Without using a dictionary and using your own words, define what is "art". This question annoyed me today. So, I don't mind biased or "wrong" statements. *shrug*

Bunch of scribbles, or a bunch of notes jumbled together into something that looks neat.


Or at least that's how the 'art' I make turns out

the attempt to express human emotion through a physical representation

Thats pretty much exactly what I was going to say.

Something pleasant to look at or intellectually stimulating that has had much time, work, and thought put into it. Also, it must not be at the expense of another's well-being.

That means no blendered goldfish.

Damnit. I'd better take that picture off auction then, huh?

I wouldnt define art as nessecarily being peasant 100% of the time. Sometimes art is meant to be unpleasant.

I agree. Hence the "or intellectually stimulating." I think it should be at least one of the two.

The process of creation through human intervention.

Something to look neat or show you something worthwhile.

NOT random crap made by lazy "artist" who tells you that it represents some inner struggle nonsense.

Ah, I see. I think the intent should be to make it intellectually stimulating though, but I dont think that actually having that affect should be a requirement. I get incredibly bored in many art musuems, but I can still appreciate the effort that was put into the pieces, even if I dont find them all that interesting.

Your definition has no clear way to determine if something is or isn't art; your definition is subjectitive. For you, an ee cummings poetry might be a group of random words and symbols and all the analysis is ust "some inner struggle nonsense". Same goes for a ton of other art. Whether something is "worthwhile" or "neat" is really subjective.

Here's my definition of art - The longer it can hold your attention, the more the word "art" applies to it.

I think it's stupid to try and define art.

ahh that has come up soo much in Art History...still haven't gotten an answer.

Art is imitation.

Plato agrees with me, the rest of you are wrong.

Art is imitation.

Am I wrong too? *******.

Art is something that you see that makes you say "cool".

Obviously not if you agree with me.

My art professer asked us all to answer tha question. My entire answer was "Art is imitation." She gave me a perfect score and told me about how Plato said the same thing.

Imitation doesn't mean a perfect duplication. Imitation leaves room for exaggeration. Imitation os kust imitation, and it even applies to fields other than the visual arts. Musically, an except from a score can imitate the feeling that someone was going on. It leaves the door wide open for interpretation.

That said, splattering some paint on a canvas and calling it art because the "chaos resembles the torment I've gone through" isn't ****ing art. Putting a dot on a piece of paper and saying it represents how alone you are isn't ****ing art. Art is imitation.

You are three posts away from 1337.

Suppose art is imitation, ultimately somewhere there must be an original that is being imitated. It would be interesting to discover what and where it is, where it came from, etc.

... the original is life.

Stupid gates. I hate the gates! Die die die gates!

See, but that's what I'm saying yo. Dude, like, life is imitation, it's art...and like, what's it imitating?

?

No. Life is life. Life is REAL. Art imitates life. Nature. People. Animals. Skyscrapers.

I like Freelancer's definition.

"Art is imitation" seems like too simple of a definition to me. Is a monkey dressed up like Groucho Marx to be considered 'art'? Or your co-worker's bad George Bush impression? You might be able to consider them art, but only in the very broadest of terms.

I would define art as a creation which evokes emotion and/or stimulates the intellect. The more it does this, the more it should be considered "true art". Of course, the art which evokes emotion or stimulates intellect the best will be that which reflects life.

"Art is imitation" would be a good description, but maybe not such a good definition of art.

not all art is imitation, though. Though that's a great general definition of art

This is such a big question. I don't know if I have an answer, but I have a ****load of words to throw at it. Sometimes you can only elude to what something is, point to what it is not, and then infer what's actually there.

I'll start with philosophy.

This is going to be a total crash course in Platonic thought. Read The Republic if you want the deep explanation.
First, Plato was all about the division between the visible realm from the intelligible realm. The intelligible realm consists of "the good," which sort of illuminates eternal forms such as Beauty, Truth, Justice, etc. The visibile realm, however, consists of all sensations we are able to detect. The intelligible realm can only be "sensed" through dialectic and abstract thinking, while the visible realm can be touched, tasted, felt, etc. Objects existing in the visible realm (including all art) are only pale shadows of what exists in the intelligible realm. Since our senses are faulty and may give us false impressions, truth can only be found in the intelligible realm, which (for Plato) is at all times preferable in pretty much every way imaginable to the visible realm.

Now, Plato didn't say all art is imitation. He said representational art is imitation, and thus deception. Since objects in the visible realm are already untrustworthy and faulty in comparison to what they are shadows of in the intelligible realm, representations of visible objects are even worse. Representational art is shadows of shadows, and Plato felt this misled people even further from the truth, which could only be found through mathematical study and dialectic. For Plato, though art may try to represent ideas of beauty, it will never be beauty itself. Since both music and visual art can be considered "beautiful," we see that "beauty" is located neither in vision nor hearing, but in some intangible quality they can at times represent.

Abstract art, for Plato, is less faulty since it more closely aligns itself with eternal forms, rather than objects in the visible realm. Although there wasn't much abstract visual art in ancient Greece, they did have instrumental music, which Plato considered to be abstract. Lyrics he handles differently, as they fall into the category of poetry and he's pretty hesitant to criticize that whatsoever since it was held pretty high in his day (on par with the Bible depending on the poet, since poets were thought to be divinely inspired). It would be interesting to see what Plato would think of the abstract expressionists or other highly non-representational visual arts found today, since they were nonexistent in his own time. Even if you try to represent a circle, you are being deceptive from his perspective. You can't create a circle, no matter how perfect or what tools you use. No perfect circle can exist in the visible realm. The only true circle that exists for Plato is in the intelligible realm, and its most accuracte representation is stated, "x² + y² = r²"

So much for Plato. Other philosophers vary, and I'm not entirely sure they're the ones to look to as experts in this matter, if there even are experts. Schopenhauer argues that the only human state in existence is suffering, and what we confuse for happiness is just temporary relief from suffering. Life is suffering, and it is ultimately inescapable except through enlightenment (yes he rips off Buddhism/Hinduism in many respects). However, art temporarily saves us from suffering. So if you're a Schopenhauerian, you could define it as, "that which
temporarily saves us from suffering."

You could define it as a visual record, though the camera and later video have made that notion somewhat obsolete. You could claim it's a social or emotional record, with inherent depth and meaning that photography couldn't touch, but then you have to keep in mind the subjectivity of selecting what picture to take; photographs are not objective. You can say that art is emotional expression, but then every human act and the results of them would be considered art and the definition would lose meaning. Where do you draw the line?

In my opinion, though probably no one will have read this far or care if they did, is that the definition of art is ultimately subjective. I can't get any closer than that, and I'll be getting my BFA in drawing/painting some time next year. For me, it's alternately life, an obsession, a deathmatch, experience, and existence itself.

using the tools given to you and expressing yourself with them in an individualistic way.

Any tools, by the way. From canvas/paper to a dance floor to your own body.

A creation or expression.

a-r-t.

>.>

Art is something that cannot be used for something else.

Art is everything, be it intentionally assembled or by natural means.

It doesn't have to be pretty, and it doesn't have to be something you'd look at and think "Hey, that's art." If it exists, it is art in one form or another.

I wrote a line that was a spin-off of another quote that went "Art is an ever-lasting reality, life is an evanescent reflection." It's mostly just a fancy way of saying essence is more important than existance as far as I'm concerned. (The original quote is "Art is long, life is short" which is meant to say simply that we live a short time but the things we do live on longer.)

As for a practical definition, a work that provokes a response as stated above is probably the most useful.

massassians art