Art changes along with the times and explores different facets of reality. It is not just a recreation of physical reality. Contemporary artists most often can do a technique of realism and have studied drawing and color. They choose to take off from that to express what is going on in today's society.
Contemporary art is abstract, that is right. Of course, what is the point of taking three weeks to paint a realistic landscape when you can take a picture of it with a camera in just two seconds? Today's art is an evolution compared to before. We now have the technology to capture a realistic image within 2 seconds, but technology can't really create abstract images. A scribble can mean everything, just as much as a landscape. Perhaps the scribble is a metaphorical expression of the landscape, who knows. Today's art is interpretation.
I will admit, sometimes I see contemporary art and I don't get it but I know that the artist put some time and thought into. Sometimes, it can be really simple and while I may not get, there are people who enjoy it and think it's the best thing ever.
Say someone paints a sculpture of a foot gold. They spent time and effort and they poured their passion into it. That is the art. Art is passion. And love. Art is the beauty that we reflect into the world in any way that we feel fits because without art we are just boring robots who lack any motivation to live. Of course it is art.
There is no definition of 'art'. And a lot of contemporary artist, its not so much the actual piece of art that makes it 'art', its the concept behind it all (like Yoko Ono's work). Just as much thought and emotion, perhaps more, goes into temporary art as does 'classic' art.
Art is self-expression. Real art means creating something new, unique, original. The main goal of art pieces is to carry the message to the audience. Everyone is free to choose their own form of art. This world changes every day and it is no surprise that art changes with it.
As others pointed out, there's no real definition of art, and therefore there can be no limit as to what is considered art. Since it can be seen best as an expression or extension of human consciousness, to limit what is considered 'art' would be to limit the emotional range that is able to be expressed.
How do you define what is real art ? The reason I say yes is for me art is anything that gets a reaction , whether you like it or not is all a matter of personal choice.I have no right to tell anyone they are mistaken in there choice of Art , if you like something I don't so what ? It's all in the eye of the beholder.
There is no definition of real art that I know of. Probably because any attempt to define real art would implode on creation. Whose to say that Jeff Koontz or Banksy aren't just as challenging and essential to discovering our modern identity as representational artists who are upheld as "real?'
Contemporary art has gotten to the ridiculous point of where someone can simply forget their glasses on a bench in a gallery, and visitors will assume that it's art - apart of the exhibit. Clearly there's something wrong here. People's minds have become so bent to the concept of contemporary art that art has no value anymore. Especially if ANYTHING can be "art".
When you can make meaning out of everything and everything is art, then art itself loses meaning. I can literally take a shit on a canvas and cover it with my jizz and call it art, and it would be sold for fortunes, all I need to have is a good reputation of being an artist and some bullshit explanation.
Whilst abstract art may be pleasing to the eye, it requires little or no technical skill to produce it so, in my view, it is not "real" art as anyone can produce it.
Why people spend a fortune on coloured daubs that they could produce themselves is completely beyond me. It's a case of the emperor's new clothes.
Of course one's answer to this question will be based somewhat on their own definition of "art".
To me, it is complete nonsense to think that art can be "anything". Something that could be "anything" would be of no value and no interest. Is that how you would define art? Not me for sure. I think "art" has got to represent something unique and of value to humans. Then if I'm right about that assumption, it follows that by being "unique", it definitely can be discussed, compared, judged and so on.
Contemporary art is not art when it creates something:
-that requires no talent;
-that can be easily imitated;
-that nobody really wants to imitate anyway;
-that only has "shock value";
-that can only be justified as "art" through a lot of poetic and meaningless descriptions.
Art is difficult to define and explain, but most people know art when they see it. I know quite a few people who'd love to paint the Mona Lisa or hang it in their house, but I have yet to find someone who just can't wait to go back home for putting a table upside down hanging from the ceiling. How could that be?
There's been many psychological experiments about how people can't stop themselves from "following the crowd" to the point of agreeing even with lies (see Asch conformity experiment.) Maybe that can explain why people feel compelled to say that "anything" is art. When people start justifying their position in vague ways, saying that something can't be defined, can't be compared, can't be judged, that you are not an expert and do not "understand", I think it shows the real value of contemporary art.
Anyone can draw a some rectangles on a canvas and claim that it's art. Most of it isn't really creative either- that meaning that the messages portrayed are so vague, that is inferred that they either haven't really thought about some idea extensively or had the effort/skill to portray it. Besides that, I can't really appreciate most modern art- most, not all though.
It is not art at all. Art is thought to be something that refelects "beauty" and it is one of our best creations over the times, not only has it to surprise people, it has to be something really remarkable and almost unattainable, something to be admired. Nowadays, people who make contemporany art and claim that a piece of rubbish or a few scribbles are art are just lowering down our ideal of art and making it worse progressively. Maybe these creations could be called something else, or included in other fields of human activity but, heartily, it cannot be called ART.
It does not require skill, creativity, or talent. It only requires the material. Art is not only about creating something good. It is about creating beauty, about creating something that makes the viewer feel relieved and glad. It should have feelings and deep meanings. These days even a scribble is considered art! I personally can't see art unless I feel it and feel its beauty.
Contemporary 'art' is a horribly deteriorated form of what the world used to call 'art'.
When religion was thrown out the door by secular governments a few hundred years ago, 'beauty' became something that anyone could make, hence 'art' these days.
One of the things that are shoved down our throats at school is that "anyone can be an artist". This is a complete lie, as, for example, not anyone can be a mechanic, architect, or swimming coach. Everyone is different. We all have different strengths and weaknesses -- talents and failures. If you say that anyone can be an artist, you must also say that anyone can be anything. Now, you may be thinking, "What rubbish! People don't say that anyone can be a GOOD artist, they simply say that anyone can be an ARTIST!" Think about this, though. A lot of the art that is in galleries these days -- carefully selected -- is garbage and could be done by anyone, so why was that particular one chosen? Not anyone can paint like Da Vinci, Michelangelo, or Rembrandt. What they painted was art -- REAL art -- and they had skill. If anyone can do something, than that thing is not a skill. For example, if you can blink, or move your hand, that is not a skill, as anyone is capable of doing it.
People like myself are often criticized for our opinions on art. People say that we are 'arrogant' and 'narrow-minded'. The question we need to ask ourselves is this:
Which is more arrogant? Making a logical judgement based on proof and prior knowledge, or saying that is is impossible to judge and, instead, condemning those 'bad' people who believe that you can judge it?
People often tell us that we are wrong, simply because the professionals disagree with us, but this is a classic example of the argumentum ad verecundium fallacy, and is not even an argument.
The final truth of the matter is that you simply can't group together the Sistine Chapel, Mona Lisa, and other grand masterpieces to the works of people who make messes on canvases that anyone could make.
Finally, I feel sorry for those of you who have been brought up -- essentially brainwashed -- into believing that there is beauty to be seen in the miserable contemporary 'art' of today.
And to those who dislike contemporary 'art', I encourage you to help in the effort of reviving art as it used to be --art in its truest, most beautiful, form. Bring it back, and don't be afraid of those who oppose you -- the truth must always win, and the 'art' of today is just a trend, not a truth.
Go against the flow. Remember these famous words of Winston Churchill:
"Kites rise highest against the wind - not with it."