[Crimson Dynamo]

or should I ask what is not ART?

is it what is paid for
what is beautiful
What mosts cannot achieve
Nature made by man
if you can piss, you can paint

?

or summat else?

[Stu]

You can't define it. I suppose a very loose definition is anything that expresses creativity or a specific thought or emotion which is externalized into the art medium. Which is why, say, a copied picture or a song performed by someone who did not write it is not art IMO.

No matter how stupid a piece of modern art may look, if it has something to say which is flying over most peoples heads then yes, it is art, because it has something to say. If it has nothing to say and it's just ~kRaZyNeSs for the sake of it then no, not art.

[King Gizzard]

Neill Buchanans every movement

[Captain.Remy]

Something meaningful which expresses emotion through different forms. To me, the biggest piece of Art is the World in its entirety.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I think if it needs too much explanation to what it is then it is a fail

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

I think if it needs too much explanation to what it is then it is a fail

Do you apply that rule of thumb right across all things in your life?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Do you apply that rule of thumb right across all things in your life?

this thread is about art not your posting style. keep on track as Mr Ars would say.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

this thread is about art not your posting style. keep on track as Mr Ars would say.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Another attempt to divert the arguement onto something or someone else. I simply asked if you applied that rule of thumb right across your life.

My you are a bit prickly tonight arent you?

[Stu]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

I think if it needs too much explanation to what it is then it is a fail

I wouldn't say so, considering the amount of explanation you need to give is entirely relative to the person your explaining it to.

Again, subjectivity.

[Dr.Gonzo]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

I think if it needs too much explanation to what it is then it is a fail

I was trying my hardest not mention *arGhhGh* the book... Arg!!1- cHRistianity... will explode... must make thread quoting post... gonna pOp

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Dr.Gonzo

I was trying my hardest not mention *arGhhGh* the book... Arg!!1- cHRistianity... will explode... must make thread quoting post... gonna pOp

That's not art - that's a true story .

[Dr.Gonzo]

Originally Posted by Judas Iscariot

That's not art - that's a true story .

You missed the point. Read Trumpet's post that I quoted, and think of all the explanation he's given the Bible.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Dr.Gonzo

You missed the point. Read Trumpet's post that I quoted, and think of all the explanation he's given the Bible.

Nah I didn't miss anything. Obviously I don't consider it a true story .

[May I burn in hell ...]

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Dr.Gonzo

You missed the point. Read Trumpet's post that I quoted, and think of all the explanation he's given the Bible.

oh oh

you had to re-explain your post


hahahahaha

[King Gizzard]

On a serious note

anything that you find aesthetically pleasing?












woooo general studies a-level

[Mrluvaluva]

Art is something of beauty. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. People have different perceptions and interpretations.

[Crimson Dynamo]

on topic please those who will not be resurrected on the last day

[Crimson Dynamo]

avatar moment.......

[Tom]

A pretty painting of a vase of flowers

[Dr.Gonzo]

Thongs just don't work with me at all. It's like three sumos sharing a hammock.

[BB_Eye]

Art had pretty strict definitions back in the day. The purpose of art was to be representational. This all changed with the advent of photography and film and the art world had to look for new definitions, breaking off into differing schools (the pre-Raphaelites, Impressionism, post-Impressionism, Cubism, Futurism, Dadaism, neo-conceptualism, etc) resulting in what can now be defined as modern art.

I think we always need to exercise a degree of self-doubt when judging art. Art is now more broadly conceptual and abstract than it has ever been, but it is worth bearing in mind that art has always been conceptual. The paintings of Botticelli, Titian, Michaelangelo, Velasquez and Rembrandt were loaded with meaning. It just so happened that they were also beautiful and works of great passion and skill. Therefore, I have to call into question the artistic value of works such as Manzoni's canned sh*t, Pollock's numbered works and Tracey Emin's Unmade Bed. Manzoni in particular seemed to be merely poking fun at the art world and their understanding of the value of art. This doesn't inherently bestow value on the work itself. Works like this seem to demand overthinking in order to derive any aesthetic or intellectual pleasure from it.