What is art?


Art is something that requires a high degree of skill to produce

Art is something that requires personal, individual expression

I think that art can be functional, and something functional can be art. I think that the intentionality that is put into a piece is key in separating art from simply an object.
Art does not have to be liked by a viewer, but good art should allow someone to appreciate it regardless of whether they like it or not. This is tricky because if you don't like it, how do you appreciate it? This is why I think art requires a high degree of skill.

Art can be either conceptually or technically based. Either way it is the skill set of the artist and how they choose to use it that defines a piece. The artist in many ways allows a piece to be art, but there is still a component of audience that defines whether or not a piece is truly art.

While someone defining themself as an artist vs a craftsman etc is important, I think that personally saying "I'm an artist" is not a legitimate definition

I think that an artist is someone who makes good art - someone who has the skills to make a work that can be liked by some for an emotional reason, and appreciated by many for it's technical aspects

I think that this is in some ways an exclusive title - It comes with a standard. I am not sure whether or not titles are necessariy. While I think that maybe an academic standard or opinion of who is and who is not an artist is somewhat ridiculous, I feel that just because someone makes a painting does not make him/her an artist either.

Art is indispensably unnecessary - It is a dichotomy in human nature to need art, while art is totally irrelevant to life.
Art is necessary. It is an expression of experience, opinion, emotion on a level that reaches deeper than words. Art is also personal. So art is necessary to express these things as an artist, and to create something beautiful.

Art is also superfluous. Art is not necessary to function or to survival. That is why it is art, it goes beyond what is actually necessary in a way that is necessary.

I assess art first on how I feel about it - My instinct as to whether it is good or bad. This is not necessarily the best way to assess a piece, but it is practical: "Do I like it?"
Second, I look to it's formal qualities - Is it well made? Is it thought out?
Third, does it have a message? is that message to be beautiful?
I I think that the best art should be pleasing to look at formally, and that it should not be reserved for a highbrow audience. I think that highbrow vs lowbrow does exist - hence the elitist academic world of art. However I think that such categories are a messed up system that chokes art and creativity with ideas of concept and meaning above beauty/the unnecessary ornamentation of life

I think that a truly successful piece of art is one that holds a concept or meaning while retaining a sense of  the unnecessary. A balance between the necessary expression of feeling and the unnecessary ornamentation.

meaningful art

1) I believe that art is too broad to describe and encompasses all crafts and tasks taken to an emotionally powerful level.
2) artist in my opinion is someone who achieves the title. I believe that it takes many years of success and achievement to be considered an artist. I personally hate how the word is thrown around but artist does not just include fine art it can be pushed into realms of culinary, fashion, design and many other categories.
3) the reason to make art is to leave a mark on society. if you have not produced anything that can live past your death its almost like you did not exist.
4) I don't think art can be assessed but the existence of good and bad art is present. I think the way it can be gauged would be through thought and originality. also by capturing the desired attempt of imagery or presentation.

Whats ams art?

The technical definition of art is the expressive application of creative skill or imagination. This definition lacks all of the romanticization that the world of art embraces, but it does tell how artists  universally approach their work. From the painstakingly rendered tenebrism of Caravaggio to Picasso's cubism, and from Chris Burden's trans-fixed to Slayer; the world of art has always had the mission of transferring human imagination and emotion into "physical" form (can be sensed by any of the five human senses).

The purpose of art is the mark it leaves in history (this purpose does not need to be intentional) of how human tradition is in the different environments of days of yore and beyond. All art is a reflection (from one degree to another) of the environment in which the artist lives. The "physical" manifestation of this reflection is the imagination and emotion of the artist brought to life.

The word "artist" can be a very inclusive word. It can also be very exclusive. Whether or not an artist will actually be accepted as an "artist" can be entirely dependent on the opinion of a surrounding population. In reality, anyone can consider themselves an artist. Because art is nothing more than the praxis of invention and emotion, anything can be called into consideration on any terms without any boundaries.

The distinction between "high" and "low" art is a social construct. What the wealthy and "in" crowd love is high art and anything else is low art. The distinction does not matter unless an artist considers artistic success to be driven by popularity and money.

What is art? Joe

Joseph Millard

Cornelia Oliver

11/19/2013

     Art has been, in modern context, on this planet for over 60,000 years. It has changed and continues to change in its definition and context. It is a very difficult thing to try and define, since so many different forms have been generally accepted as art, though a general theme is, "Art is art if an artist deems it so". A person must recognize the existence of art and what hand people play in making art, then after that, is when art has a tendency to be made. The term art is usually applied for pieces made either, not for the purpose of purchase through a mass market and doesn't explicitly serve a utilitarian purpose. That being said, some art has been established that HAS been sold for mass market and HAS been made that does serve a utility. 

   An artist is a person that recognizes that they make art. An artist could be a person that occasionally will paint, but spends their days putting computers together. An artist is a title and with titles come certain expectations and duties. An athlete that doesn't use their body for sports or physical activity wouldn't be considered and athlete by societal standards, but does that change what that one person thinks of themselves? What value is there in claiming to be something and/or being recognized as a title? Does it affect what a person does or doesn't do? Should a person be defined solely by their vocation, disposition, or nature? 

   The relevance of art has been questioned from its inception and forced to fit within societal guidelines, yet it has also broken out of the constraints of communal thought to change perception. Art will always remain relevant; as long as people create boundaries, guidelines, and rule it is through the revolution of art that people can peacefully object to what is taken for granted, taken as the norm. Art is as necessary to life as any other form of communication as it is through communicating with other people that ideas can be shared and spread.

  Art is assessed through many different criteria, whether or not that is a good thing or bad. It can fall into different categories where, based on those guidelines, can be graded and fall into "bad" or "good". All art SHOULD be approached with a sense of altruism, with the sole intent of assessing a piece to be helping the artist think about other perspectives and ideas to help them with understanding, so future pieces can change as quickly as the person changes with it. Art should be so altruistic that there are no good or bad pieces of art, but that isn't what happens; when a person latches onto an idea ostensibly, then they have stopped growing and have created guidelines for themselves. Ideas should be malleable and subject to change as more information becomes available. It is through these people, that do not change and cannot accept change in a COMPLETELY open way that Art is deemed bad or good, though artist intent is something else entirely. If an artist deems something bad, for the intent of being a bad piece of art, then is it bad? How do you assess? Within a category of art that has rules? As something new? Does it challenge any sort of convention? If so, does that make it a good piece of art? And when it comes to forms of art (high or low), the only clear distinction should be how the artist perceives what they do. Does a cartoonist look up to a vivid expressionist? Does a sculptor look upon paintings with a longing to be born into the life of a painter? It is up to the artist how they want to view themselves, and if an illustrator wants to change how her work is viewed in the light of 'High or Low', then it is up to her how to proceed. As for me, no, I don't think of high or low art as being different. Just different perceptions of the same thing.

(Insert Broad and Vague Title about the Definition of Art)

I feel as though art is everything inside and outside of one's own mind. Much like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder. Art is that which is designed, or created. It has an artistic process in which it is manipulated and moved so that way it may move others. It involves skill (through either the aesthetic or the concept).  Art is intentional. Sometimes the artist manipulates the intent, or it is simply created within the mind of the viewer. Art is actually anything that is considered art. That which is not art is what has never been considered art. So that tree in the forest that falls, that no one hears, the noise that it makes is not art. It is what does not exist. Not to say that what does exist IS art.

            Artists are the creators of such intentions. They are the manipulators of their surroundings and the architects of perception. They skillfully catch the viewer through either aesthetic or concept. The title is not exactly necessary, but it is helpful. The title of artist embodies such a broad and complex idea, much like the title of love or beauty.

            Art should be made, because without art, life has no marrow; no substance. Life becomes a sort of hot water with no teabag. Art is one of the strongest forms of communication. In ancient times, on the walls of caves, mankind didn’t write out his/her thoughts. We drew what we saw. We attempted to recreate our perception in the most raw and unprecedented form of communication.
            Art must be assessed in a organized manner. A set of ground rules should be established if we ever want to criticize art effectively. first of all, comparisons might have to be made, this is why art history is so important. We must understand where we are coming from if we ever want to know where we are going. Next, we must look for the intent of the artist. Was the artist attempting to create solely for aesthetic pleasure? Or is there a concept involved? A message? When criticizing art, it is always good to know what the artist intends for us to see. The difference between good and bad is an extremely subjective judgment. Even with ground rules to criticize artwork, we are still placing our own judgments and experiences behind the piece of artwork. The distinction between high brow and low brow is art that has been done skillfully, and the artist has obvious talent, or art has been done unskillfully, despite having a sound concept. This distinction is unfair, and much like many other annoying distinctions placed upon society, it may change, but only with time and attention.

What is art??? -Jeffrey

What the Hell is Art?

Art is such a broad term to try to define. I always thought art was all popsicle sticks and elmer's glue when I was young, and in a way i was right in thinking that. On the other hand I had no clue that art was as powerful as I have came to see it. now.

When you think of what really influences a culture or a society most people would say it's the food, clothing, and maybe the architecture. The art, not really anything else. I feel like the art defines us as cultures. We appreciate it in many different forms around the world. 

This brings me to wonder what art really is? Is it strictly paint on canvas or graphite on paper? I think no. Anything can be considered art and many things are. Its impossible almost for me to think of something I don't perceive as art. From the finger paintings stored away in a box somewhere to the laptop I type this on. 

I think as artist we must all strive to grasp our own personal interpretations of art, and thus life, because what else s art but a capture of life. Both very complicating terms that I believe have a interconnected relationship that will forever grow with us.

Homework: Art Questions.

* I guess in a more definition approach I guess I would say that art is the use or application of imagination, creativity, and skill to create a  visual form (although it doesn't just have to be visual) which results in a combination of meaning, content, emotional response or is aesthetically interesting. But it's hard to draw the line between what is and isn't art, and based off of that definition pretty much anything can now be considered art, which may or may not be a bad thing. I may not see a backpack as art because for me it was not made with the intention of conveying a meaning, response, or aesthetics, but someone else may see it as art. Neither person is right or wrong in this case but I guess it comes down to the individual.
* I think the title of artist can sometimes become weird, there have been several times when I've told people that I'm majoring in art studio and they respond with, " Oh so are you an artist or an Artist?" Seeming to imply that one is better than the other. Because of this I sometimes think people see an artist (not Artist) as some hobbyist crafter who isn't truly passionate about art. Whereas an Artist is person showing exclusively in galleries, going to art events and living (perhaps cliche) art life. I don't think that is necessarily fair to separate the two, in both cases they are passionate and make art.
* We make art as a way to express ourselves in a way that other forms and material can't accomplish. We paint, draw, act, etc in a way that allows us to express an emotion, desire, passion, or dream that we want to share and experience with others.
* I assess art based off if it gets a response out of me, particularly if I find an interesting narative or story to the image, whether or not I like the image. I always find myself being drawn more to the images that hold a story for me, with interesting or pleasing aethics to enhance that experince. If I'm bored with it or get the point right away then it holds no interest, but if I want to keep coming back to it then there is obliviously something there for me to experience and engage with. If I can no longer engage with it, it is hard for me to enjoy it as art.