Art?

[rustle]

What if you are expressing a thought of love without actually communicating it  directly, but instead write a lot of poetry about unrequited infatuation

 

The root of all imagination is conception in thought; my idea was that thought itself even unexpressed can be art through how a person lives and exists. A writer can be an artist on both the descriptive level and the abstract level.

But if the thought changes the way one lives, it is expressed. Can't the way one lives life be an art form?

 

Once the end result is called art, should we call the entire creative process art, or draw a line and say, "All before this is not art. All from this point forward is art."?

 

Whatever definition is advanced, most of us are always going to make our own decisions as to what is an art form, and whether or not it's any good.

[W_L]

But if the thought changes the way one lives, it is expressed. Can't the way one lives life be an art form?

 

Once the end result is called art, should we call the entire creative process art, or draw a line and say, "All before this is not art. All from this point forward is art."?

 

Whatever definition is advanced, most of us are always going to make our own decisions as to what is an art form, and whether or not it's any good.

 

"All the world's a stage"

 

Just saying

[rustle]

"All the world's a stage"

 

Just saying

 

"Act well your part; there all the honour lies."

[C J]

Everything can be called art.  Everything can be called something else, too.  As Lincoln said though, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg, and the dog still has four legs and not five.  At some point the whole attempt at fine tuning the definition of art, or any similar word, becomes a little silly.  The same effort could be made to define nonart, but what is the point.  Not everyone will agree, and I see nothing to be gained.  It's a little amusing to see, but otherwise where is the value.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Ghostboy

[Ron]

And arguing for the sake of argument has been elevated to an art form in this thread, and nothing is gained by it. Yet still, it is pursued, and is amusing.

[W_L]

Nah, Rustie and I aren't really arguing about defining art, just coming to terms.

 

Art really has no boundaries as far as the imagination goes, but my point was just that before you reach imagination you have conception, which in itself is an immaterial and intangible basis for all art. I just had the thought that conception itself is an art before imagination, since writers have to conceive the story first prior to the imagination of readers turning it into an art form, literature.

 

However as others have pointed, a concept without communication or expression cannot be art.

Edited July 7, 2014 by W_L

[Ron]

Art has no definition, yet it can be defined. Art is subjective and expressive, beautiful and debase, literal and figurative, and still yet elusive. Conception can be the plan or intention and yet be the act, and communication and expression are not all that different. Art is a word that is expansive, in that it incompasses many forms, and it evolves over time. You cannot define it, truly, because it also changes with time and fashion--what is hot today, may not be hot tomorrow-- and yet again, there is junk-art and fine-art. Come on, enjoy, and be done with it.

[Thorn Wilde]

If someone calls something art, then it is art, at least to that person. I just think art is deeply subjective, really.

 

The way I have come to define art, for myself, over the years is that art is storytelling. If you look at something and it tells you a story, with or without words, then it is art. If you go far enough back, everything that we call art today, from painting to music to dance, was first conceived as a way to tell a story. Stories needn't be advanced. And the story you hear when you perceive a work of art needn't even be the story the artist intended to tell. But if someone has created something, and that creation makes you think or feel or imagine, then the creation has told you a story and the creation is therefor art.

 

So, that's the criteria for art to me. It has to be something that came from the artist's imagination, and it has to tell me a story in one way or another. 

 

As for Art School Stole My Virginity, I think it's art. It told a story. It did so in a manner that came from the artist's imagination. It made people feel things. It had several definite messages, both expressed in the performance and in the media hype that arose around it. I think it was very interesting, and well done.

 

It was said in this thread that if anyone could have done it it isn't art. But art is in intent as much as execution. Perhaps anyone could have done it, but not many people would have, or even thought to do it.

[Billy Martin]

It is what it is.

 

Nothing anyone else says can make what to me is trash, art; nor what is art to me, trash. I believe that to be true for everyone. If I'm not mistaken, this debate, or expression of opinions, has been ongoing for thousands of years. To me, it comes down to individual taste. I have no problem others liking, worshiping work as art, that I wouldn't waste my time contemplating. As they say, to each their own.

 

As for the main topic of this thread, I don't know enough to form an opinion beyond I tend to lump this guys attempt at art to placing a cross in a jar of urine- tasteless.

[JamesSavik]

Here's my Deviant Art Page: ==>> http://jamessavik.deviantart.com/

 

I'm a Deviant, it's art so go see. 

[Zombie]

Here's my Deviant Art Page: ==>> http://jamessavik.deviantart.com/

 

I'm a Deviant, it's art so go see. 

 

I like Sea Oats a lot

[Irritable1]

I like Sea Oats a lot

 

Me too. It's cold and clean, makes me think of a Wyeth.

 

I like to think I've grown a bit more open-minded with time about what I consider Aahrt. Part of it is about training one's own eye. 

[Jordan1]

"Art" is defined as anything that an artist calls "art." It's as simple as that. Anything an artist labels as "art," is "art."