Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

What is the definiton of art?

fire_wings
Posts: 5,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 7:48:04 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Many disagreements on this, post what your definition of art is.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
missmozart
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 8:51:18 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/10/2016 7:48:04 PM, fire_wings wrote:
Many disagreements on this, post what your definition of art is.

Art is the expression of feelings through music, words, colours, dance, photography etc.
"Bonjour" -Feu

Diqiu: "Asian men are generally perceived as more feminine..."
Me: "Are you feminine?"
Diqiu: "Hey, no!"

"Do really really really good pens turn you on?" -Hayd

"bsh1's profile pic is what the snapchat filter would look like on steroids"- VOT

"let's keep it simple and traditional :D" -Biodome
Willows
Posts: 2,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2016 10:48:51 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/13/2016 8:51:18 PM, missmozart wrote:
At 6/10/2016 7:48:04 PM, fire_wings wrote:
Many disagreements on this, post what your definition of art is.

Art is the expression of feelings through music, words, colours, dance, photography etc.

Exactly, it also needs an intention by the creator to be presented as art to be judged and criticised by those who experience the result.
To this extent art is easily defined. It is the degree or quality of art that is infinitely controversial.
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 4:32:55 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/10/2016 7:48:04 PM, fire_wings wrote:
Many disagreements on this, post what your definition of art is.

It has changed over time.

Right now I guess I'd say that art is a means of sharing one person's experience of being with others.
jonnah.1
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2016 3:22:37 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/10/2016 7:48:04 PM, fire_wings wrote:
Many disagreements on this, post what your definition of art is.

I believe that art can be defined as any construction with intent that is observed.

A construction is something which is composed by the artist, the instigator, the thing that puts a piece of art into being. I say construction because, most art is in fact a construction, under one definition or another, under the premise that, a novel is a construction of text, the text being made up of words, and sometimes images; a sculpture is a construction that is self-evident; a painting is a construction of paint. What construction also implies are the different components and aspects of art, such as technique and craft, arrangement, and the elements and principles of art (such as line, pattern, etc.). To this extent, the construction is the "piece" which the whole idea of art centers around.

Intent is the supposed purpose of the construction. Say that we have a cake. A cake is formed from the art of cooking, and as such, the purpose of the cake might be made twofold: to be observed for it's aesthetic, and then to be eaten for taste. These are the two major components which compose the construction of the cake, and the intention is manifold in the inherent nature of the cake, as a piece of art that is food. The artist must acknowledge this. The artist may apply whatever other intention to the cake, but without the two components that define a cake, it is not /really/ a cake, but a sculpture of sorts. This is where the artistic categories come into play. All art is not equal, and as such, art cannot be viewed as one single thing with a singular definition, not really, unless we create the certain distinctions I'm attempting to lay out here.

Now, as for observance. This is the most subversive aspect of the proposed definition, for the reason that, it suggests that art does not exist if it is not acknowledged. To bring back our cake from the previous statement, while the intention is part of the construction, both of these aspects are deemed null if the cake is not "observed"--that is to say, eaten. In this way, part of the artistic construction of the cake is not only the qualifications of intent by the artist, but also the observer, the person who eats the cake--this may or not be the artist. The artist can still be an objective force in eating the cake, and there for observing it, as the artist might judge the cake based on the qualities he senses through having eaten the cake. This might apply to other pieces of art as well, such as paintings or films. An artist might construct a painting, it may fulfill intent, but until it is observed, it can't really be considered art, but possibly an arrangement of artistic elements. In film, this comes from the audience who watches the finished film, edited and produced and delivered.

In this way, with this proposed definition, I think we open the door to multiple interpretations of art, its advances, and the many possibilities of what art can be. It does not delineate expression because sometimes, art is not necessarily expressive. Should it be necessary, I could further my proposition. I want to note that I'm not attempting to be definitive, and I would like for discussion to ensue rather than a debate. Synthesis.
I think I think too much.