Art: The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture.
People have different ideas of what constitutes art, rating some forms of art more highly than others.
When I visit art galleries and museums I’m always much more interested in pre-Victorian paintings and tend to skip past the modern art sections because I don’t rate modern art as highly as classical art. There are two reasons for this; modern art tends to be quite simplistic, representing some hidden meaning behind splodges of colour I think even a child could produce (and even animals in some cases, have.) If I read the blurb along side the artwork, I always end up thinking to myself that the artist has just made up a metaphor after the paining has been finished, in order to make it appear more thought-provoking than it actually is, rather than the other way around.
Secondly I’m very impressed with extremely detailed, life-like portraits of classical art which have taken immense time, effort and skill while modern art tends to reject realism. Back in the days classical art was produced, photography didn’t exist so there was a need for life-like portraiture to capture what important people or scenes looked like. In modern days of photography however, I question whether it is as necessary and impressive to produce a life-like painting when we can just take a photograph of the object which will be even more realistic. So in a sense, modern art is producing abstract concepts that aren’t possible to reproduce with modern technology, possibly making it more unique in a way.
Spoiler:Some examples of modern 'art' I don't like
Red Square by K.Malevich.
Urinal by Marcel Duchamp. A Jackson Pollock painting.
What about film and photography, can they also be forms of art? What about digital paintings and moving animation? Should there be a distinction between hand-drawn animation and computer generated animation, or are they equally art just the same? I think in certain cases depending on the intention, photography is definitely a form of art, as is moving film, especially animated film. For me, although computer animation can produce more impressive effects, knowing that every single frame of an animation has been drawn by hand really amazes and impresses me because it’s much more time consuming and arguably more skilled. There is something much more magical about watching a hand drawn rather than computer produced animation, that I can’t really put my finger on.
Summary: What do you regard as art? What don’t you regard as art? Do you rate some forms of art more highly than others? And why?
Some forms to think about: Classical Modern Pottery Sculpture Plasticine models Sock puppets Film Photography Hand-drawn animation Computer animation Digital images
Do you want me to say it's funny, so you can contradict me and say it's sad, Or do you want me to say it's sad so you can turn around and say no, it's funny?
While I agree with your examples of what you don't like completely, I can't say they aren't art. I don't like them, but art is whatever the individual considers to be art. That's just how it is.
The worst one for me, which caused a huge debate in one of my Uni classes a couple of years ago was this painting:
This is not a pipe
because whilst yes, it is not technically a pipe, merely a painting of one, it is still a pipe. I mean, it's not... but... anyway.
Art is whatever you think it is, basically, which is why I tend to stay away from it, as it annoys me and that's exactly what art is supposed to do.
I consider real art to be creations that can influence my emotions and paint a vivid picture in my mind.
Btw, how could ANYBODY consider those beginning images art? Especially the first image...it's just a *bleep*ing red square. That's not art in any way shape or form. I could recreate the same image in five seconds with a marker.
-------------------
We don't know who we are until we see what we can do.
I consider real art to be creations that can influence my emotions and paint a vivid picture in my mind.
Btw, how could ANYBODY consider those beginning images art? Especially the first image...it's just a *bleep*ing red square. That's not art in any way shape or form. I could recreate the same image in five seconds with a marker.
Interesting point that you would only consider emotion-stirring creations as art. I think that art often does evoke feeling and emotion, but what if it didn't affect you personally yet affected other people - would that still be art? I think for me art reflects the imagination of the artist, bringing us into their mind's view and is based on thought rather than purely aesthetics.
If you enjoyed Red Square, then you will be a big fan of his other painting, Black Square:
I kid you not, this painting is actually very famous and is seen as one of the most important pieces of Russian art of the last century.
quote
Malevich's Suprematist paintings embody a clear sensation of space. The thick local colours battle amongst themselves in a state of complete plastic harmony. The white background is always pure and undiluted, lending his non-objective pictures a sense of chastity and lightness. The absence of heavy frames intensifies this sensation of lightness and flight through space. Black Square was the key painting and, as such, the subject of endless talk and controversy. Malevich's students and confederates greeted his revelation with delight and understanding and soon began creating works themselves that reflected the overwhelming influence of the master.
Do you want me to say it's funny, so you can contradict me and say it's sad, Or do you want me to say it's sad so you can turn around and say no, it's funny?
Art means something different to everyone. Of course, I'd also consider art to be just an interesting picture that you look at for longer than ten seconds. Crap like "The Red Square" or "Where I take a piss" doesn't have anything special about it whatsoever.
Of course, this is all opinion. If you honestly see something amazing out of a bunch of random lines then good for you...
-------------------
We don't know who we are until we see what we can do.
Art means something different to everyone. Of course, I'd also consider art to be just an interesting picture that you look at for longer than ten seconds. Crap like "The Red Square" or "Where I take a piss" doesn't have anything special about it whatsoever.
Of course, this is all opinion. If you honestly see something amazing out of a bunch of random lines then good for you...
I can see this is genuinely getting to you, like Tommex mentioned it's almost as if that's the aim of it . You see by your very own definition, if someone else found this thought and emotion provoking, the Black Square would be art. Just because we see it as a... piece of crap black square doesn't mean that everyone else sees it that way, so it still must be art right?
That's what I'm trying to specify, what makes a blob of black paint more than just a blob of black paint. The artist's intention or the audience's reading, or both?
-------------------
Do you want me to say it's funny, so you can contradict me and say it's sad, Or do you want me to say it's sad so you can turn around and say no, it's funny?
I love this question. My professors used to ask us all the time.
I used to not like the works that you posted that you said you don't like. I used to think art was anything made only during the renaissance or before. I used to not like modern art at all. I didn't "get" it. And I looked at it and thought it was boring or "I could do that". And then I started becoming interested in the stories behind the art. It wasn't always about what you were seeing but rather what you weren't. It's about how it makes you feel and what the artist was trying to say. And that is when those same works of art that I hated become some of my favorites.
When asked "what is art". There is only one definite answer:
Art is simply anything you want it to be as long as you put a thoughtful meaning behind it.
I think art's just best described as one of those subjective things. No one person has any answer for what should or shouldn't be art that can be accepted by everyone else. When we view a painting we all bring with us different perspectives, personalities and life experiences into the interpretation. If you find something deep and meaningful in a red square, good for you. I sure as hell don't see it, but I can't deny its status as a work of art if it elicits some emotional response in someone else.
What annoys me at least about popular art is that it seems incredibly hypocritical. Unless you're extraordinarily talented, you won't make it as a visual artist unless you've got fifteen degrees in art history and appreciation. As if that somehow improves the inherent value of your art? If I threw my palette at the wall and barfed on top of it, people would think I'd blown a gasket. But Jackson Pollock does it, and he's a genius. I don't get it.
I don't think we can consider the painting provided by tommex in the same way, though. From my understanding, that's intended to be a philosophical commentary on the nature of representation, rather than a piece of art in its own right (whether the two are mutually exclusive is up to you).
-------------------
That is not dead which can eternal lie And with strange aeons even death may die
There's a lot I don't consider art, but I've got no real examples right now. I never liked the post-impressionism work of Paul Gauguin, but I remember my teacher in school last year loving his work. Vision After the Sermon is pretty awful I reckon.
Stuff I do love is mostly to do with album covers. The Mars Volta have some of the most exceptional album covers I've ever seen. He hasn't done the art for the new album, but Jeff Jordan's work is really appealing to me. I like anything 'weird'. Eggman and my personal favourite of his are two examples of what to expect from him.
Another artist I love is Alex Grey, who does a lot of Tool's artwork. An example or two.
I remember when Roger Ebert made the comment that video games aren't art, the internets blew up with the topic. I think art is subjective; I mainly think of art as something/anything human made as it's an expression of self.