This started as a long discussion between me and my roommate and we couldn't reach a valid conclusion because so many questions arose, mostly about value:

Is any painting a piece of art? What about every movie? Is American Pie art? What about the thing which are considered industrial design (Is the wrapping of a candy bar art? ) ?

What are your two cents on this?

Anything made with creativity. The wrapping of a candybar itself is not made with creativity, however the pattern printed onto it may very well be.

So is a brand new math theory art? it takes a lot of creativity to create one.

So is a brand new math theory art? it takes a lot of creativity to create one.

I think art is something made with the intention of it being art, and in turn is viewed by the beholder to be art. There is also "art by consensus", or art that society or the art community is willing to label "art." Also, if the method used to derive said product is "artistic" (which I would contrast with a more "logical" means of conception.) Logic is utilitarian, it fulfills a purpose, it is created using a logical/scientific method. I think art made in this fashion tends to lose some of it's magic. Art is best when it's translated directly from one's soul to the next, with minimal "logic" or "method" involved

If art has any objective purpose or aim, it is to make an effect. No one makes art with the intent of it having no effect on someone.

I think math theory could or could not be art... Depending both on who conceived it/their intent behind it's conception/how they conceived it... as well as how it is perceived, and what sort of "impact" it could have on the observer. In some ways, I think science driven by some drives (say a "grand theory of everything", for example) strike me as very noble dream. A "dream" is somewhat artistic, I'd say. It sort of aspires for something. It's a bit more in the vein of essences/spirit/feeling than pure utilitarian logic is. So, it depends. A person could be driven by somewhat "lofty" or "artistic" means to come up with a novel scientific principle, and they could also potentially do so with relatively little established "method." This may not necessarily be called "art", but it's more synonymous, I'd say.

People often say something is "artistic" if it is put together very well, or grasps for some essence of feeling or spirit. Established method doesn't work so well with art. It tends to becomes generic and derived, unless the established structure/scheme offers plenty of room for creativity.

Note*: I don't claim to know, these are just some unstructed ramblings on the topic... Art is incredibly difficult to define. Ultimately it's going to depend on what the individual is prone to viewing as "art," to some degree. Art's power is entirely subjective. And so what qualifies something as "art" could be considered entirely subjective, as well. Really, "art" is one of the loftiest words/concepts we have. I find it can mean almost anything. For instance, there is often an "art" in every way of performing a certain action, even if the action itself may strike you as tedious. I'd say, generally, art is a subjective essence of "things" that is able to be communicated to others via some means/medium.

There are no preconditions for art. It is quite simply the seriousness of life and death.

Art is expression, we are all artists.

If you like it then it is art.

If you don't like it then it is not art.

If someone disagrees with you then one of you has no taste.

Of course if it is in a museum then it MUST be art and if you don't like it then you must not have any taste. LOL

Do you let "society" tell you what to think or not?

DT

It's art if you say it is so.

Although there is no one singular definition for art, I believe art is something that is appealing to your senses, inspires or motivates you in a way, changes your outlook, ignites new ideas, or sparks a feeling or a long lost memory in you.

I love creating traditional and digital art. I think most importantly art is the reflection of the artist's ideas, feelings, and intent. I always see the variations in my work depending on the certain mood or feelings I had while creating it.

Art is expression, we are all artists.

You answered almost exactly as I was about to do. Good Job

Rather, what isn't art?

art - For numerous reasons, the most difficult word to define without starting endless argument! Many definitions have been proposed. At least art involves a degree of human involvement — through manual skills or thought — as with the word "artificial," meaning made by humans instead of by nature. Definitions vary in how they divide all that is artificial into what is and isn't art. The most common means is to rely upon the estimations of art experts and institutions. More useful may be to see definitions of aesthetics, the arts, beaux-arts, craft, high art, and low art. (artlex,2008)

Reference
Art (2008) www.artlex.com

So is a brand new math theory art? it takes a lot of creativity to create one.

Thats one of the few things I'd say has nothing art about it. Maths isn't created, it is discovered.
A lot of creative thinking may go into the discovery though.

As if any word could possibly be have a definitive definition.

Rather, what isn't art?

Yeah. Anything which can't be discussed as being either artistic or not artistic is not artistic.

:cool:

A group of college art students went to a fine art gallery in New York to display their post modern art piece some years ago.

They dumped a few garbage can loads of random garbage on the floor and stuck a display post up that said "Piece".

It received mixed reviews from art critics.

Anything can be and is art, it just depends upon who you ask. This is why art critics are more useless than the homeless.

Art is what you consider it to be, totally subjective to the viewer. One person may see an abstract expression of self and the other may see just a bunch of scribble.

As if any word could possibly be have a definitive definition.

I am sorry, I am unable to understand what your saying. In order to help me you will have to definitively define the following:

As

if

any

word

could

possibly

be

have

a

definitive

definition

Words have definition definitively enough for us to communicate a myraid of thoughts and ideals, and while I appreciate your deconstructionist spirit, I find it intellectually lazy.

I did not say words do not have an accepted definition. I said they do not have a definitive definition. Definitive as in authoritative, or conclusive. As in, it puts an end to the question of what a word means.

It makes no sense to say one definition is 'more correct' than another.

I did not say words do not have an accepted definition. I said they do not have a definitive definition. Definitive as in authoritative, or conclusive. As in, it puts an end to the question of what a word means.

As in, it makes no sense to say one definition is 'more correct' than another.

Really.

When you say it makes NO sense, are you saying that NO in this context could mean something else? That it could mean something indicating that it does make sense?

No:

-referring to the degree to which a certain quality is present; "he was no heavier than a child"

-a negative; "his no was loud and clear"

-not in any degree or manner; not at all; "he is no better today"

-no(a): quantifier; used with either mass nouns or plural count nouns for indicating a complete or almost complete lack or zero quantity of; "we have no bananas"; "no eggs left and no money to buy any"; "have you no decency?"; "did it with no help"; "I'll get you there in no time"

-used to express refusal or denial or disagreement etc or especially to emphasize a negative statement; "no, you are wrong"

Of course 'no' could mean something else, but the meaning of the word 'no' is not disputed here.

But it can be disputed, right.

And then:

it makes no sense to say one definition is 'more correct' than another.

Any more time wasters for us.

How does the fact that a word could have different meanings negate my claim that words can't have objective meanings?

Art is imperfection.

Well, since Dadaism, anything you call art is technically art.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dadaism

Well, since Dadaism, anything you call art is technically art.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dadaism

I don't agree. You don't have to recognise something as art in order for it to be art.

Art is merely an expression of the imperfection of humans. Art is what seperates us from being 100% efficient machines.

Anything which prevents something being 100% efficient and effective is art. If there's a building which could have been made cheaper and more ugly, it has artistic merit because the designer has sacrificed cost efficiency in order to make the building more pleasing to the eye.

I don't agree. You don't have to recognise something as art in order for it to be art.

Art is merely an expression of the imperfection of humans. Art is what seperates us from being 100% efficient machines.

Anything which prevents something being 100% efficient and effective is art. If there's a building which could have been made cheaper and more ugly, it has artistic merit because the designer has sacrificed cost efficiency in order to make the building more pleasing to the eye.

According to that theory everything is art because 100% efficiency is impossible.

Art is expression, we are all artists.

Expression.

Art is expression, we are all artists.

Seconded, that's why people have different taste in art. There's good art and bad art; both are entirely subjective.

According to that theory everything is art because 100% efficiency is impossible.

Look around you, what can you see which isn't art to some extent?

There's just varying degrees of how artistic something is. Things which are designed for convienience aren't really that artistic because they lead humans into becoming more efficient, but things which serve no purpose have the most artistic merit: pieces which depict chaos, controversy, beauty and freedom. These pieces are the ones which can remind humans why we're different from machines.

Art is glorifying our imperfections. Maybe to try and make ourselves as a race look perfect?

Look around you, what can you see which isn't art to some extent?

There's just varying degrees of how artistic something is. Things which are designed for convienience aren't really that artistic because they lead humans into becoming more efficient, but things which serve no purpose have the most artistic merit: pieces which depict chaos, controversy, beauty and freedom. These pieces are the ones which can remind humans why we're different from machines.

Art is glorifying our imperfections. Maybe to try and make ourselves as a race look perfect?

I think I disagree with the idea that the quality of art is equal to its lack of efficiency. How do you fit in art which is designed to inspire specific emotions, like so many movies and songs? Thats a form of efficiency. Totally random or obscure art bores me.

Putting the definition as a gradient of 100 to 0 percent like that is useful though and takes away the "what isn't art" question without making the word redundant.

I think I disagree with the idea that the quality of art is equal to its lack of efficiency. How do you fit in art which is designed to inspire specific emotions, like so many movies and songs? Thats a form of efficiency. Totally random or obscure art bores me.

Putting the definition as a gradient of 100 to 0 percent like that is useful though and takes away the "what isn't art" question without making the word redundant.

Emotions are what differentiate us from being machines.

If something evokes emotion, it reminds us we're a human being: not a slave of the government caught up in a capitalist machine.

If we got rid of all mediums of art we'd probably be like ants.

Emotions are what differentiate us from being machines.

If something evokes emotion, it reminds us we're a human being: not a slave of the government caught up in a capitalist machine.

If we got rid of all mediums of art we'd probably be like ants.

I think thats all a bit metaphysical and vague to work very well as a definition..

Can art not exist in a world with no socio-political context, without a capitalist machine to be everyones enemy?
How do you know machines have no emotions, have you ever been one?

Rather, what isn't art?

Anything that isn't manipulated by humans. Mountains are not art. Trees are not art.

Anything that isn't manipulated by humans. Mountains are not art. Trees are not art.

What if the evolutionary processes that have lead to the creation of trees and mountains in their specific state is not so different to the evolutionary processes in our selves and our cultures which result in artworks?

What if the evolutionary processes that have lead to the creation of trees and mountains in their specific state is not so different to the evolutionary processes in our selves and our cultures which result in artworks?

Then give that a different name, you can even come up with term that describes that type of expressions, art and mother-nature's-art being examples of it. Art itself is only done by humans.

If you like it then it is art.

If you don't like it then it is not art.

If someone disagrees with you then one of you has no taste.

Of course if it is in a museum then it MUST be art and if you don't like it then you must not have any taste. LOL

Do you let "society" tell you what to think or not?

DT

This is pretty much how it is.

Anything that isn't manipulated by humans. Mountains are not art. Trees are not art.

I disagree entirely

Art is a perspective or an idea transmitted by a median. The median or quality of work is irrelevant; it would make it good or bad art. Some might say that a black spot on a white canvas is not art, but i think its the concept which makes it art. So somthing which has not individual concept attached to it isnt art, like maths or nature.