What is Art?

[2010kaiser]

My opinions on this topic are varied. I do believe it's "in the eye of the beholder".
I hate "art critics/experts" for one simple reason: They didn't conceive nor give birth to what their critiq-ing on (so in my mind, their full of shit).

And as for the experts on the masters; when i listen or read about them dissecting sculpture, the written word, painting or any other form of "art" from (usually) 100's of years ago i think to myself:
"jack of all trades and master of none".

To say "this iswhat Da Vinci, Monet, Constable etc was thinking, expressing etc when he done this piece is just an opinion (Shit). Their like AssHoles, we all have them!!

That's just my 10 cents worth

[bob5695]

art is anything and everything that was/is made with the sole purpose of being unique and having no function and no purpose other than beauty.

[2010kaiser]

art is anything and everything that was/is made with the sole purpose of being unique and having no function and no purpose other than beauty.

EDIT FOR ME :

art is anything and everything that was/is made with the sole purpose of being unique and having no function and no purpose other than beauty what's beautiful through the eyes of it's creator.

[bob5695]

i just realized the sentence i've posted is senseless and self-contradictory. but since it was already quoted, i won't fix it.

however, and for the record, what i meant was:
"art is anything and everything that was/is made with the purpose of being unique and beautiful, and having no function."

[Aish]

Kaiser, I had a discussion not long ago that precisely mirrored what you just stated - 'experts' giving the supposed law on how to take a poem or passage of literature or painting irk me to no end. To me part of what makes any creation magnificent is the gift of a stranger finding something in it that tugs them from a deeply hidden spot of their psyche or reveals a whispered bit of truth. Biblical passages in this context are the same - any person claiming to know exactly how/what/why the visions of Revelation mean immediately get my disgust.

[heslopian]

Just because a critic might not be an artist himself doesn't make his opinions less valid. To loathe all critics simply because they express opinions about things they didn't create seems strange. Does that mean nobody has the right to express how they feel about the world around them? Do I have no right to criticise a poorly made meal in a restaurant because I didn't cook it (even though I'm paying for it)? Returning to art, everyone who's posted here has criticised a portion of culture. I've just finished writing a comment about Harry Potter and Star Wars in which I pass judgement on them and their creators, the same as commenters before me have. The only difference between critics and regular consumers is that the former are paid to share their opinions. And, sure, they're just that: opinions. But that doesn't make them worthless. The best critics spend a lifetime improving their knowledge of literature, music, film, whatever. And that knowledge means they can exercise quality control, something without which art would be meaningless. I've learned a great deal from the art critic Sister Wendy, for instance. Her documentaries have given me an appreciation and love of the visual arts which I didn't have before. Here she is discussing great works in Rome:

To answer this thread's nominal question, my favourite definition of art thus far comes from wikipedia: "Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect."
Bob's definition is also excellent.

[Mark]

I'd have to agree with Jack.(with a slightly different angle)

Critics are certainly not popular folks- not intended to be. Their entire job is picking apart art that was created(usually) through tireless effort on the part of the artist. This is not going to win any popularity contests, but in my opinion it is a necessary function.

Sure, artists could critique each other, but how fair would that be? Or public opinion could be enough, but the we get back to the 'Pop Culture' problem. The masses generally wouldn't know art from a hole in the ground. That in itself brings a question to my mind:

If general consensus calls it art, does that make it art? If the public think Goosebumps are the greatest books ever written, does that make it so? What is public opinion to an artist? Some would say 'everything' and others 'nothing.'

As a musician and songwriter, I have had mixed reviews from the low-level critics I've encountered. There was a guy in Nashville who told me all my songs were trite and shallow and that I shouldn't be singing at all. Then there was a local radio host who played a couple of my songs and had me on the show. He said I was a genius and that my songs 'touched him on so many levels.' Honestly, I didn't pay either any attention.

Going back to the Kaiser edited, Bob quote- it's about the artist and the art, not the perception of art.

One more thing: reviews and criticism can be difficult to accept and flattery can be hard to cope with as well. I treat critique from listeners/viewers/patrons like I treat flattery/criticism from women I date/bed: I ignore it for the most part.

I think the most important thing here is expression. If others think your expression is wonderful and tout it as a classic piece of art then that is definitely a plus, but it's just as definitely not necessary. All that matters is the beholder's eye and the artist's heart.

[billy]

My opinions on this topic are varied. I do believe it's "in the eye of the beholder".
I hate "art critics/experts" for one simple reason: They didn't conceive nor give birth to what their critiq-ing on (so in my mind, their full of shit).

And as for the experts on the masters; when i listen or read about them dissecting sculpture, the written word, painting or any other form of "art" from (usually) 100's of years ago i think to myself:
"jack of all trades and master of none".

To say "this iswhat Da Vinci, Monet, Constable etc was thinking, expressing etc when he done this piece is just an opinion (Shit). Their like AssHoles, we all have them!!

That's just my 10 cents worth

my 3 cents...how can you condemn art critics after asking everyone
"what is art"
of course you believing in 'the beauty is in the eye of the beholder theory'
doesn't allow a critic the same privilege does it? wait a gosh darned minute!
in fact it does doesn't it. because the beholder includes them doesn't it?
as for them 'not conceive nor give birth to what their critiq-ing on' neither did anyone else, cept the artist. yet we all have our opinions or behold our own beauty don't we. the only difference is that the critic may voice his opin publicly while we just think "what a load of shite"

[srijantje]

art is everything that is made creatively

[sporkium]

art is what everything is, but what no one can agree on... and as such; purely subjective.

art can be the conveyance, conception or conclusion of thought, feeling, design, technology, inspiration, war, purpose... even delusion - but above all - obsession.

art is communication.

art is a declaration.

art - to me - is defiance with intent ridden designer concepts meant to shake your head while hoisting up a black flag and cracking skulls with a twenty pound sledge named 'marge.'