Leave It Up To C&H and College To Start a Debate...

[mickeythemousey]

 I suppose this originally started within my college class, History of Western Arts, expanded out when I found the perfect summation in a Calvin and Hobbes strip and was fueled by Nicole's post about the whole time-traveling thing. What can I say? It inspired me to actually post something.

The question is simple really, what is art? The answer

Comments

[minerva_one]

Oh goodness, it's so early in the morning. :clears eyes:

I hope this makes sense, I reserve the right to add an addendum later.

The concept of "art" is a modern one. Most of what we consider fine art now would only be considered craft from those that made it.

The difference is how we see it as an individual, and how we view it as a society. (And of course I am speaking to the visual arts, music is entirely different.)

Art society today is pretentious, but it has created this entire business based on itself. Take for example, the modern minimalists such as Rothko, or even DuChamp as you mentioned earlier. The people who made the art have banded together and judged work within their own community. And now, here in 2008, that band of artists say, "Yes, this is good art," or "This sucks."

It's a clique and one must jump through hoops to be recognized off the bat. It is still a sad fact that most artists won't be recognized in their own lifetimes due to the very "clique" nature.

We as a society have given the term "ART" to such things as Egyptian crafts and such becuase of their skill level. Are they art? It depends on who you ask. Technically yes, technically no depending on the definition. Would the Gothic stained glass makers consider themselves artists? No. They were guild members working to perfect their craft, but in that perfection they were able to create work that can transcend time and take the attendee to another place and time. They fueled a movement of inspiration.

And ultimately I think it boils down to that inspiration. Does it inspire anyone or anything? That is what I use to judge art. So what inspires me may repulse someone else . . . and it will always be so subjective.

I hate modern art. If someone has to explain their concept to me, I think it has failed as a piece of art. But - but I have the occassional piece that transcends beyond that. Perhaps its the line, or the color or texture, but something is inspiring about it. And that is the piece that may turn and inspire me to create something in return.

In the end, I always come back to my favorite art quote by Picasso. "Art washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life." Art is inspiration - to yourself, to others, to society as a whole. It's different for everyone.

We judge the "level" of art by the craft level, and if anyone tells you different, they are being pretentious.

[demonlord_lover]

Here Here on the modern art. I just don't understand it. There were one or two pieces that I liked, but it was because it was so precise. The splotches were still splotches, but they still looked to have proportion, and it was obvious a lot of effort went into making them.

As for inspiration, art rarely inspires me. It can be lovely to look at, but I am not touched by visual things. I think they serve better as a reflection of life rather than taking you away from life. Words inspire me, and words can take me outside of my life. I wonder if that is why I'll never be an artist but I could someday be an acknowledged author outside of ff.

[minerva_one]

Modern art gets all of the attention it does just for the thought process behind it. I mean, the urinal mickey was talking about in the original post was a big "fuck you" to the art establishment. Duchamp was saying "You can't tell me what makes art" and everyone else agreed with him. But does that make a urinal artwork? It depends on if you agree with the artist or the artwork.

I'm a visual person, but I don't express myself with art. Recent epiphanies regarding my own personal path through life and art has lead me to realize very harsh truths. I'm not a visual artist. I have skillz, yes. I can paint a 40 foot mural, I can draw. But when I sit down to design a show, do you know what the first thing I do is? I write a fucking essay on the show.

I design after writing about it. I don't go home and doodle. I go home and write. I crave writing, so much so that I will stay up all hours to do it.

Which means I probably picked the wrong career. Just because I was "good" at something, did not mean I would be "happy" doing it.

Goodlord I'm rambling. Verbal diarrehea. ttfn . . .

[demonlord_lover]

Or perhaps you need both. There is something to be said from the satisfaction of the written word backed up with visuals, hence the popularity of manga and comics despite the stigma attatched to both. There's nothing wrong with doing both. It the art feeds you writing or vice versa, it seems like you have the best of both worlds. :) I'd trade a leg to be able to create art.