So what is art? (56K warning)

I came across an article about a graphite artist named Linda Huber. She's an extremely talented drawer that can make still life drawings and portraits of photo quality. Some examples for those who don't want to click the links:

No, there's not a person on earth that would say this doesn't take talent. However, there are a lot of people that would say that these are not works of art because they can simply be recreated from a photo. Others say that still life and portraits lack creativity and thus are not artistic.

On the flip side, there's Jackson Pollock. He's world famous for splashing paint on a canvas. Examples:

In a sense, you could say it's creative in that he found a new way of painting. However, I wouldn't say his ****is difficult. It doesn't take much tallent to dribble paint on a canvas.

Then there's arists like Escher who are both very creative and skilled in their craft. Example:

Clearly he didn't copy these from a still life. It took some talent to make those as well.

So what are your thoughts OT? Does art take talent, creativity, or both?

Jackson Pollock's work is fantastic. I've attempted to do a painting like that, and it is a lot harder than it looks.

Jackson Pollock's work is fantastic. I've attempted to do a painting like that, and it is a lot harder than it looks.

metroidfood

what about graffiti?

tc, post more cool pics

Disctionary.com states Art as being..."the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance."

So I guess if those pieces of...Errr...Art...have some sort of emotional meaning to them and they're expressing themselves, It's art. Do I consider it beautiful, or appealing? Absolutely not...But It's considered art nonetheless.

I would define art very broadly: it is the expression, in one way or another, of that which cannot be fully contained within an objective description; it is the conveying of that which cannot truly be told to another in full, but rather must be felt in an ineffable manner.

So in that sense, what matters is not so much what is created, but rather why it is created and what it both contains from the creator and imparts on the viewer, reader, or listener. Just about anything can be art, and at the same time, just about anything can also not be art.

I would define art very broadly: it is the expression, in one way or another, of that which cannot be fully contained within an objective description; it is the conveying of that which cannot truly be told to another in full, but rather must be felt in an ineffable manner.

So in that sense, what matters is not so much what is created, but rather why it is created and what it both contains from the creator and imparts on the viewer, reader, or listener. Just about anything can be art, and at the same time, just about anything can also not be art.

GabuEx

The drawing of the light bulb and glass are amazing! :o

Well in that sense it would take creativity to come up with and express that deeper meaning. Raw artistic talent can produce good looking objects, but if you're just copying something for the sake of copying, then that's not considered "art". cd_rom

I would agree with that. I would have a difficult time describing something as art that was simply copied from reality with no other purpose. Presidential portraits, for example, are most certainly not art.

I would say that art requires both creativity and talent, in fact: creativity to determine both what you want to express and how you want to express it, and talent to properly express it such that one who experiences the work feels that which is intended to be expressed.

I don't even care. Argueing the definition of "art" is distressing. I apply the word to things created with "art" in mind. So if a person calls their work "art", I too shall call it "art". I don't care if it's shallow or crap or whatever. I want words to have concrete definitions.

Either/or/both.

Firstly, I think there's a difference between "art" and "craft". The first person you showed is an excellent "craftsman/craftswoman", but some might not see her as an "artist". I'd personally disagree with them though.

Now, generally speaking, it's hard to be a good "artist" without also being at least a decent "craftsman". The Jackson Pollock stuff is stuff that I don't "get", and it looks like it needs a lot less "craftmanship", but that doesn't mean it's not art.

IMO for art to be really good is when you dont have to explain what the point of your creation is

EDIT: so it doesnt really require talent or creativity

Well the way I seeit I could draw a perfect rendition of a landscape and it wouldn't necessarily be 'art'. It's more of just a reprodution. Creativity is probably the defining factor of art; with technical tallent, emotional expression, and originality being other factors.alphamale1989

Thing is, when drawing that landscape, you WILL have to draw on originality or emotional expression.

If you're creating the landscape in your own head, you're going to draw on your knowledge of "good design", and you're probably going to be drawing a landscape in order to bring about a certain emotional reaction.

And if you just happened to park your ass in front of a mountain and then draw what you see, then that's a lot like taking a photograph. And as we all know, photography is art.

I like the first and third artist that you posted. Never really dug the canvas stuff. Not my taste. Not really eye candy or an illusion.

I prefer both talent and creativity. However if the first artist you posted was supposed to represent just talent alone, then I would take talent over creativity any day. The glass was just beautiful. :shock:

And if you just happened to park your ass in front of a mountain and then draw what you see, then that's a lot like taking a photograph. And as we all know, photography is art.

MrGeezer

Can be art. I would not accept the assertion that any photograph is necessarily art, however.

Art is one's interpertation of something. You don't need talent or creativity for that.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

And if you just happened to park your ass in front of a mountain and then draw what you see, then that's a lot like taking a photograph. And as we all know, photography is art.

GabuEx

Can be art. I would not accept the assertion that any photograph is necessarily art, however.

Well yeah, that's what I meant. I wouldn't accept the assertion that ANY medium necessarily results in "art", be it paintings, photography, sculpture, or sound.

What I simply meant was the the "reproductive" nature of photography doesn't preclude it from being art. Even though every photograph is basically just "reproducing" what already exists. And the same would necessarily apply to drawings or paintings, even if the "artist" was merely "reproducing" what he sees laid out in front of him.

The water and light bulb could fool anyone :o

That looks like a kid with some skills and a crayon did that, and was high. Awful.JigglyWiggly_

It sounds like you're largely talking about his "craft". I think there's enough here to stimulate thought.

Art is a image in your head that u want to make part of reality or it though that u may wish to express one feeling from photography to Moon in Space. That what Art is to me . It what is in you deep inside that creativety that you must share with the world.

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"]That looks like a kid with some skills and a crayon did that, and was high. Awful.MrGeezer

It sounds like you're largely talking about his "craft". I think there's enough here to stimulate thought.

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"] That looks like a kid with some skills and a crayon did that, and was high. Awful.8-Bitterness

I think that one misconception about criticism is that critics "don't know anything." This sort of misconception that critics are doing nothing more than giving their opinions.

Yes, any kind of criticism will be highly opinionated, but there's a lot more to criticism than that.

For example, one person could look at that art gallery scene, and say "that looks like a kid did it, it sucks". But that's not even addressing what IS there, or what ISN'T there.

Is it saying anything?

Why does everyone have mustaches?

Why is there a Salvador Dali painting on the wall?

Why does it look like a kid drew it?

In a work of art, there's stuff that's there, and there's stuff that isn't. Does the presence or absence of such a thing help the artist to say something? Or is it there (or not there) for absolutely no reason? Anyone is entitled to their opinions, but good CRITICISM is a lot more complicated than just giving an opinion. It begins with openmindedness, progresses to analysis, and then ends in a judgement based on a perceived value. But there's a process in getting to "this sucks", and it takes work. Of course, you might still arrive at the conclusion that a work of art sucks. But as a CRITIC, you sort of have to communicate all of this to your audience. In many ways, art criticism is sort of like a form of art in itself. It requires an understanding of art, and not everyone who understands art can effectively criticize it.

I would define art very broadly: it is the expression, in one way or another, of that which cannot be fully contained within an objective description; it is the conveying of that which cannot truly be told to another in full, but rather must be felt in an ineffable manner.

So in that sense, what matters is not so much what is created, but rather why it is created and what it both contains from the creator and imparts on the viewer, reader, or listener. Just about anything can be art, and at the same time, just about anything can also not be art.

GabuEx

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

And if you just happened to park your ass in front of a mountain and then draw what you see, then that's a lot like taking a photograph. And as we all know, photography is art.

MrGeezer

Can be art. I would not accept the assertion that any photograph is necessarily art, however.

Well yeah, that's what I meant. I wouldn't accept the assertion that ANY medium necessarily results in "art", be it paintings, photography, sculpture, or sound.

What I simply meant was the the "reproductive" nature of photography doesn't preclude it from being art. Even though every photograph is basically just "reproducing" what already exists. And the same would necessarily apply to drawings or paintings, even if the "artist" was merely "reproducing" what he sees laid out in front of him.

In that case, I think that we are basically in agreement.

I was an exhibition once in the Tate Modern where the main piece was a video. There was a naked man, who you can see from the knees up until the chin. He's wearing boxing gloves. He keeps punching himself in the face and occasionally grabbing a bottle of hot sauce and pouring it onto his chest and you know what.

So yeah. This guy was very talented.

what about graffiti?

nelson415

The first drawing tricked me. I thought it was the BS art where you take a dump and stick a fork in it and call yourself a mad genius. But no no that is just an insanely realistic drawing. Wowza.

I don't know. I've thought about it a lot, but no cigar. Maybe someday.

OHH The art of it all!!!

Art invokes emotion.

You don't need talent to make art.

The thing is art is a way of expressing different emotions which is creativity.

on the other hand art is away of showing talent by recreating certain things on canvas.

Or a combination of both as with the stairs painting.

It actually matters to you if you want to impress yourself (creativity) or impress others(talent)

Thats my take on ART and i LOVE IT!

Everything can be art, to me, art has no rules or boundaries. If it had it would be boring and limited.

I knew a guy in college who could draw just like that (I went to art school). It takes a lot of time, and people tend to think it's all in the shading, but it's not. It's about knowing where to keep darkening lines to the point where it's sheer black, and where to make them extremely subtle, and exactlyhow light or dark tobest represent realism. This is harder than shading.

Edit-

Also known as "rendering".