Would you say that one decides for oneself what art is? Or is art a truth? Or is it a combination of both?
If the argument is that it is in the eye of the beholder than i have a hypothetical situation: Let’s say that humans cease to exist but human’s artwork still existed on earth. Would a masterpiece such as Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel cease to be art because there are no human minds to comprehend it? Or would it become merely a bunch of blobs of paint?
I think that’s an interesting question.
Personally I like to think of art as an attempt to capture or express some feeling or otherwise significant event in ones life, in one form or another.
Given that, I don’t think necessarily that the “audience” has a say in whether it’s art or not… I suppose if you did your job well and you were expressing something others could easily relate to, then the audience would “understand” it as well… but I don’t think it’s necessary for them to understand it, in order to consider it art.
For example… I don’t get picasso… to me it just seems like the guy didn’t know how to paint a face… but I’m pretty sure that’s not it… and that he really was trying to express something. That makes it art… even if I don’t particularly enjoy it or “get it”.
kitcherj
I’m not sure if one does decide for one’s self…if ‘beauty (or art) is in the eye of the beholder’. That so-called ‘eye’ would lie within our individual brain/brain chemistry/experiences. Is it really we who decide?
The way I look at it, it would be neither and both at the same time…sort of cancelling each other out and becoming a sort of blank slate…or a possibility in the making…until an observer comes along and that ‘eye’ paints its own interpretation.
I would say that the notion of art being a truth is not mutually exclusive from the idea that one decides for oneself what art is.
I respond to your hypothetical situation with another hypothetical situation: When Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel, he was fully aware that his painting would outlast the human race. Furthermore, Michelangelo stated that, in his opinion, the painting is art regardless of the existence of humans to perceive it.
What I believe: I am art.
Does beauty lie in the eye of the beholder? Does it lie in the object? Where does it lie?
This is a good point to bring up because beauty is thought-induced. It is acquired taste that tells you that something is more beautiful than something else; all sensations are valid in that their function is to transfer information to the brain The appreciation of music, poetry and language is all culturally determined and is the product of thought.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
If you are asking humans that are alive now, then it is art that will be there when we are not.
If you are asking empiricism, then it will be who gives a shit.
Art is in the provocation to express a conveyance, or feel an expression, in form.
I find it funny that people are so concerned about the word “art” and what fits within the definition. When I look at something presented as art (regardless of whether it is or not), I don’t say, “Hey, I wonder if this counts as art.” I don’t waste my time with that useless bullshit. When I look at something presented as art, I ask myself, “How does this make me feel, what does it mean, is it visually appealing, is it derivative or cliche, or is it unique and new, what is its history, what does it reference, etc.?” I ask all those questions and more. It’s not relevant if it’s okay to call it art. That’s not even a question worth asking. That’s not the point of art. The point of art isn’t to stand around it wondering if it actually qualifies. That’s stupid. I’m sorry if that’s blunt or insulting, but it’s true, it’s fucking stupid. The question totally misses the mark.
That’s my rant, thanks for listening.
Humpty,
Do you consider yourself to be an artist of some sort; drawing/painting/writing/poetry? Any of those?
I don’t think that anyone with a ‘real’ sense of beauty (subjectively speaking) or what they liked would waste their time asking the question “is this art”? I think the fact that they did would presuppose, at least, for them at first glance that it wasn’t. I think only someone who was more than a bit shallow, incapable of thinking for themselves, and who was usually, more or less, under the influence of what others thought and ‘judged’ art to be, most often according to the price put on it – would ask that inane question.
So what you seem to be saying is that you try to take an objective look at it, no matter what ‘it is but at the same time you are mostly guided subjectively. I think that perhaps you would have had to be a student of art and art history. Maybe I’m wrong here. And you also seem to be saying quite adamantly that ‘art’ is also in the eyes of the beholder…to me. To an Einstein, an equation would be art. To Henry Ford, a beautiful car would have been art. To a biologist, looking at a cell under a mircrosope and how it appears might be art.
I agree with what you say. When I look at a painting, I don’t consciously think in terms of whether this is art. Well, sometimes I will think “This is art!!!” when it is ‘supposedly’ named as art. My inner ‘eye’ which encompasses all that I am, my entire being, either feels it or doesn’t. It’s also important to me somehow that the object makes you think, paints a picture, if you will, if it is not a painting, and is capable of telling a story. But the most important thing about looking at this something is how it moves us, provokes us. Like a beautify Rachmaninoff, Chopin or Puccini. We don’t have to ask if it is art or music. Our being responds with the unspoken answer.
I always liked this painting of Van Gogh…like most of his paintings.
.
Many people might not be grabbled by this but I am every time I see them. It provokes me. I could probably write a story about the man who wore them, if I wanted to. 
I like this too…
If I were the only person in the universe to like these pictures, I would still think they were beautiful …
and art too…oops 
I’m also enthralled by Scott Mutter’s surrational images. Some would probably just scratch their heads. So I understand what you’re saying here.
.
google.com/images?hl=en&sour … r&gs_rfai=
Your welcome. Sometimes something will just click in our brain and send us off.
I’ve done a good deal of my own artistic projects, I have never taken an art history class per se, but I have read quite a bit. Actually, my father always had his little bookshelf of his college books in the living room as I was growing up, so I frequently had a chance to look at his Art History book. I didn’t read all of it, or even most of it, but I spent hours looking at it regardless, reading analyses and enjoying the pictures lol. So, from an early age I had a proclivity for art and art criticism.
Anyway, you understood what I was saying perfectly, thank you.
I define art as using words, images and sounds, not necessarily to depict anything in the outer, physical world, but the inner, psychic world. For me, Realism is the opposite of art. Art is depicting something as more or less beautiful than it actually is. Art is fantasy, imagination, creativity, the idealized, the figurative and above all, art is meaningful to the artist and their audience. It’s the world of dreams and emotions, captured on canvas. It could also be an attempt to capture the imperfections, hallucinations and distortions of our vision.
A less strict definition of art could be, something created, not for it’s utility, but for it’s aesthetic appeal.
For example, if I were to depict my stepfather, exactly as he appeared to me, to the best of my ability, that wouldn’t be very artistic. If I were to depict him in a lifeless pose, with no expression on his face, that wouldn’t be very artistic either. But, if I were to paint him with a maniacal, beastly look upon his face, in a wild, unruly pose, holding a bottle of jim beam, with a red, distored background and a little boy crying in the corner, then I would be conveying more than just his general appearnce to my audience, wouldn’t I? I would be conveying who he was and what significance he had in my life.
it’s in the eye of the beholder to varying degrees depending on what the artist has done (simplicity would be more in the eye of the beholder than something detailed)
it definitely isnt a truth. that would just be a picture
Perhaps some art is in the eye of the beholder, but I would like to ask if ‘art’ itself is or should be? I would say: ‘if we have to ask the question; is ‘this’ art, then it is not’, we could otherwise be left in a position where everything is art and then how do you define art as anything at all? One could say I am an artist and I just made this art, what do you think of it, then one would necessarily have to reply, there are only artists and you cannot do anything that is not art.
I think certain things should be considered before we simply accept something is art;
Could a child paint that by scribbling on paper?
Does it actually mean anything, and hence is meaning what makes art, art [if so then the beholder should be given something of that meaning from the artist within the art itself], and hence it is not in the eye of?
Is this the product of a high end skill? …or is it rather lazy or ill thought out etc.
Does this art make its environment look more artistic than the piece itself? In other words when do you distinguish between the gallery wall and what hangs on it.
…Is this art;
Perhaps we could expand this argument with some examples of what one may consider as non art, art?
How are ya Q,
It could be of importance to those who realize the limitations of a child and especially to the parents.
This seems to be a major factor in art appreciation. Sometimes it’s ironic being that you are expected to go to art school in order to appreciate the art so the artist can then take your money.
That’s probably for fellow accomplished artists and cultures to debate about.
Forgive me if I digress from what your trying to ask here, but I’d like to say that nature’s environment can display some mind boggling amazing things to behold. Like expanses of Alaskan snow capped mountains. You might catch a glimpse of a snowboarder displaying his artful talent as he carves his way down the slopes.
Maybe a kid that only its maker could love. 
The question “Is this art?” is quite simple to answer. Define art, and you’ll have an answer. It’ll be a yes or a no, clear as day.
Answering that question, however, doesn’t really do anything for you. It’s a question without reward. So you know now that it fits the definition of a particular word…SO WHAT? That’s not what’s important. People could argue day in and day out about the definition of a word, but they are missing the point.
I noticed Mr. Quetz made a little jab at Pollock perhaps with his “child drawing” comparison.
So, we could stand around this painting and define art and determine whether it is or not, but that’s not relevant. I would say the most relevant question, for ANY situation, including art but also including things like relationships and life choices in general, is “How does it make you feel?” So, looking at a Pollock, how does it make you feel? Of course, looking at it on a computer screen doesn’t really do it justice.
Before seeing one in real life, I would have said, “It doesn’t make me feel like anything but boredom, it’s just a bunch of stupid paint drops.” Which is a legitimate answer. Notice how there’s no references to if it fits the definition of art. All it references is the painting itself and my feelings toward it. While seeing it in real life, I felt quite different, however. I felt a sense of power and of rage. Being aware of the texture of the painting and the size of the painting, in the case of Pollock, really changed the experience. It really brought out an emotional response, and one that I rather enjoyed. You see, I ENJOYED IT. Who gives a fuck if it’s art or not? DID YOU ENJOY IT? If not…well then, you didn’t enjoy it and you don’t like it, and that’s all there is to it. If you did enjoy it…well then, that’s good, you enjoyed it. Either case, who gives a fuck if it’s art?
finishedman hi, I’m fine thanx 
Yes, but I meant to be asking if it is just kinda random, and that it shows little skill even if you attribute meaning to it.
Yea then if you can understand it then its not in the eye of the beholder.
But it is they who accept ‘art’ which many of us think is just shit, perhaps non artists are the only ones qualified to tell them if their art is art?
Indeed, one would do well to come anywhere near to matching nature.
Humpty
It makes me feel like a child painted it whilst picking its nose and not even thinking about it, but I take your point. it could mean a crowded and gloomy place as my mind forms it into vague people silhouettes. But so what! could we not make similar notions about anything vaguely similar*, I mean I could abstract that meaning by looking at a bush on a winters morn ~ which it also reminds me of. it’s a kind of ‘anything like that could mean something like that’ image. Do you see more?
I see your point that it doesn’t matter if it is art in terms of ‘art’ then being a subjective and abstract meaning to the thing itself, however one could get such sensation from anything, a block of flats nature etc.
*In fact you have already derived such ideas reactions and emotions, such is how you recognised them in that painting? Perhaps it is how the painting rehashes those elements in your mind that counts?
It probably depends on one’s state of mind. I mean if a person is high on something, due to altered consciousness, everything he senses could take on huge proportions of grandeur. To the snobbish highbrow, he screens it.
quetzalcoatl,
For example, that above. It’s so drab and dreary, doesn’t harmonize at all, and it leaves me feeling cold. And would someone please straighten out that frame.
Maybe it’s a picture of one’s life going nowhere. One meets up with wall upon wall upon wall. May as well frame it, right? Since this is all there is to look at.
It also begs the question - which is the real frame: the larger outer one or the one which holds the inner bricks? Hey maybe it’s a bit of art after all. I did give it some meaning. And maybe stretching one’s imagination, it can provoke a story. 
Perhaps some of us need to stop thinking of art as beauty and light and allow our consciousness to take us on a journey into the picture, no matter how bleak that journey may appear. In that way, art may hold many epiphanies for us. Perhaps one must not really make a decision about what is art until that undiscovered landscape has been well trodden. Does that make any sense?
hi
You like my art 
Strangely my life is a bit like that at the moment, a bit wonky and everything coming to a standstill, 
though I didn’t consider it when making it, I was simply pointing out that the background is nicer than the image itself, in fact the only thing I considered to be art was the frame itself.
Yes it makes sense though I don’t consider art as beauty, I find the ugly, obscure and scary more artistic. I find art in scenery or almost anything one cares to place their gaze, it is often as if scenes appear in reality as if framed.
How could a bunch of scribbles make me feel anything? A picture of a knight, heroically engaged in battle, or a man, being beamed aboard a flying saucer, might evoke a feeling. A mother embracing her child, or a band of drunkards happily dancing in a bar.
By definition, words are meaningless if your definition is completely out of sync with everyone elses. I could define art as zeebras or lamp shades, but then no one would understand what i’m talking about. The point is, to try and articulate what most people really mean by the word art.
If you have to struggle to find meaning and feeling in something, then it’s not art. I think most people would agree with me, therefore, my definition of art is meaningful and practical.
Lusic trust
I’m not sure that that is necessarily true but I’ll defend your right to say it. Wouldn’t you say that some art is capable of ‘growing on you’? I mean, that at some point, when you have changed, your consciousness has changed, your viewpoint about art, and your feeling for it, has changed? That could be what you’ve called art and what you have found meaningful and feeling for in the past and what you’ve grown into in the present.
Perhaps all of art for us takes place in our subconscious and that is why we all view it differently and why we also have different dreams and different ways of interpreting those dreams. It all depends on what is brought to the forefront of our conscious.
So perhaps art is a way for our subconscious to speak to us. It says: "Look at what you see…what you love. …what you find meaningful…this is your essence. So art is the essence of our humanity. (okay coffee time).
Would you say that Life is art? Would you say that life is any less life because we at times have to struggle to find meaning and feeling in it? Perhaps it is more life at these times - and just perhaps art is more art because of the struggling to find meaning and feeling in it.
