Is It ART If.....?

[freemonkey]

Yes, its another What Is Art? thread.

Is it art if I do not have any preconceived idea or message when I start the piece, other than to make something beautiful and decorative?

What if my only goal is to play with color, form, texture and/or materials?

What if I do have grand idea in mind, but I'm not all that deep, and my grand idea is really kind of silly and shallow?

What if I title it something clever, to make you think that I want you to think about it?

What if I don't "mean" anything by it, don't title it anything at all, but keep the imagery slightly cryptic, and let you decide what it all "means"?

Do the last two questions approach art as a study in what people find in images, depending on whether they are led there or not?

I have specific and non-specific reasons to ask these questions, but mostly I'm still trying to get a handle on what is art, who is an artist? Does it really "MEAN" anything? Does it matter?

[The Lone Ranger]

I dunno. Is this art?

http://www.novica.com/pictures/9/p92587_2.jpg

I freely admit that I don't know. On the one hand, I've long suspected that an awful lot of abstract "art" is just the painter swirling colors onto a canvas more or less at random, then calling it art. But if it's beautiful and/or moving, doesn't that make it art?

I honestly don't know. My knee-jerk reaction is to say that "true" art must have some "higher purpose" other than to just be pretty. But what do I know?

For what it's worth, I never really thought of Andy Warhol as an artist, really. A talented craftsman, yes, but an artist with a unique and interesting message? Not that I ever noticed. Maybe that says something about what I do and don't consider "art."

Cheers,

Michael

[Godless Wonder]

What Eddie Van Halen says about music, "If it sounds good, it is good," can probably be easily adapted to apply to other art forms.

[Socratoad]

Just let your creative juices flow and if you like what you have created then call it art. If you like your creation others are sure to like it and call it art. If enough of people appreciate your creation then even the art establishment will deem it to be art.

In short: Never ever let others define what is art for you.

[The Lone Ranger]

Just let your creative juices flow and if you like what you have created then call it art. If you like your creation others are sure to like it and call it art. If enough of people appreciate your creation then even the art establishment will deem it to be art.

In short: Never ever let others define what is art for you.

I'm inclined to agree with that sentiment.


By the way, I was deliberately being a bit misleading above. You know that painting I posted a picture of up above? It was made by an elephant.


Cheers,

Michael

[freemonkey]

By the way, I was deliberately being a bit misleading above. You know that painting I posted a picture of up above? It was made by an elephant.
I'm glad you told me, because I hate it. :wink:

Which leads to more questions....

What if its sappy & sentimental (ala Kinkade, who is The Painter Of SchlockTM), but people buy it (because people are sentimental and sappy)?

What if it was made by a chimp, elephant, dog 10 year old girl, but people buy it because they saw the story on Oprah?

What if people buy it only because it goes with their couch, they think it may be more valuable some day, and/or they believe some marketing hype about art?

[Godless Wonder]

"real" art is all about hype. It is almost nothing but hype, the hype of just a few untalented often eclipsing vast multitudes of talented unknowns.

How much does a Van Gogh go for?

How much does this (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v256/cmscdj/art/vangogh-8-small.jpg) go for? If you had never seen a real Van Gogh, and you compared the two, how would you decide which was better? Which is worth a million dollars, and which is worth a hundred dollars?

How about this (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v256/cmscdj/art/bridge_8hrs.jpg) or this (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v256/cmscdj/art/painting_flash2.jpg), what are they worth?

If it looks good, it is good. If it's priced at a million dollars, and some fool buys it, it's worth a million dollars (to a fool or two.) It's very much a matter of supply and demand, and celebrity can drive demand through the roof, while supply remains limited. Kinkaid is interesting in that he has managed to greatly increase demand and supply, at least for a time, a time which may now be more or less behind him. Money already made though.

[Adora]

Purposiveness.

[freemonkey]

Purposiveness.
I think that's what I'm trying to get at.

What if the original purpose is to simply make some something beautiful, but something perceived as more purposeful comes through? What if I don't think its got much of a message, but you do?

What if I start with one purpose, to convey one message, but somehow muck that up and end up conveying something totally different? What if you get something completely opposite of what I intended?

What if we don't speak the same "language" and what I mean for you to feel/see is lost because we don't understand eachother?

What if I start with what I feel is a strong purpose, but deflate as I go, losing my voice?

What if I'm just plain goofy, and my purpose is to let you know that aliens are running my local government?

[Adora]

Purposiveness isn't actually a specific purpose, it's just the instinctual feeling the audience gets that it actually has a purpose. They don't need to know what it is, or the one they make up doesn't have to be the same as what it really is, there just has to be that feeling.

Take, for example, Warhol's work. Yes, I know, everyone gets pedantic when it comes to his stuff and jumps up and down and says "It's not art" and shit, but actually, his purposiveness is very clever. He's playing on this entire phenomenon, and makes the audience think "Is it actually art?" by simulating a lack of purposiveness, but that same simulation is the actual purposiveness of the art- the purpose of it is to make people question whether it is actually art. So it is, because the audience pick up on this purposiveness and respond to it quite passionately (and just answer their own questions).

What if the original purpose is to simply make some something beautiful, but something perceived as more purposeful comes through? What if I don't think its got much of a message, but you do?

Then you just got something for nothing. You shouldn't be complaining. I've got a friend who did some really quick photos and negatives for an art project and didn't care much about it, and the school loved it so much it's now touring around the country in a student exhibition, and he could win money from it. He's more surprised than anyone else out of the whole thing. Honestly, from experience, its the ones like this that people seem to like more often than the ones you care about and slave over forever.

What if I start with one purpose, to convey one message, but somehow muck that up and end up conveying something totally different? What if you get something completely opposite of what I intended?

Er, it just means you're travelling down the same path as everyone else? Nothing you create ever comes out exactly as you imagined it. It's impossible. You just have to adapt and grow in the journey.

What if we don't speak the same "language" and what I mean for you to feel/see is lost because we don't understand eachother?

Well, this is an entire audience issue. If you show a picture containing 1337 speak to a gallery without other indicators around it to show what it is, its unlikely the general audience will figure it out what it is. The occasional geek might, but its unlikely they'll come across it unless its also in an online gallery. When you do create something, you always have to keep practicals in mind- eg who's going to see it, where its going to be, etc etc. These all go into forming whatever message you want to get across. And the message is different from the purpose, which is different again from the sense of purposiveness.

What if I start with what I feel is a strong purpose, but deflate as I go, losing my voice?

*shrugs* Sometimes it happens. And you'll go back to it later and redo it from scratch and it'll be better than before.

What if I'm just plain goofy, and my purpose is to let you know that aliens are running my local government?

Believe me, crazy ideas have never stopped people being artists in the past.

[wade-w]

Purposiveness.

wtf??? Is that even a word? If it is, I nominate it for no. 1 on the "Words You Hate" thread.

[Adora]

You do that wade, if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy on the inside, but don't blame me. I think it was Kant who coined it.

Edit: It was Kant, actually.

[Shake]

What is <insert art work here> worth?

Whatever someone's willing to pay for it. I certainly wouldn't pay very much for any of the works shown in this thread thus far. But that's just me.

[freemonkey]

How much does this (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v256/cmscdj/art/vangogh-8-small.jpg) go for?
I saw a bad 8x10 cheap paper framed poster print of it for $11.99 at Fred Meyer today. :(

Adora, thanks for the thoughtful post. You begin to address the issue of the fine lines between art as a commodity, art as an uplifter of the human soul and art for fun and personal expression.

[Gavin]

What if my only goal is to play with color, form, texture and/or materials?
perfect approach :yup:

I have specific and non-specific reasons to ask these questions, but mostly I'm still trying to get a handle on what is art, who is an artist? Does it really "MEAN" anything? Does it matter?
Everything means something to someone.

[livius drusus]

Hey, cool! Welcome to delurkage, Gavin. :welcome:

[freemonkey]

Yes, welcome Gavin. I figure it really is as simple as that - the whole art as meaning thing.

BTW, your avatar looks like how I feel lately! :yell:

[Socratoad]

Welcome Gavin :handshake: :welcome2:

[Corona688]

What is art? Well, art... is.

Nobody can conclusively define it, but we're pretty sure it exists, and everyone thinks they know it when they see it. When it comes down to it, art is supposed an experience of some kind, and human experience is subjective. I don't think anyone's definition is better than anyone else's.

[HelenM]

Yes, its another What Is Art? thread.

Is it art if I do not have any preconceived idea or message when I start the piece, other than to make something beautiful and decorative?

What if my only goal is to play with color, form, texture and/or materials?

What if I do have grand idea in mind, but I'm not all that deep, and my grand idea is really kind of silly and shallow?

What if I title it something clever, to make you think that I want you to think about it?

What if I don't "mean" anything by it, don't title it anything at all, but keep the imagery slightly cryptic, and let you decide what it all "means"?

Do the last two questions approach art as a study in what people find in images, depending on whether they are led there or not?

I have specific and non-specific reasons to ask these questions, but mostly I'm still trying to get a handle on what is art, who is an artist? Does it really "MEAN" anything? Does it matter?

I hope this is relevant...I just read My Name Is Asher Lev by Chaim Potok, which gave me a different perspective on art, since it's a [fictional, presumably] autobiography of an artist (a painter). In the book painting is depicted as something Asher Lev is driven (internally, I mean) to do to express his understanding of and feelings about the world and so he does, even though most of the Orthodox Jewish community in which he is raised has a very hard time with his talent and vocation. It is part of him; he draws from a young age and seemingly cannot give it up in spite of the objections from his family and community.

Helen

[Gavin]

Welcome Gavin :handshake: :welcome2:
:popcorn: