Art discussion thread, let's all discuss everything art.

I intend to start a nice discussion on what art is, different ways people interpret art, and what people consider art that others don’t.

In the city paper yesterday they showed a guy in front of two of his paintings. One was a completely red canvas with nothing but red and the other was completely green. Now you may think this is not art, but to him it’s art, he literally thinks a solid color on a canvas is art.

Here’s an example (believe it or not this is considered art)
http://webs.wichita.edu/depttools/depttoolsmemberfiles/ulrich/G-Rhottest%20part%20of%20the%20day%20sm.jpg

Now let’s start this discussion of art, what is art, how far can it be stretched, and different definitions of art according to different people.

Ho hum. Discussed to death already on almost every forum with a vague connection to art, including this one.

Like Mac versus PC, Capitalists versus Socialists, Ferrari versus Lamborghini, Blender versus Maya or Christians versus Muslims it becomes a quasi-religious argument with no right or wrong and no hope of agreement or genuine conclusion - but an awful lot of dogma.

Or Wii vs. PS3 :smiley:

My opinion is very simple. It is art if the artist considers it to be art.

The thing is, you can whine about it all you want, but in the end, that guy is getting paid big $$$ and you are just left arguing about it over the internet.

And for the record, I think that painting, as well as most minimalistic painting, are really cool.

You may find it really cool, but what about how people on this forum would react if you posted a piece like that in finished projects. I could just make a scene that’s yellow with a rectangle in the corner and post it here, how would the other forumers like BgDM react?

They would call it crap because you don’t have anywhere near the artistic sense to make it decent.

You must never have taken an art class, but there was a lot more that went into that painting than you think.

Well, what I just recently read about and what you will need to take into account when you want to define art precisely:
http://crca.ucsd.edu/~hcohen/

Just a random link about him, a roboter who makes original paintings (Cyborg Dragon, you might even know him, as you’re reading a lot about that kind of stuff)…is that art? The paintings really have their own style, as far as I can judge that. However, that robot would not define his work as art, if you’d ask him now…

The thing is, most people use the term art when they shouldnt, and the proper meaning is now pretty much non-exisitant due to wording abuse, like how many other words in our language have developed into other meanings over the years.

Art is a word used in many differernt areas. Difficulty is a strong connection to art, hence the terms like “the art of”, terms such as martial arts is another application of “art”.

I personally believe that the way we have developed, with “graphic design” becoming a commercial, functional item rather than an expresion there are many other terms to correctly discribe the type of imagery produced rather than art, two of which have just been said : “Graphic” and “Design”. “Illustration” is also another term.

The above piece, I would call it more of a design than art. Being able to paint is pretty hard - you’d be surprised how hard it is to make somthing grungy like that, it requires some skill, so therefore painting it /painting would be an art. But since this was probabily produced specificall for sale (i think?) and the fact the it’s made simply as decor /to be visually pleasing I would categorise it as a “design” rather than “art”

Most people see art as superiority, so just as you get big heads over exaggerating their work/ jobs and so on, they call pieces they;ve created art when really it should be called “poo”

When I was in middle school I took an art class, though only for one year. True these artistic pieces usually have a sort of artistic process, a style developed over the years and possibly hundreds of pictures later. And I could see why it can be art, though making a perfect recreation of it in Blender and posting it on the forum would not be recepted well.

Then again paintings can be harder to do then doing it using a PC program.

I always have a tendency to drag myself into these conversations…

While the definition of art may vary from person to person, there is at least one common thread. Every work of art requires some above-average amount of dedication from the artist. Be it dedication to the craft, dedication to the concept/idea, dedication to the audience/customer, or dedication to the process; it’s one of the true consistancies amongst artists. Very rarely will you ever have an artist call their own work art unless they’ve put placed a large amount of effort, energy, time, and (on occasion) part of themselves into it. Everything else is just work.

In fact, quite a few of the best practitioners of the arts that I know do not consider their work art. It’s never good enough. It’s never expressive or communicative enough. There’s always something about it that they wish they had time to go in and adjust and tweak. It’s just a <something> that they put on paper/canvas/computer. They’ll get complements by people calling their work art and they feel awkward receiving them.

At the end of the day, if you’re showing someone (or a group of someones) your work, you have to ask yourself why. Are you looking for a pat on the back? Are you looking for critique (and therefore a means of improvement)? Are you just saying “lookit what I did”? One of those things shows a dedication that defines your work as art and you as an artist. The others… well… you put it on the fridge and impress your friends and family with that. :wink:

It wouldn’t be a recreation because that painting is more than just solid green.