no sense at all. I know of people who go to a junkyard, get stuff, put it together, have shows and make double what my parents make a year in one show :eek:

[Dom]

Most abstract art is that of the untalented, sold by the unprincipled by the utterly confused.

[jester]

Most abstract art is that of the untalented, sold by the unprincipled by the utterly confused.

AT LAST, someone dared to write this down, for all people to read...

:cool:

Jester

[Erik]

I agree totally, but would like to modify:

It's usually hard to tell the difference between abstract art that is made by the untalented, sold by the unprincipled to the utterly confused from the abstract art that isn't.

And there's the loophole for the untalented or unprincipled to exploit! And the utterly confused like to get exploited because they van tell all their important friends how much they payd for it and feel important too.

But i have to say there is abstract art that i like. I can't really like abstract art without seeing the development of the idea of the artist though, like for instance Mondriaan who first painted realistically and then developed an idea or vision to what he made later. I can appreciate the quest he made. As have other great artists, like Picasso etc. Usually it's the ones that 'invented' abstract art though.

I just have trouble with someone who starts out with abstract art right away, and says he doesn't need to know anything (technique, history, anatomy, ...) to be able to express himself. The difference between that and a monkey with a paintbrush rapidly becomes very small.

[jester]

I just have trouble with someone who starts out with abstract art right away, and says he doesn't need to know anything (technique, history, anatomy, ...) to be able to express himself. The difference between that and a monkey with a paintbrush rapidly becomes very small.

Sure, there's where the difference starts... and one can see which abstract work is the work of someone who can draw and knows about composition, colors, anatomy and so on. Picasso was obsessed with drawing from life - and it even shows in his abstract paintings. Mondriaan is very harmonic and sure, anybody can paint a few squares on canvas - but can he think of the composition and color choice as well?

To sum up my rant - Erik, you expressed what I really felt. :)

Jester