User Profile
I remember an interesting discussion awhile back with some ehealthy people about defining art.

Is this art? Why or why not?



Is this art? Why or why not?



How about this digital art?



What about this installation? (It is a box of fog the viewer is invited to step into):



What about some of the more 'offensive' art, such as religious sculptures smeared in feces?
Did you find this post helpful?
|

User Profile
replied July 27th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
i believe that art is anything apealing to the eye...
everyone has a different deffinition of art...
everyone has a different view so any given art is taken into different perspectives from different views... Smile
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied July 27th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
I have a friend who does a lot of classical nude paintings. She had an exhibit and there were actually protesters stating that it was pornography. Imbeciles. She is a nationally known artist and does very beautful work. It really gets my dander up when people start trying to censor art. Art is in the eye of the beholder. It was meant to get people to ask questions. I don't like all art, and I don't know what I think about Andy Warhol to this very day. He was um....different. But it ain't up to me. If you can put it ona canvas and sell it, then yeah, it's art.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied July 27th, 2007
Most Diplomatic Poster
i don't think it has to be appealing to the eye. i think a lot of good art makes you think and moves you. i can't remember who said it, maybe beethoven, that the art should put you into the mind and emotions of the artist when they created it. to me, good art does that. it communicates and provokes thought and emotion. i think that art that is appealing to the eye can be a lie, like, think of propaganda art. the art of jacques louis david was absolutely gorgeous but totally misleading. whereas art that is maybe considered ugly or unappealing can make people think profound thoughts and lead them to some enlightenment. not all art is effective and some affects some people and not others. you have to look at your reaction to it and wonder if that is what the artist intended and decide for yourself if it is good art or not. i think art has to go in different directions between the artist, the art itself and the person viewing it and sometimes even the person being viewed while they view it. it's a relationship. ways of seeing and about looking by john berger are neat little books that kind of talk about this subject. they're a little outdated today but they get you thinking.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied July 27th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
I'm just not going to get into this XD.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied August 20th, 2007
Experienced User
art is anything that evokes emotion or meaning.

These images are art, because of the messages behind them and how the viewer chooses to interperat them.

The first picture doesn't show for me

The soup cans - represnt how we're all becoming a product, what is left of individuality? what is left of anything? we're made, packaged and sold, we all amount for the same. Culture and individuality is a thing of the past.

the digital piece - the colours are quite amazing, to me it seems like intimacy, sunset, free flowing , warm space. makes me think of women/sex/love

the fog one - really pure, mysterfying, isolating... being reborn

everything is how you take it , these are my own interperatations
to me it's all art because it either makes a statement or evokes feeling.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 5th, 2007
I believe art can be just about anything that someone creates. It could have special meaning, or not; it could be a painting, poem, or song; it could be almost anything.

Now, whether it's GOOD art is up to the observer ;D.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied July 5th, 2018
Experienced User
Any creativity is an art.
|
Did you find this post helpful?
Tags: art, AP
Quick Reply