I've wrestled with this for years. I sometimes am a speaker at gatherings of art curators and or artists and I watch my words. But In Canada, a country that values art, I can not believe some of the lame "Artists" who write brilliant grant requests to support really lame (and to my mind phoney) "Artistic" projects. Like web pages an untrained Ape could create. They garner tens of thousands of dollars every year, sometimes hundreds of thousands over five years, to support what is little more than a sham effort. But one dare not criticize their work. "They are Artists."

My question is this: Should we not have standards for what is art and what is not? By having no standards do we not devalue the entire concept of Art? Art must have SOME definition in general terms no? Is it just a silly meaningless word that applies to anything made by man or machine? Is studying Art and design at university a silly thing to do because none of it matters in the Art world? I don't know the answer.

I see here at Caedes that Good art rises above the rest because it is widely recongnized, commented upon and ends up in the perm collection. Perhaps by examining the "Good" and popular art we could come up with some idea...some principles of definition. I know art is in the eye of the beholder, but what is it exactly? What makes it good or bad? Help me please.

I draw the line when someone slangs mud on the wall and then puts a frame around it. Art i don't think so. Dwight.

Well, I am not as full of knowledge as many of you are. But I FEEL my art...I think art is within a person who cherishes deeply what he//she sees and it fills them so with a sense of beauty and passion that this person expresses it in another form..whatever that form is, would be up to the individual. I think schooling per se' is NOT waht makes art or an artist. What makes a person have artisitc ability is simply a depth of loving something and finding a way to show that by some form of artistic "talent"...then sharing it with those others who appreciate and enjoy seeing and thinking about it also. When I do my canvas paintings or my pen and ink drawings or my floral designs under domes or my photography or my poetry..I FEEL them all and just "do it"...so that my INNER feelings can actually be SEEN by OUTER images of some kind. So like I said, I'm not so smart with many things...but I just enjoy things I am able to create, in whatever form..so be it.

Verenabloo said:

"I think schooling per se' is NOT waht makes art or an artist. What makes a person have artisitc ability is simply a depth of loving something and finding a way to show that by some form of artistic "talent"...then sharing it with those others who appreciate and enjoy seeing and thinking about it also."

I believe I can accept this to a great degree. It made me realize that in knowing good and bad artists, the good artist, more than an education in art, has a discriminating eye and knows what good art is. The bad artist really hasn't a clue. In the world of digital fx, we know when a person has "the eye" and they are highly prized and highly paid. That is why when you see most high quality visual fx in movies today, they are quite aesthetic.
For me, even if an "artist" feels their art from the depth of the soul, but if they have no eye, their art is merely a highly personal expression or vision not shared by others.

This has been the problem with the National Counsel on the Arts. They would fund, often heavily, some very pretentious projects devoid of artistic merit, projects with no broad appeal and thus they got their funds cut. Same thing is happening in Canada. I think sometimes that the people handing out the money simply don't recognize worthy art.

I just returned from Salzburg where I visited the new museum of modern art up on Winkler terrace...a massively expensive building. It housed for the most part, highly esoteric, usually offensive "shock art" such as a very poor sculpture of a naked man peeing into his own mouth. I left very disappointed. Most of the displays had no intrinsic artistic value. I wasn't the only one who felt that way. Virtually everyone was disgusted by most of the displays...like a chunk of bleeding shark flesh done in fiberglass. One display was nothing more than a collection of framed celebrity pictures signed to the artist. Brilliant. It reminded me of "Contemporary Classical Music" which mostly sounds like poorly tuned instruments being played by an army of apes. Pretentious in the extreme, but devoid of aesthetic merit.

I guess we need to encourage new artists to achieve artistic expression and develop a sense of the aesthetic. Help them to develop that discriminating eye...it can be done, and then give them reinforcement for work well done. I see this as a prime reason for being of our little online community. Sorry for making this long...but it is a passionate subject.

People need to recognize some of the "best" artists are NOT found in expensive museums..(tother than the great artists of old) but in small tiny places off the beaten path. They do it because they love it, and not because they want riches or glory. Oh sure, money helps anyone, but the most important thing is to be able to share ones creative passions with those who feel the same joy when they see this creation. Appreciation for the small things in life, the people who humbly share themselves, whether it is by some small drawing or by some grand masterpiece. We all feel and share and we all are who we are. Countries make rules that are selfish and full of selfishnes so many times. ITs pathetic that people should have to live under so many "leaders" and be the laughing stock of the world....so maybe by some people remaining to be "simple and humble" it still leaves a bit in life to cherish and appreciate....and not take for granted. Some claim to be artists and they loudly proclaim they are great..well those have a long road ahead and they certainly do not truly love art or creative things...so why worry bout them. We are all just a "speck" on this earth...but we can share thoughts and feelings and creations..I think this is a good discussion by the way...

If you want to define art.... you must take every person there is, and ever was, and write down what they find beautiful, and interesting. Then you will have defined "ART".

Huh I thought we had this discussion a while back on another post.

The great masters are considered artiest and as far as that goes so is Picasso, which I have my reservations on. I personally think he just had a true problem with perspective when he tried to paint in a classic medium in his earlier works. Thus Cubism began. Now take someone like Helmut Newton, he’s a photographer but yet he is considered one of the greatest photographic artiest of our age, along with photographers like Pouller.
hen theirs Pollack, for years he wasn’t considered a great artiest, but now he is one of the leading artiest that changed the out look of modern art in dealing with abstract and conceptual art.

To me, art is any work that is expressed through human thought as an idea of that persons relationship to the world through physical form. Other wise what they see in them self's and the world expressed to it's purist aspect. Everything else is up to the viewer.

I considered Maya Angelo to be one of the greatest literary artiest of our time. Cheech Moran is an amassing artist. Carlos Santana, Frida Kahlo who was the wife of Diego Rivera who was one of the greatest Latino murals artists of our time. Frida was his wife who painted most of her work bed ridden and was over shadowed by her husbands ego for years, and later proven to be even a better artist then Diego.

I believe it was Michelangelo who said, I do not create. I just express through my hands the beauty that is shown to me.


I don’t consider the graphics I do for a website as art, but just an expression of what I think the client is trying to say.

And yes that does take some form of expression and perspective.

On the other hand my best work has never been posted on this site. I have done classic, abstracts and landscape paintings that have taken hours, and up to weeks to paint. Some times I waited for the canvas to tell me what to paint. Which I know sounds strange but it’s true. I’ve looked at a canvas for weeks,

I’ve carved one to two ton blocks of granite into alters and baptismal for churches.

I just call it flow. If it doesn’t flow it’s not true to what you feel or see in your mind. I have done painting that have started as one thing and ended as another.

I don't feel I'm a great artist, but I can't seem to stop. I also just love to make things.

Some people struggle with it, for some it just flows and some are just creative geniuses.

And I agree their are some hacks out there.

So in my mind, the question wouldn’t be what is art or not. But what would be considered great or even good art.

By the way, as usual Peter great subject!


Art is the perception of the creator. Meaning is the perception of the viewer. acceptance is the perception of society.

Thats right........art is truly inside each person in a different way. Here are a couple quotes by VIncent VanGogh:::::::::
"I believe more and more that to work for the sake of work is the principle of all great artists: not to be discouraged even though almost starving, and though one feels one has to say farewell to all material comfort."
"I retain from nature a certain sequence and a certain correctness in placing the tones. I study nature so as not to do foolish things, to remain reasonable; however, I don't mind so much whether my colour is exactly the same, so long as it looks beautiful on my canvas-as beautiful as it looks in nature."
"That which fills my head and heart must be expressed in drawings or pictures."
So you see? art is within a person....and each person sees it their own way, but it is all beautiful...........

We can discuss this and find thousands of different opinion of what good Art is or not, but it really doesnt matter. Art IS Communication with different tools we use to express different emotions.
The rest can never be anything else than reflections and opinions and that by itself doesnt change anything about the definition about what Art IS .
How can we define Art by discussing different Artists style or skill or what is the best Quality in Art .Its like discussing what is the best food and how it should be made to find the answer for the definition of cooking. All definitions on delicate issues dont have to be complicated or even graceful.

Hmm...there were some very good points since my last post about what Art itself is. I think what is even more difficult perhaps is the difference between GOOD art and BAD art. I think DigitalFX explained it quite well about the "discriminating eye". From what you explained about the exhibit you saw, it sounds like some displays I've seen. Yes Art itself can be effectively explained as communication aimed at some type of emotion for the most part, but if I use DigitalFX's example about the Canadian exhibit he saw, if you merly create art JUST to bring out an emotion that you know will get attention, then you probably just created commercial art that has absolutley no personal attatchment with the artist.

So....how can we explain GOOD art as opposed to BAD art...

Well one thing that I know about GOOD art, besides technical mastery or superiority, is the fact that when I look at something like the Mona Lisa or the Persistence of Memory by Salvador Dali, it triggers a few emotions in me that seemingly force me to try and guess what the artist was feeling when he created it. HAH, maybe good art itself is something that triggers an emotion to figure out what the artist's emotion was! Bad art just makes me look at it for a second, and makes me think...what on earth was going through the artists mind to make them think this was good? lol...quite a difference from my perspective.

I think this could turn into a new thread! lol

The way i look at it, the only real artist was the creator, we are meir copycats, simply put.

Well maybe its stuff for a new thread because i only tried to give my idea about What Art
IS from a definition point of view.I dont think it matter whatever something is commercal or not,If someones work gets a lot of attention and a lot of people buys it it just great that means you have reached a lot of people with your Art.To Radjehuty: I quote "HAH, maybe good art itself is something that triggers an emotion to figure out what the artist's emotion was!" End of quote. Well thats very close to what i also meant and is the basic formula for how i define Art. But maybe this is just to simple as a definition maybe we need to get more complexity in this question to be satisfied ...;-)

Dave you said "but if I use DigitalFX's example about the Canadian exhibit he saw, if you merly create art JUST to bring out an emotion that you know will get attention, then you probably just created commercial art that has absolutley no personal attatchment with the artist." If your an artist you want attention/recognition to share there work with others..... just because it's "commercial art".. doesnt mean that there is no personal attachment with the artist... its still created by an artist.. it still has the artists ideas.. the artists creativity, the artists style... etc... it still puts across what the artist wants you to feel and see... so how can there be no personal attchment...

I agree! If something gets the commercal way it has more to do with promotion and exhibitions than anything else. Its just this kind of massive back up that makes anyone famous combined with some talent of course...But i think this is just a road to more complexity about What Art is. I think i have said my opinion about the Main question.

Just a quick note...Dixie talked about finding out what everybody's idea of art is and then use that as a definition. I had a similar well funded task for the US office of Education. Define what "Gifted" and "Talented" mean for funding of programs. And they suggested I use the top 200 "experts" in gifted and talented education. As you may have guessed I ended up with 200 different and often incompatible definitions. I ended up writing a 340 page book exploring the idea of Gifted and Talented and then made a decision on what the core issues were. In the end I decided somewhat arbitrarily that kids who score in the top 2.5% on generally accepted evaluations for given area, are classified as talented and if they score in the top 2.5% across the board (all subjects or abilities) they qualify as gifted. Defining the tests took the rest of the book) BTW that definition is now official for the US Government and a number of states including Colorado, but many programs ignore it and classify kids a gifted depending on how much pressure the parents put on the school.

The problem was similar to what we have here. "Gifted", like "Art" and "God", are words we like to own and we personalize them. They have no true definition except personal ones. Tommy62 gave us some very good official words on what Art is; but honestly if you read them,they are so subject to interpretaion that we still don't know what art is in a universal or general context. I have to admit this has been some of the best thinking on the subject I've seen. I want to thank you all for you contributions thus far.

Oh I see your point Jacqueline...I was trying to explain what BAD art was...and maybe I could explain it along the lines of..maybe..something that the artist may have some attatchment to, but doesn't express enough to intrigue the viewer to ask what the emotions of the artist were when creating it.

This really IS a HUGE question because Art is such a subjective subject in itself, and from it you can pull out other huge loaded topics such as...well the difference between "good" and "bad" art, or even the question of what the purpose of emotion is itself -- not necessarilly the clinging to family but why we feel we need to give our point of view. This can end up being a discussion with more words than every novel put together.

Well the only other thing I can say is that any subject can become too wordy...if talked about too much. Maybe we have reached that point in this particular discussion? Time to find a new topic? How about it.....(its been interesting, by the way)

quite - some threads these days are way over the top - I word counted one the other day (medicating kids I think) and it was steaming towards 50,000 words - I've read books shorter than that :-)

...

You cant define a Car as a Car if it doesnt tell what a car basicly is. If one say its something u drives very fast with and another something u have to repair all the time you can be sure that it will only confuse people, because it doesnt tell the basics for what a car IS. Thats why people might get confused in the definition of Art.We get lost in it because we ignore the basics, the things that is Basic in Art. Variations can occur in a car too just like in Art but it doesnt change the basic definition for what a car is and what you use it for.Art is to express something which can be received by someone else.
Thats the basic and the rest is just to discuss all the variations and phenomen that might appear in Art ( But thats another subject in my opinion)
but that shouldnt change the basic Definition for what Art IS.
To Phil: You had to be really bored to sit down and count words in a thread? What was your purpose with it? :)
And i agree with Digital X that its nice to read all peoples thoughts about this subject, so i dont find any reasons for anyone to shut up or that this are way over the top.
Thanks!

Peter, are you going to write a book from this discussion? LOL! ;c)

Tommy - I could never be that bored :-) just used a word count in MS Word - it's a secret tool they hide in Tools >> Word Count.... :-)

Well "Car" is not that subjective, nor is it personal. It's a material object that we can detect with our sences and define concretely. Art is something only our emotions can "see" and we all have different oppinions about what art IS or Does for us. It's pretty easy to know why it's so hard to understand or explain.

To Radjehuty: You know what a car is because you can detect it, right...But you can probably think some cars are ugly and some not, but it doesnt change the definition of a car or the right for it to be named "A Car." Why? Because we also define cars by its mechanism and functions in the society? So what is the Mechanism and Function of Art then in the society?
Could it be to express emotions we want to share with other and that we also like to receive other peoples emotions by visiting a gallery, a concert or a theater for ex. Thats why i define Art as Communication, because i also look at the function it has in our society. We have Art because we have a need of incoming and outgoing emotion and that is the mechanism that Communication is built upon. That is not a subjective viewpoint, it is something anyone could observe by themselves anytime.

Well yes, that's a pretty good point that art can be merly a form of communication, but to me it is so much more than that. Sometimes it's just a way to get something out of your system and not intended to share with someone else. Art is such an ancient form of communication. It evolved from just trying to imitate things, to creating written languages (like heiroglyphics and Chinese characters) and as a form of entertainment.

Art I don't think is purely a way of communication in society. I think it is also just another way to establish our humanity. No other creature on the planet can grasp abstract ideas and find a way to express it in such an aesthetic way. Sure I could easily word some emotions, but Art can do that and even draw the viewer's emotions in a different way.

I don't know, it just seems to me that we use art as a way to possibly even evolve our minds. Vocabulary and linguist takes a specialized portion of the brain, Visual takes one part of the brain, even body language takes a generally specialized section of the brain, but Art itself pulls together virtually every portion of the brain to truely translate it into something we can understand. Seems to me there's something else going on here..

I think a book should be a triune book....written by Radj...Tommy...and Digital...think of how many people could THEN understand all about art !! woohoooo! details details to the max!!

At the end of the day, art, like so many other things in life is a matter of personal perception and taste particular to any one individual’s emotive responses at the time. No (inordinate) amount of analysis or waffle would ever be able to accurately define, analyse or break down its component parts because of its nature of fluctuation and individuality.

The beginning question was "What is art and what is not?" I agree with Phil....totlly...art IS from the artist...to the rest of the world...Whatever the artist sees will be different then what others see...and that's the beauty of it all.....we are all unique individuals and so is our art.
So we give what we have and others received what they are looking for....thanx all for this discussion......"elvis has left the building"....heheh!!

Take away the personal view and look, what is the similar things that Artists do? They Express something through a painting a photo or music etc. So if you would express something without this tools you would say you communicate. So when you put a pencil in your hand or a guitar and " Talk" that way its still a communication. The brush or the guitar dont change the matter of Its basic reasons its just another way to communicate.
Sorry but its not more complicated than that in my opinion ;-)

I'd have to agree that art is an abstract form of communication where the message intended by the artist is not necessarily the message recieved by the one experiencing the art. That's kind of interesting to note and I hadn't really put it together before.

That's always been the case Peter. The cubist where misunderstood for many years before the where taken seriously as true artist. All art is created to get an elicit response, to bring up emotion.

Every person takes in what they see as if it where a religion and there own personal God. They take from it what they need and read into it. Your own personal life experiences can deeply affect what you see in a piece of art work.
Many people can look at a piece of art and perceive one thing when in reality the meaning recieved from it, was not what the artist was portraying at all.

The Sistine Chapel was considered vulgar and damming. How dare he paint man touching the finger of God as an equal to a loving God. The Church wanted God to be portrayed as powerful and angered at man for his sins.

Good Point Prismmagic! And To DigitalFX: Sometimes we get lost in complexity and when we involved too many individual aspects in what a thing IS we get lost. The truth are often found in simplicity and in the similaritys. And its true that the receiver not always "Sees" the same as the Artist and that is the challenge with Art in my opinion, To really reach people with the things I want them to feel . I wrote somewhere earlier in this thread about how you ( In my opinion) can increase your ability to express your communication so it more clearly shows what you want to Express..
A movie is a good example for how they use integrated technique.
The music, lights, effects, cuts and so on are used in a way to help the communication to get through to the audience. They integrate it so it works together and point out really clear what their communication are. (/At least the Good ones ;-) )
Walt Disney production with Donald Duck and Co contains in my opinion one of the most Advanced Film music ever made. They really "Talk" with their instruments and its pretty amazing how well they integrate the music to follow every move and emotion with the Characters.. And together with the expressions the characters have it just blends together and create a very clear communication.You know what "Pluto" feels because the music and picture integrate so damn well. Integration is the key and the tool we can use to be more "clear" with what we want to express.

Tommy, perhaps what you say is true and the truly great artists are the ones that can more clearly convey their emotions and vision in their work. They in a sense are master communicators of the visual. I could accept that as part of a definition of Good art vs Bad art. I think that's my main concern. I see too many bad artists getting government funding for their work and too many great artists being passed by because they can't write a darn grant request. (Canada and throughout Europe) That is supporting grant writing skill and not artistic merit.

I think we need a some kind of measurement stick to determine if an artist has genuine talent or not. It is not unheard of. Only the most talented artists were supported by private patrons in centuries past. Clearly they recognized true talent way back then. Why can we not use similar standards to determine who gets our government supported patronage? I honestly wonder what their standards were. Austria and Italy alone supported hundreds of great artists and composers and musicians, the best of their day.

Interesting to take part of your comments Digital FX! Im a musician since 25 years and i can see the same phenomen in Music when it comes to promote and make an Artist well known. Managers in music doesnt look for what really moves them or genuine talent, they look for what can be sold and bring a lot of money back. Now they look at artists look, cooperative ability and so on instead of a genuine talent that will last . Many Artists of today are very short lifed because of this...And Of course some not talented persons( ( Britney Spears) can get big with the help of Heavy promotion and a good look but how long will they survive ?.And thats what happend when Music has been formed like an industry. I also would welcome some kind of measurement stick to determine if an artist really has some genuine talent so we could support the ones who really wants to express something and also have a talent for it.
I mean we can put a monkey on a computer and let him hammering on the keyboard and he will probably come up with some words that are correct, But its a difference to put someone there who would be awared of that he is typing and also had a technical skill for it.Because an awared person would be able to underline which one who was words or just hammerings, and sometimes we have just too much monkeys in the fields of Art.

As the librarian at Unseen University would say, "Ook! Ook! Ook!"

Translation: This has to be one of the best discussions on "what is art" I have read.

lol, yea that's a good point that maybe we quite possibly over-analyzed the definition of "art".

I guess what's universal of all art pieces, from my perspective, is:

• Something created through techniques developed and mastered over time that is used to communicate something in such a way that is open (atleast a little) to interpretation which can inspire and bring out emotions in the viewers.

I'm sure there's other definitions, but this is what all "good" art pieces are for me.

Of course there’s a flip side to that with art that is created solely for the benefit of the artist themselves in a wholly selfish and self fulfilling act. If someone created a masterpiece and poured there very soul into it, conjuring up possibly the finest work ever created - but then chose never to share it with anyone else - would that act diminish it as a piece of art? No, in a word. Which kind of brings me back to my original post on here in that it really doesn’t matter what anyone thinks of your work as they will never be able to fully comprehend you intentions in the first place and how they interpret your work is their problem. I think it's virtually impossible to apply a yard stick to the definition and quality of art because one mans Sistine chapel maybe another’s formulated and contrived painting by numbers exercise.

Again...I've read through this thread, and found myself understanding less about what art is, and more still about what art is not. Art is, I've come to believe, undefinable. Where as with material things they can be defined. Art is, and is not a material thing. It can be carved into a rock, or sang out from the mountaintops. When you look at a tree.....you can say, without doubt..."Hey! That is a tree". With art...it aint that easy. Art comes in a variety of forms. It can be everything from a rock wall to a round house kick up against your noggin. Now just because I don't like getting kicked in the noggin doesn't necessarily mean that Karate isn't an art. Same as if I look at a picture, and don't particularly care for the message it portrays. Does that make it NOT a piece of art? I don't know...I'm confused. I guess the only thing I can say is that there is no definition of "Art". Although I'm going to try. =0) Art: Art is a well executed kick to the groin, just as a butterfly lands on your forehead with Beethovens 5th symphony playing in the background while managing to not spill your beer.

Wow! i think I seen that on a Simpsons Episode. lol..someting else I see as art..low-brow or not..lol

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder man I believe the problems with defenition here is that there are a lot of real good artists in several genres and then those (myself included) that are OK or pretty good and learning that will show a seperation in abilities within a certain genre.

The name of the game when trying ones hand at art if weather or not yuo can say when finished that you did the best that you could do with the piece in question and that you are happy with it. Then it is art, at least to one person. Weather or not more people will percieve it as same will be told in time as to a venue such as this.

Sure is an interesting topic. I love reading these forums more and more :-)

Well maybe art is one of those words that is just SO abstract, that the only way you can define it is by ruling things out of it.

This whole discussion was basically taking a rock and chisling out pieces that don't fit in the concept. Eventually we should have chipped enough out of it to make a recognizable form :)

Hmm...What can i say? When a painting transform to a piece of Art( in my opinion) is when someone express something and another person receives the message in the painting ( By his own way)
In other words, when a person receives the communication from someone else. So Art is therefore A Communication because that is what you receive when u listen or looking at it.
In a way thats what we are doing right here, We receive the message that our words express, we might " See" them different we might have different skill to express ourself but we DO communicate. So im Stubbering. Art IS Communication.

This thread is art. =0)

Well maybe not. Because Art is a pre decided Communication. When you have put your last paint on your painting or decided the form of your theater piece, or arranged your song, then its complete. That is the thing you have decided that you want to communicate. After that it will communicate by itself because you have put all your intentions inside the piece of Art.
Then you just go up and play your music or theater or hang up your painting the way you have decided it without changing it . Its a concept.
You can do it in many different ways with improvisation and even let the audience become involved but its still a decided form. You decide to involve the audience before you start to play,or you decide that you can do whatever you want on stage but its still a concept
for how you want to communicate. Very strict or by improvisation.
But maybe we should Define Art as "A pre decided Communication" instead to make it even more clear? Or any better suggestions?

Why do you think a third parties input is necessary to define something as being artistic? I think it definitely swings more toward expression rather than communication. I couldn’t speak for everyone but personally, for a variety of reasons, I only ever show others about 25% of my work and that is usually the more commercially acceptable type stuff. The rest is either just kept private or destroyed completely.

I agree with philcUK, I don't really think its totally communication. Alot of artists make things just to express something even if it's for themselves. To get something out of their system by means of putting it on paper or on canvas or whatever. I know that 90% of my drawings were never seen by people because I just didn't think I had to.

Also, alot of what I draw or create was not decided. Sometimes I create art because I want to find out what the heck I want to make! lol

It sounds odd, but I might just be randomly drawing lines and all of a sudden I start forming it into something and I keep developing it. I don't think that Art in any way shape or form is strict about anything. I might want to communicate to other people, or I might not. Sometimes I know and Decide what I want to draw or express, and sometimes I use art as a way to find out what I want to express or draw.

Art for beauty's sake, not for communication's sake. Art can and does communicate, but it is wrong to say that 'art is communication'. It would be closer to the truth to say that 'art is expression'. An artist will draw something that he won't show anyone else because of the joy of "creating" something beautiful and unique.

A painting without the intention to communicate and no one that watch it is not Art
A painting with the intention to communicate and someone that watch it is Art.
You can then judge Art by seeing different skills and different ability to communicate.
Its also like if someone put a frame around his painting and give it a name and put it on a gallery you could say its Art. Because then the painting will communicate because The Artist has decided that it is complete and he will allow it to reach out to other people that could receive that communication.

That just doesn’t make any sense - just because no one ever sees it doesn’t make it invalid as a work of art - if anything a deeply personal piece that someone creates for their sole benefit has more artistic merit than a portrait commissioned of an artist who is doing it purely because he was paid/told to - that isn’t in the least bit creative and it's true to say that most classical artists who were forced to do work either for monetary necessity or papal command/patronage despised it and placed no personal value on the work. Which is why many artists such as DaVinci did just about anything he could to avoid that kind of work and if he did have to - hardly ever completed them - usually they had to be finished by his students.

Ultimately, no one person has the right, the breadth of knowledge, the experience or the intuition to point at a piece of work and say that it is or is not a piece of art. Most pieces are so intimate and personal to their creator; an outsider could never hope to comprehend the full spectrum of emotions involved in its production. If they did (as others have mentioned here already) artistic movements such as surrealism, cubism and pop art would never have been accepted into the mainstream as they deviate so wildly from the accepted ‘classical’ art standards.

Art is not just the perception of day to day living or alternatively the cliche'd oneness people seem to have in order to gain notoriety and comfort. We all know that in order to succeed there are alot of people wanting the gratification of praise for the work they do.

Question?

If art is an individuals idea, not only what they see but how they present their work, surley in that case it is our human right to present art in anyway we see fit, not to the constraints and bindings of peoples opinions. Is this the case?

For someone to believe in what they are doing and whether skilled (opinion), or not. Art is the the realisation of an individuals vision and thoughts on what they see or how they feel. Take into consideration how they compare it to their life experience and consequently how they present their ideas after the origional spark has been affected by their ideologies.

If Salividor Dali was alive today and was offered the technology we have to work and present his thoughts of what art or vision is, would he use the technology? If he did not would he consider the work we do art or not? We are never going to please everybody.

"We are only as complicated as the life we make for ourselves".

exactly.

Well first of all Phil, If you cant see a painting how could you know anything about it?
How could you measure it in any way. The basic is that you have to be able to see A painting before u can judge it and if no one shows their paintings we wouldnt have a clue about anything.
So if someone just hang their paintings in a gallery they would be considered as Art just because the person that have painted them WANTS to communicate to other people.
And as you say who has the right to point at it and say this is not Art?
I agree about Nikoli's description about what people can express and what it comes from in different ways, but you can have all this ideas inside you and paint 1000 paintings and still no one has a clue what you are doing or your thoughts or anything as long as you dont show them to other people. BUT, when you Communicate this things to other people then you create an effect and maybe makes other people to react and think, and it moves people in different ways, and everything you have done comes alive even if you dont do anything because its already built in in your piece of Art. So when It communicates it also have a social function which gives it a value that it wont have if no one sees it.
So it is the communication that brings it up to another level. That makes it alive. And the answer for how i look at what is Art and what is not,which was the basic question in this thread.

Tommy - your missing my point - it doesn’t matter if a painting is displayed or not - measuring or judging it is completely irrelevant unless it is a commissioned work that was done for the sole purpose of display. The vast majority of what are considered masters these days are in fact paintings that were created for far less grandiose reasons - usually either as personal projects that were never shown to anyone other than students of the painter themselves or as trifles to sell to the general public in order to ease the artists poverty. These paintings only came into the public domain long after the deaths of their creators. They were still great pieces of work before then while they languished under muslin on dusty old easels - gaining utterations of approval from the proletariat masses and ‘intelligencia’ doesn’t validate their existence in anyway.

Art is in the eye of the beholder. Communication is very relevant Blitz as it is the provides the mechanism for observers to try and understand what the point is anyway. Who is to say what is right and wrong in the first or final place. Ultimatley Mathematics, Art and Science are the building blocks to any culture or belief. Take the ancient greeks for example. Pure alchemy of imagination is the answer.

I could get all emotional about this topic as Art is very important to me. Alas to describe anything in one word is going to be very difficult. Standardisation of a topic so vast and unexplored will never happen as things will always change. You could not have and excuse the metaphor "communist" ideals about this topic. It cant and wont ever be held in place under rules and regulations. It is merely the freedom of expression. Me casa su casa.

Seems like we look from different angles on this?
I think its very relevant that a Painting is displayed otherwise it doesnt exists and be able to touch people. How many people who looks at it or what status this people has has nothing to do with anything.That part is only about how famous( Well known) you might be and has nothing to do with how we define Art.I think you can agree about that? But from a social and spirituell point of view i would say that Art has a very important function in our society just because of its ability to communicate ideas,visions,dreams and so on and i have no doubts when i say this: All Artists in the whole fucking world, Share your work with us, dont be so self critical. Because if you dont do it who else would..No one can replace you, its only one of you........;-)

Art is in the eye of the beholder not the entity looking on in admiration or dispair Tommy.
We can catagorise all we want to make people feel comfortable. This provides security & gives them a support mechanism for what they are doing but also a commitment to do well, question is, who is the judge in the first place? Nobody has the right to say what is art and what is not. This is summerised in something we all have called the freedom of expression. I like my work but if somebody else did not would that mean im running @ 50%?

Well i dont really discuss peoples right or freedom of expression here, thats for me another issue. But sure i agree with you. I decide myself what i want to express and when i do it. If someone then dont like my image well its up to him/her. I really cant discuss other peoples taste whatever its right to think like they do or if my quality is not good enough and so on..Sorry i just dont have the energy to reflect on this things,just a dead end story for me. We can discuss that forever and the only thing we will discover is Individuality, personal opinions, and i accept that, i dont have any problem with that.
That is the way it works and its nothing i can do about it.So why bother?

"We can discuss that forever and the only thing we will discover is Individuality, personal opinions, and i accept that, i dont have any problem with that.
That is the way it works and its nothing i can do about it.So why bother"?
You have absolutely A-Bombed it there Tommy. We cant say what is and what isn't art. Lets look forward to an intersting life full of other people's complications. Ciao for now.

So if you look at my last post tommy62, would you say that most of my drawings are not art simply because I do not share them or destroy them?

Communication is one of the most primitive and ancient aspects of life.

Art is an incredibly high level thought process or concept that's only been around since humans were able to understand it which was atleast within the past 4 million years (compared to the 500+ million years of life itself). It just seems like saying that Art IS a communication seems too finite to me. Art is just too huge an object to fit in the reletively small box of communication...

Or not.

To Radjehuty: Well it seems that you want to raise the Mechanism of transforming emotions into a painting to a higher level than i do. I relate this more to its social functions and i dont think a painting have a higher value than if i talk with a friend that needs my help if it only hangs in your own bedroom honestly. Communication is definately not a primitive thing. Our way to communicate is sofisticated compare to all other creatures on this planet. We can also communicate through a lot of different "tools" and that is something that makes us unique.The definition on "Communication" is in my first post in this thread. I think you should read it so u really understand the full definition for what a communication IS.To Nikoli: I comment the matter of taste not that it was impossible to define Art. In fact there are already a lot of definitions on Art i just express my personal one..

Can we settle on "expressive communication"?

OK.. here is my opinion....

Paintings that are commissioned have some form of expression and are trying to communicate to people what it is – eg. Some billboards are art.. commissioned to be made.. it’s communicating to people in the form of advertising – take graffiti artists.. they do amazing stuff.. they are expressing their art to communicate to people their look on life….

Everything today has some form of art… whether its graphic artists designing billboards and labels for cans, photos for magazines, newspapers, advertising for tv, and of course galleries… and everything there is communication…

Expression and communication go hand in hand – to express something to people you HAVE to communicate… If the art work doesn’t have any expression or communicate to people whether its advertising or personal..you may as well put up a blank canvas…


Thanks for reading... =)

Wow!....what a thread!

But I'm afraid an answer wont be found to please all involved. Art to the artist is a purge of emotion. Tangable knowledge of another's soul, inner strenth, fears, joys, whatever was going on in the mind of the artist at the time. Of course commercial art does not fall in this catagory..they want you do buy something. I can't say it's not art; I do buy things that I see on billboards, I guess that is the modern comissioned art?

Art pertaining to this site? I think you get to see inside of another person in a way. There are a lot of emotions in these galleries.

I like train cars these days. I'd love to see these kids comissioned to do something on canvas.

It's art if believe it is and it's not if you don't

and yes, I believe this thread is a work of art. The art of conversation is old and under-rated :-)

The art on here DOES have the artists mood and emotions in it... therefore they are communicating in the form of expression to the people who look at it, "this is how i felt when i made this.. sad.. happy.. in love..." whatever... eg.. one of my recent images "A New Beginning" only one person got what i was trying to express/communicate.. I was trying (not so well.. lol) communicate to people who looked at it that A New Beginning arises from the depths of dark waters..

If you look at an image on here... you are communicating by looking at it.. voting, downloading and commenting are all a form of communication... The artist is communicating with you through their art work to get your views and votes.... The viewer is communicating by giving their views and votes....


And as for this thread being a work of art... it's full of COMMUNICATION...

So are we agreed then? Thanks to Peter for initiating such a thought provoking thread but as to the question of what is or is not art - there is no one answer suitable to cover such a sweeping range of possibilities....

Phil I agree it is a wide ranging subject. However like most things @ the moment I dont think anybody on the planet could define art and suit all of our questions. There is something we as a race of sentient beings are not meant to categorise due to lack of understanding as to what "IS" in the first place. Will keep intouch Phil and I will take a look @ your program suggestions.

Well a lot of times it is mentioned that art is in the eye of the beholder. So why don't we take ALL posts on here and just say, All posts here = Art.

What would be so wrong to assume we are all correct? Since art is personal, who are we to say if someone else or yourself is right or wrong?

Your absolutely correct Dave - this definitely falls into one of those infinite possibility discussions in the same vein as chickens, eggs and refrigerator lights :-)

Defining Art is like defining "Gifted" or "God" I think. I certainly know it when I see it...for me. I recognized gifted people most of the time and God is a very personal vision for me. I just honestly wish we had some criteria for placing art on a good to bad scale so that the artist might be able to benefit from that. Often a really bad artist will be offended if you make suggestions. Also most of the really bad art...I think it's bad because it's overly pretentious. I also don't like art that has to be explained! Yes I went to a an installation that was very strange and the artist had this complex, completely pretentious explaination of all the details. In the end it was a grossly unattractive and disorganized display that thoroughly pushed me away. I guess I like to like art, not be offended or ridiculed by it. So I do have my own standards for good and bad art, but perhaps we will never had universal standards, but I wish we did because I would like to say with authority "That is not art...it's a pretentious piece of crap." But alas, that day will never be. <grin>.

Im not so sure we should define Art from a scientific point of view.. Maybe we should define it more from a social and spirituell P O V. Art that brings a value in the society and maybe build future solutions. Art as a definition for a communication that gives Dreams and visions a "Face" is maybe more correct than a definition built only from the process of creating or the Technical and artistical skill. For me its what Art does in the society that gives it so high value for me. Its just because it has the ability to Communicate so many things in so many different ways.

Art is a collaboration between God and the artist, and the less the artist does the better.

~Andre Gide~

lets not even go there - thats a whole separate can of worms :-)

I officially retract my last statement. =0)

You know this reminds me of the concept of ancient Egyptian religion.

Many people now believed that this religion was this solid-centralized religion just like christianity. But infact, it was all over the place. Each "town" had its own believes and its own "local god".

The odd thing is, the ancient Egyptians believed EVERYTHING, regardless of wether or not the other "town's" believes contradicted their own. They just assumed that the gods were on a plane of existence that was not totally comprehensible for us to wrap our minds around and easily articulate. So whatever believe story was thrown at them, they just believed it.

Maybe this is how we should look at this post :)

Please don't retract your statement, Randy...I love that definition of art! We take so much of our "creativity" for granted, as if it just "happens." But there's something BEHIND artistic expression that transcends language, race, nationality....there's a common sense of meaning...a common sense of beauty. The artistic process is indeed often BIGGER than the artist.
Wen

as I said, whole new can of worms.... :-)

An important "can of worms." :)

I think we're not due a trip down the theology flame fight just yet - we've all managed to keep this one quite open and amicable so far. Religion is THE hot potato when it comes to forum debate...

lol! This is my favourite can of worms... But I understand what you mean Phil. I don't intend to make us all sorry for saying a few words on the topic because for me they go well together. (I wrote large parts of this post earlier this evening but haven't had time to post it until now... I'm slow I know. ^_^)

The muse have many names. Many forms. Many interpenters and supporters. All depending on you... Your own strengths and limitations decides your outlook on life and everything in it, let it be art, god or what is good or bad, up and down in any sense... I live up north, up is north for me. Is that so in Australia? ^_^ Ok that is maybe a too mundane example but it's just my way of saying that I'm as limited as anyone. I'm not trying to point fingers. I don't believe in the ultimate answer... for anything. (Besides 42... ^_^)

Call it what you want. I believe in that greater power behind art that you talk about. I don't believe in limiting it in terms of word or even thought. You can't grasp infinity or put your finger on what god is with words.

It's much simpler then that. It's a feeling. If you close your eyes you can almost touch it. Most of you know it and most of us long for it like nothing else. We only but catch a glimpse of it really. That's what art can be. It can transcend the limitation of words and concept and find it's way straight to the center of your being and touch you with some of the light of the creator. Ultimately that center is a part of the whole of creation and thus the creator.

A favourite quote of mine: "We are the universe manifest, trying to figure itself out." This is where god and art come together for me. Art is a vessel to carry this feeling. And that is the closest any human can come to the intangible force in the world that can be called god among many things. No name can do it justice. No words can come close to explaining. Words can only be used as a crude tool to outline the overall picture. The details are too fine to be captured in any other way then in the nuances of art in it's various forms.

Please bear with me. :) I mean no harm with these words. I will not defend my opinions to anyone. That is not needed I feel. Perhaps clarify if I went horribly astray. (Not just ordinarily astray... ^_^) I don't mean that my words can stand above any others, it's just what I can say in the matter from my own unique conditions. That is not opposing any others point of view in any way. You may with my blessing think that I'm a fool and are dead wrong in the matter at large. I have no problems with such ideas. Who am I to say I'm right?

Cheers,
Klas

(On the other hand perhaps one can simply say: Art is what you want it to be... and anything you want to be art, will be. And please dont' feel this oppose what you say in the matter. In fact I'm with you all along, right?)

it doesnt and your right :-)

^_^

Too bad religion is such a hot potato :( It's one of my favorite subjects...

but is ultimately pointless as a forum discussion as, like this thread, it has no one satisfactory answer with the added bonus of the ability to inflame people to unreasonable levels.

Interesting Klas! I can tell that people here are very found of Art and has a true passion for it and maybe that is the most important things when we create, To find a meaning with our work, to share it with others, to touch others, to be touched by others eg
When we tranform our feelings into the shape of Art we might say that Art is what WE are. Everything you can find in your piece of art are the unique of you......Your reflections, feelings , ideas, viewpoint and even skill, eg
I tried my best to define Art in my way, i dont know if i succed but for me Art always will be my own unique Communication that i use to hopefully touch other people with.
People can have more skill than me but they can never BE me.
Blues is maybe not the most technical thing to play compared to Paganini for example, but it can touch you as much and give you a feeling that Paganini Can't. So Yes it is the emotion ( The feelings ) that in the end is the most important.

well I don't know philcUK, I think this thread is quite meaningful. Just because there wasn't a conclusive answer doesn't mean this was a pointless discussion, I for one learned to accept the fact that everyone has their own definition, and that I can assimilate it into my own definition and be happy with it..

ok in this instance pointless maybe not - religious threads nearly always are though as they tend to end up just turning into vitriolic slanging matches with each party refusing to accept any others point of view - it's happened here before on several occasions….

Everyone is an artist in their own right. Expression in whatever form is the conduit to let people know your thoughts or not as is the case maybe with some complicated souls. Could anyone take stock of what has been said and summerise? I think not, we all have our opinions and as a result that gives us all our individuality.

This is a mission!
Tell me what you think is the similar thing with Art and that you think everyone should be able to observe by themselves.
Write it here in short tems and lets see what we get.

Well I guess that everybody should be able to see that art can be any type of work developed using techniques. It could be a form of communication that gets its point across, but also leaves open to interpretation wether it is put out to the public, or just meant for the artist his/herself

1.Type of work developed using techniques.
2. A form of communication open to interpretation out to the public or for the Artist.
Ok your ideas are noticed. Thanks!

@ the end of the day communication = the results you get from it. If your intention is to communicate who you are then hey ho, if you dont want people to understand then communication = the result you require.

Ok...Thanks!

1/ Emotion
2/ Feelings
3/ Technique
4/ Creativity
5/ Individuality
6/ COMMUNICATION....

7/ Cookies!

~ le bump ~

~ .. bump bump ~