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?
|
Marfa2107
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 11 Jul 2007 Posts: 1552 Location: Galena, Kansas United States
Posted: 07-27-07 10:06am
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...
|
sillyakchick
Moderator
Joined: 12 Apr 2007 Posts: 2688
Thanks: 5
Thanked:0
Posted: 07-27-07 10:25am
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.
|
kaerbear
Most Diplomatic Poster
Joined: 10 Apr 2007 Posts: 1557 Location: ,
Posted: 07-27-07 10:28am
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.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 07-27-07 17:54pm
I'm just not going to get into this XD.
|
benc152
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Aug 2007 Posts: 225 Location: , Australia
Posted: 08-20-07 03:05am
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.
|
Crazeh_Sunshine
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Jul 2007 Posts: 18 Location: Florida, USA
Posted: 09-05-07 17:59pm
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.
