What is art?

[Dr. Javi]

This is a question I've toiled with for years: When does what people claim to be art cease to be art? (Or does it?)

Here's the story I tell with this question: I was walking about in Modern Art section of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. As you walked in, there was a large canvas—their main display—about the size of a door. Undoubtedly, this piece had to be revered amongst some artistic elite, or at least very much enjoyed by someone of "artistic prominence" in order to have this place.

So, it was a large, white canvas the size of a door, and painted upon its surface was a black square.

. . . That's it.

Now, I recognize that what constitutes art is completely subjective; technically, anything can be considered "art". It might just be the raging old man in me, but there are certain things I refuse to acknowledge as art. Though, isn't that unfairly imposing my opinion, my personal, self-created standards for what art is? Furthermore when does a random, careless splashing of paint become art? When does the beauty in chaos become senseless vandalism?

I remember reading of a study where a panel of "experts", apparently credible art critics, were to judge three paintings: One by a famous modern artist, one by a monkey, and one by an elephant.

The elephant won.

[Moondog]

A miserable pile of secrets!

Wait, you said 'art'. Nevermind.

[Soja]

As long as it's not modern art, it's art.

:smug:

[SnoobieSnooch]

To me, art is something that stimulates thought or provokes an emotional reaction. It is a means of expression, that others can look at and gain their own insights into the peice. As everyone perceives things differently art can have a variety of reactions.
This is one of the things that amuses me most about modern art. Because even something simple as your example of a black square on a canvas can provoke positive and negative remarks. People ask is this really art? To me, it is. Because it makes you think and analyse what is in front of you. Those random splashes of paint, they got a reaction from you, they made you question what is really art. So, in itself, it is still art.

Visual Communcation is where it's at.

/artnerd

[Dr. Javi]

Then, if what constitutes a piece as art is separate from the artist and incumbent on the viewer (listener, etc.)—does that mean animals can be artists, and create art as well, because someone looks at what an animal does and feels an emotional response?

[Kade]

This is one of the things that amuses me most about modern art. Because even something simple as your example of a black square on a canvas can provoke positive and negative remarks. People ask is this really art? To me, it is. Because it makes you think and analyse what is in front of you.

There's a correlation to be made between modern art and trolling. Can't put my finger on it though.

[SnoobieSnooch]

Then, if what constitutes a piece as art is separate from the artist and incumbent on the viewer (listener, etc.)—does that mean animals can be artists, and create art as well, because someone looks at what an animal does and feels an emotional response?

Yes, I would say so. Even though the animal may not comprehend what they are doing, the end result may still illicit a response in a human.
There are some elephants ( http://youtu.be/He7Ge7Sogrk ) that have been trained to paint self portraits. Which I find pretty amazing.
Art doesn't need to be a manmade thing. It can be found all around us in natural structures. The spiral of a pine cone, a cave formation, waterfalls, the sunset. Some of these have even been documented as photographs or landscape portraits, which are then labelled art. It's just most of us take these natural creations for granted and don't notice them.

[SnoobieSnooch]

This is one of the things that amuses me most about modern art. Because even something simple as your example of a black square on a canvas can provoke positive and negative remarks. People ask is this really art? To me, it is. Because it makes you think and analyse what is in front of you.

There's a correlation to be made between modern art and trolling. Can't put my finger on it though.

Aha. This is so true.
I mean look at this.


Blatantly a troll. But it's still regarded as a major landmark in 20th century art. The gentlemen that made this was involved with the Dada movement, which rejected the standards of the time and proceded to make anti-art as a rebellion. The Dada movement ridiculed and trolled and offended. And the after-effects can still be seen today. They inspired abstract act, surrealist art, pop art, postmodernism and are celebrated for it.

[KitDreamer]

We need another movement like that, to parody all the stupid fucks that actually sell bags of rubbish as 'fine modern art' for instance. (yes I know that particular exhibit was hilariously thrown away by a cleaner who honestly thought it was just rubbish left on the side in the space of a soon to be coming exhibit, costing the dumb as fuck museum curators tens of thousand of pounds.)

[Pink]

Hahahah Snew explains it better than I can.

[Dr. Javi]

Then, if what constitutes a piece as art is separate from the artist and incumbent on the viewer (listener, etc.)—does that mean animals can be artists, and create art as well, because someone looks at what an animal does and feels an emotional response?

Yes, I would say so. Even though the animal may not comprehend what they are doing, the end result may still illicit a response in a human.
There are some elephants ( http://youtu.be/He7Ge7Sogrk ) that have been trained to paint self portraits. Which I find pretty amazing.
Art doesn't need to be a manmade thing. It can be found all around us in natural structures. The spiral of a pine cone, a cave formation, waterfalls, the sunset. Some of these have even been documented as photographs or landscape portraits, which are then labelled art. It's just most of us take these natural creations for granted and don't notice them.

Thus, literally anything can be considered art, and, per the stipulation you mentioned earlier, in order to be art—it has to be able to illicit a response (I'm assuming you mean an emotional one).

So then I ask you:
- What is the point of the word if the standards are so loose as to easily encompass the whole of the universe?
- Who is an "artist" but everyone who can do anything, ever, forever, regardless of how mundane, accidental, or pointless it may be, as long as someone thinks about it?
- What is the difference between my happening to appreciate a sunset—and someone painting one? Is the former just as much art as the latter?

[Dr. Javi]

(Also, if that elephant is actually painting that through its own volition, and wasn't like . . . heavily trained to do that—that's amazing, and one of the reasons for my considering that art is because (assuming the elephant is doing it on its own) of the artists intent to depict).

[SilverStreak]

I feel like this is a debate that has been going on since 'art' was conceptualized.

Some people consider 'intent' the ingredient as to whether or not something is art.

... for others its execution (i.e. was there effort/time/knowledge put into a work)

... and still, for others, it's about the provoked emotional/intellectual response at the end of the ride, if any.

In my experience, few people see it exactly the same way, so, for example, I might look at a Lamborghini Countach, and call that 'art' (simply because I find it emotionally moving), whereas someone who only cares about 'intent' might find room to argue.

Honestly though, I think too many people get hung up on "intent," ... You end up with far too many 'artists' who were all told somewhere along the line that because they're 'trying to make art,' they are therefore 'artists,' which I'm not convinced I buy.

My 2 cents.