Callous Jack wrote:

It's all art, just like the design on your cereal box, the road signs on the way to work and the logo on your coffee cup are too.

Now whether it's good art or not is a whole different can of worms.

I see you come from the Warhol school. Well, at least it didn't ruin your minis.

Actually I'm not a big fan of Warhol or for that matter, many other 20th century modern artists, especially those in the abstract expressionist, Dadaist and Surrealist movements.

But to each their own...

The best definition of art I've seen hinges on the representation being made, whether by painting, drawing, or taking photographs, with the intention of it having aesthetic appeal to someone. Once you've cleared that hurdle, as far as I'm concerned, it's art.

Now, something needn't have broad appeal to be art. Nor must it's artistic value be held to be very high. My son's drawings of Jedi knights that end up on the fridge are art even if everybody else thinks they show little draftsmanship or proficiency with his crayonic medium.

Heheh... crayonic medium. :-)

The best definition of art I've seen hinges on the representation being made, whether by painting, drawing, or taking photographs, with the intention of it having aesthetic appeal to someone. Once you've cleared that hurdle, as far as I'm concerned, it's art.

Now, something needn't have broad appeal to be art. Nor must it's artistic value be held to be very high. My son's drawings of Jedi knights that end up on the fridge are art even if everybody else thinks they show little draftsmanship or proficiency with his crayonic medium.

What about quilts from the early 20th century? When they were made they were not intended to be artwork and they were sometimes even made with no intention of aesthetic appeal. They were made for function, but now they are carefully preserved and display and considered works of art.

My answer regarding the quilts: the original makers didn't consider them art, although I'm sure they were satisfied with them as handcrafted objects, and probably took pride in them not being ugly. But from that perspective,they weren't art.

In the same way, an employee at a greenhouse who pots a flower probably doesn't consider it art. And somebody who throws out two hundred beer bottles for collection, doesn't consider that art.

But someone else could come by and be moved by the collection of various bottles, and see something there that the owner didn't, and take a picture of the bottles, with the light coming from that angle, and that would be art. And someone could see the symmetries and balance of the the flower and display it just so, and that would be art, too.

The quilters weren't artists, but the person who looked at the quilt, and saw something there that the quilters didn't, and sought to convey that to others: that person was an artist.

Everything can be art, its entirely subjective

to the viewers tastes. I also believe there's
no such thing as bad art...well universally bad.
Even Rob Liefeld has his fans...wherever they may
lurk...

That pretty much sums up the discussion I had with a co-worker that has a degree in art. BTW Never,Ever make the mistake of saying "what you didn't want a real degree" to an art major they tend to get really pissy about it.

We were haveing a talk about the local Crysler museum of art and I was explaining how I loved this peice or that stained glass window etc, but when it came to "modern" art I was left completely cold. The robot made out of televisions or the fabric strewn canvas just didnt seem like "art" to me. She explained to me taht artists in the classic period copied everything but modern artists interpret everything.
She fully agreed that some art is trash and not worthy of note, the infamous crucifix in a bottle of urine came to mind amoungst others.
In the end art is simply something that touches the veiwer in some meaningful way regardless of medium.
BTW I'm serious about the art major thing they really get defensive about jokes about there major. She works as a temp secretary and has a 4yr degree in art but she's proud of it.

If it makes me want to make unusual shapes and striking colors out of the "artist's" skull with an aluminum baseball bat, is it art?

...quilts...

I wonder how comparison figures into our conceptions. Do I think the quilts are art if they are hung in the Duomo in Florence? Probably not. Do I think they're art if they are hung next to a Jackson Pollack painting? Maybe so.

That pretty much sums up the discussion I had with a co-worker that has a degree in art. BTW Never,Ever make the mistake of saying "what you didn't want a real degree" to an art major they tend to get really pissy about it.

We were haveing a talk about the local Crysler museum of art and I was explaining how I loved this peice or that stained glass window etc, but when it came to "modern" art I was left completely cold. The robot made out of televisions or the fabric strewn canvas just didnt seem like "art" to me. She explained to me taht artists in the classic period copied everything but modern artists interpret everything.
She fully agreed that some art is trash and not worthy of note, the infamous crucifix in a bottle of urine came to mind amoungst others.
In the end art is simply something that touches the veiwer in some meaningful way regardless of medium.
BTW I'm serious about the art major thing they really get defensive about jokes about there major. She works as a temp secretary and has a 4yr degree in art but she's proud of it.

lol I've got a art degree as well, and I

could understand the thing about getting
pissy...well I don't get pissy but I have
had people tell me on occasion (joking...
but sometimes people say what they want
behind a joke), and it does get old to hear it.
Art school was lots and lots of fun, but I was
also at school for 10-12 hours a day sometimes
working on projects.
As far as art I personally think things that are
astheticlly pleasing, says something meaningful,
or just strange are what I like.

Eadward snaps a picture of a galloping horse, to provide evidence that all four feet are off the ground at the same time.

[tangent] I saw the sculpture that stirred up that 'controversy.' [/tangent]

She fully agreed that some art is trash and not worthy of note, the infamous crucifix in a bottle of urine came to mind amoungst others.

Sure as hell inspired a lot of passionate emotional responses from the people who saw it, as it was intended to. That's certainly one definition of art.

By that same definition, the comedic stylings of George Carlin count as art as well, as they got people pretty worked up. :)

quilts

I'd say it was art whether or not it was intended as art, if it was received as art.

Another way to say this is that if anybody says it's art, it's art. It still might be bad art or worthless art, but it's art. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

I am an Art Major. I have taken a lot of classes on such a subject and it has become very clear to me what is art.

Art is the use of a tool the express yourself.

Art used to be also the proficiency with a tool, but with the invention of the photograph, this isn't true any more.

Any tool can be used to create art, even the written words. So long as the use of a tool to communicate something that could not be done any other way, another person's appearance.

A lot of people think of the Mona Lisa as art, but its purpose, to capture a realistic picture, which is no longer such a difficult task.
It is mostly considered art, because it was of the time, the use of a tool to communicate something that could not be done any other way, another person's appearance.

What about quilts from the early 20th century? When they were made they were not intended to be artwork and they were sometimes even made with no intention of aesthetic appeal. They were made for function, but now they are carefully preserved and display and considered works of art.

Were they intended to be aethetically appealing to someone? If yes, it doesn't matter if they are also functional. They're also art. There's no reason something must be one or the other.

I am an Art Major. I have taken a lot of classes on such a subject and it has become very clear to me what is art.

Art is the use of a tool the express yourself.

Art used to be also the proficiency with a tool, but with the invention of the photograph, this isn't true any more.

Any tool can be used to create art, even the written words. So long as the use of a tool to communicate something that could not be done any other way, another person's appearance.

A lot of people think of the Mona Lisa as art, but its purpose, to capture a realistic picture, which is no longer such a difficult task.
It is mostly considered art, because it was of the time, the use of a tool to communicate something that could not be done any other way, another person's appearance.

I would also say that many more people are gaining proficiency in these art forms than ever before. I think the Happy Little Painter expresses my point the best, no one works as an apprentice today. We have classes of students and classes tend to be affordable.

The access to art mediums today seems unprecedented to me. Its actually really cool (except when people deface our building with graffiti) that there are so many artists of high calibre in music, images, and I would even go so far as to call many cooks artists as well.

Also...*applaudes*

I gotta hand it to Sara for getting a bunch of grown men to discuss quilts for several hours. >:)