I'm writing a paper for an Advanced English class on the definition of art. It's very hard to write and if you can help me out please post.
Things that would help are any quotes from OSC books that seem like they are a work of Art. But OSC literature is not the only works of Art I could use, if you know anything that would be useful (like R. Mutt's Fountain) or have any personal opions I would greatly appriciate them. By the way this is for an English class, the only experience I've had with art is Band Class.
Thanks,
Griffin
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
a healthy combination of imagination, vision, and creativity.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
A creation of the human mind.
Posted by Tater (Member # 7035) on :
This is art. Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Art is humanity at its purest. To find a new use for an old cliché, I know it when I see it.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
How is this?
Art brings people into the presence of that which they revere, thereby disclosing the law.
Everything else that is based on stimulation = pornography.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Art is that which uplifts the human soul.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Something fashioned by one or more humans for the pleasure, as well as convenience, of the user. Art can exist anywhere on the sliding scale between pure utility and pure entertainment. What makes it art is that it is human-made and that some element of the making was included for pleasure alone.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
So Friends is art? Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Someone other than the creator appreciates it.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
He's not saying it's good art, Porter....
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Something fashioned by one or more humans for the pleasure, as well as convenience, of the user. Art can exist anywhere on the sliding scale between pure utility and pure entertainment. What makes it art is that it is human-made and that some element of the making was included for pleasure alone.
If it's about utility and pleasure, we are going to have to disagree. Art about utility and pleasure signals the beginning of the end of art: decadence.
Antigone and Bach's mass in B minor are works that put a people in the presence of their God, or at least a hero attaining divinity, thereby forming the people's world. That's art.
Portabello,
Friends is entertainment, an arrangement of stimulants. Food is a good example. satyr = Art; ice cream = entertainment. Movies and Newspapers = entertainment(Yeah, I'm beginning to see newspapers as a form of pornography); Theater(properly conceived as the place where a people come to be in the presence of the Theos, or Gods) = Art.
[ May 12, 2005, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Ryoko (Member # 4947) on :
Art exists as at least 2 distinct entities:
1. Art is an expression of the intent of its creator.
2. Art is the perception of the creator's intent by its audience.
Fundamentally, all Art tries to communicate something.
For example, in music, you could have at least 3 entities:
1. the expression of the composer 2. the interpretation and personal expression of the composer's intent by the performer 3. the perception of the performance by the audience, which is colored by each individual's experience.
What is interesting is that while the composer could consider his work to be junk, the performer could think it is a bunch of schlock, but the audience could perceive it as a sublime performance. Or, the reverse could be true. (and often is)
I think that as long as SOMEONE is having a valuable experience, then mission accomplished. Posted by Griffin (Member # 7166) on :
Art is an original expression that's constructive for humanity.
ART: those lines, and that object, within the trespasses of the artistist's passionate inquirey, whether it be those of the minds of others, or the artitist's own subconscious, illusrates either:
1. a disconnect - to be healed (i.e. "fixed")
OR
2. a fountainhead - to be rallied around.
to the satisfaction of either 1, or 2.
(and repeat)
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
*laughs*
Would this be why my father always made disparaging comments about the contemporary view that great pain produced great art?
Come to think of it, there was just a segment on NPR this past week about people unhappy with the prospect of doing away with depression and other mental illnesses lest the lack of said disease prevent works of great art from being created . . .
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
no.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Friends is art, absolutely - and at the art of sitcom comedy, it was a masterpiece. I hate it when "art" or "literature" are used as value judgments - "That's not LITERATURE, that's just trash" or "that's not art, that's hackwork." Art is art; some good, some bad. But when you ask for a definition of art, it's a lot more productive to find a definition that fits all the plausible examples, and then start dividing it into good and bad, rather than finding a definition that only includes the good. Then the definition will be VERY long and complicated.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I don't know if I'd grant it, but a local art prof distinguished good art from bad art thus: bad art, if you enjoy it, you just liked the subject matter. Good art is enjoyed for the way it's done, too.
Subject matter for visual art would be what it's of; for writing, what it's about; and for music, I think, would be the tune.
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
thanks
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
[edit] This was off topic, so I cut it.
[ May 24, 2005, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: Exploding Monkey ]
Posted by Ramdac99 (Member # 7264) on :
c,mon people "purposiveness without purpose", art must attempt to foment social change. the statement a piece makes has nothing to do with what was intended by the artist. The meaning is in the art and is brought out by the viewer.
Posted by Steev (Member # 6805) on :
So what every one is essentially getting at is that art is many different things to many different people.
Posted by socal_chic (Member # 7803) on :
I just finished an art history course and realized that although I didn't like some of what we studied, it was still considered art by someone, somewhere. So, I'd have to agree with the conclusion that the individual determines for themselves what they consider to be art.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
For a delightful read on "what is art" pick up the book by Tony Hendra entitled "Father Joe: The Man Who Saved My Soul" and look over pages 110-113.
Posted by Griffin (Member # 7166) on :
quote:Originally posted by Steev: So what every one is essentially getting at is that art is many different things to many different people.
This is only true if you're referring to good verses bad art, which is subjective.
Griffin Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
How about photography?
I really enjoy captured images as much as any other art form, but my wife and I argue on this topic. She claims "snapping a picture" is not creating anything, but I argue that the shooter is capturing a moment in a certain way that she or I might not have seen it. So the photographer is showing us the world from a different perspective much the same way a painter does.
Posted by Steev (Member # 6805) on :
quote:Originally posted by socal_chic: I just finished an art history course and realized that although I didn't like some of what we studied, it was still considered art by someone, somewhere. So, I'd have to agree with the conclusion that the individual determines for themselves what they consider to be art.
Unfortunately many people don't understand that or care. They fiercely evangelize their opinion to a level of customary intolerance on whether art is art or not let alone mention any qualitative measure.
Posted by Steev (Member # 6805) on :
quote:Originally posted by Griffin:
quote:Originally posted by Steev: So what every one is essentially getting at is that art is many different things to many different people.
This is only true if you're referring to good verses bad art, which is subjective.
No, it's not. One person may not consider art to be art. Now whether it is art or not is subjective. You can’t get to good vs bad until everyone agrees that it’s art in the first place.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
From Father Joe: The Man Who Saved My Soul by Tony Hendra. A brief recap of a conversation regarding art and artists and the world in which we live. The conversation is between teen-aged Tony wrestling with his delight in literature and art, but also his desire to become a monk. He is speaking to his mentor, Fr. Joe, a gentle and down-to-earth Catholic priest. pp112-113
quote:"What if the artist doesn't believe in God, or the Virgin, or even the idea of spiritual beauty?"
"I wonder whether that matters? If the result is beautiful. God is still the picture, the poem, and the song."
"So art is somehow redemptive?"
"It might be, dear, yes. What an interesting thought."
"The beauty created in the process of describing the world as it is rather than the way it ought to be, compensates for the evil and sin which are being described?"
"That's rather a harsh way of defining art, don't you think, dear? Artists are creators. The beauty they create did not exist until they rendered it. In a way, that's Godlike, isn't it? In that sense, art is an imitation of God."
"Wait-are you saying that God the creator sees artists as fellow creators?"
"I don't see why not, dear. Though it might be best not to repeat that to Father Prior . . ."
"I still don't get it. If God has already redeemed the world, what's the point of art doing it as well? Does God need art? Does God like art? Does art like God? Where does God fit into the artist's version of the world? Is art a rebuke to God? An escape from God? A substitute for God? Why are so many artists athiests or agnostics? . . ."
"Here's what really worries me. Could it be that the more saintly you become, the less you need art? And conversely that the less saintly you are, the better artist you can be? That would mean to write a great novel I'll have to get to know some really wicked people. If I want to write a decent sonnet, I'll have to have sex with someone . . . Why are you smiling like that, Fr. Joe? You look like the Mona Lisa."
"I just enjoy being with you, Tony dear."
Everyone needs a mentor to hear them out - especially when we grapple with the complex philosophical questions that inevitably trouble us, neh?
Really - the book is well-worth the read. Lot's of humor, lots of thought provoking things - including that eternal discussion around "what is art", "why art?", etc.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Art is what we make of it, whatever "it" happens to be when used to create.
Posted by Griffin (Member # 7166) on :
quote:Originally posted by Steev:
quote:Originally posted by Griffin:
quote:Originally posted by Steev: So what every one is essentially getting at is that art is many different things to many different people.
This is only true if you're referring to good verses bad art, which is subjective.
No, it's not. One person may not consider art to be art. Now whether it is art or not is subjective. You can’t get to good vs bad until everyone agrees that it’s art in the first place.
First off, sorry I'm picking on you Steev. You're not the only one who thinks art is subjective and not that good verse bad art is subjective. But let me ask you this. If Jack rapes Jill is this art because Jack considers rape to be art?
This isn't constructive for humanity because in the process of creating Jack's art he harmed Jill, a human being. But if Jack wrote a novel including rape in it, that novel would be art because the words didn't physically harm anyone in the process of writing. And yes, the reader has some freedom to choose the value from the novel.
quote:Originally posted by Griffin: First off, sorry I'm picking on you Steev. You're not the only one who thinks art is subjective and not that good verse bad art is subjective. But let me ask you this. If Jack rapes Jill is this art because Jack considers rape to be art?
No "Art is an original expression that's constructive for humanity."
This isn't constructive for humanity because in the process of creating Jack's art he harmed Jill, a human being. But if Jack wrote a novel including rape in it, that novel would be art because the words didn't physically harm anyone in the process of writing. And yes, the reader has some freedom to choose the value from the novel.
That is because you have already made a choice of what defines art. Jack doing physical harm to Jill is only art to Jack because he doesn’t use the same definition.
The depiction of harm to another person in a written or visual medium can be deemed as non-art if one feels that such things are not constructive for humanity as per your definition.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Art is a means of experiencing emotion without risk.
A Roller coaster that scares you, a book that makes you cry, an uplifting movie... All successful art.
As human beings we like emotion. Even bad emotions. But generally we don't like risk. We don't REALLY want to have our lives threatened, but we can FEEL it vicariously from the safety of our living rooms by watching an action movie. We don't REALLY want to watch a loved one die, but we FEEL it when a beloved character sacrifices herself in a novel.
Of course, more positive emotions are always welcome. Seeing the protangonist get her man and living happily ever after makes us feel better about our situations. Even if we already have what we want =)
Unsuccessful art is art that evokes no emotion other than bordom. Art of this type can be found locally here in the bay area at any museum. Look for bits of rusted metal welded together. It's a regional specialty.
Pix
Posted by filmstar (Member # 8115) on :
"If it's art, it's not for everyone. If it's for everyone, it isn't art."
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
Here is the cynical definition.
If they buy it, it is art.
Posted by Steev (Member # 6805) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Art is a means of experiencing emotion without risk.
A Roller coaster that scares you, a book that makes you cry, an uplifting movie... All successful art.
As human beings we like emotion. Even bad emotions. But generally we don't like risk. We don't REALLY want to have our lives threatened, but we can FEEL it vicariously from the safety of our living rooms by watching an action movie. We don't REALLY want to watch a loved one die, but we FEEL it when a beloved character sacrifices herself in a novel.
Of course, more positive emotions are always welcome. Seeing the protangonist get her man and living happily ever after makes us feel better about our situations. Even if we already have what we want =)
Unsuccessful art is art that evokes no emotion other than bordom. Art of this type can be found locally here in the bay area at any museum. Look for bits of rusted metal welded together. It's a regional specialty.
Pix
I have a friend that looks at the rusty metal welded together art and literally starts crying.
You're making qualitative judgments that are based on what your definition of art is not what it is for the rusty metal art lover.
Posted by Steev (Member # 6805) on :
quote:Originally posted by filmstar: "If it's art, it's not for everyone. If it's for everyone, it isn't art."
Interesting, did you quote yourself or someone else?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Steev, I was lightning my post with humor =)
Posted by Steev (Member # 6805) on :
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)