Question.

I got into this really interesting discussion with my friend last night about art. Yeah, yeah, I know what you’re thinking, but really! We were discussing the definition and if you can discern what art is by looking at it.
So, we found the subject to be excruciatingly relative, but whatever. It was fun.
So what is your definition of “art”?

Gracie
Gracie

Latest posts by Gracie (see all)

Comments (5)

  1. ifoughtpirahna

    I like to think that because of the fact that I am an art major, at some point during my education I jumped from being just like everyone else, into that other realm of understanding. Shouldn’t I be able to decipher the definition of art for you? Isn’t that what I’m going to school for? well.. who knows. My best guess is that the definition of art is the purposeful act of being creative.

    If you are jumping around and frolicking through a field wielding the communist manifesto in one hand and a pork chop in the other, and this were to be the way that you chose to animate your creative thoughts.. than it’s art. < -- Hopefully you documented this on an old Brown Box, and you have just been awarded your own one-woman show in New York, thanks to your out of the box attitude toward suitable traditional photography subjects. kudos to you.

    If nothing else, I have learned that art is whatever you make it. Of course, it doesn’t mean that it is always good, or “successful” art… but, it doesn’t mean it’s not art iether.

    freakin art! so tricky sometimes….

    Reply
    1. Gracie (Post author)

      That’s basically my thought! It was the case I was making last night anyhow… That’s great.
      If you feel like it, explain what you mean by “successful” art.

      Reply
      1. ifoughtpirahna

        hmmm… let me jibber jabber a bit here…

        There is no such thing as good, or bad art. It’s either successful, or unsuccessful. A successful piece of art gets an idea across, or a feeling, story, emotion, or whatever..

        take for instance the artist that everyone screams and whines about because they don’t think it’s art, Pollack. (you know who im talking about correct? okay good..) A lot of people really don’t like Pollack, or any abstract expressionist art because they look at it and think to themselves “This looks like something my 3 year old spilled on the carpet!” And in a way that’s true. But what makes Pollack’s paintings art, and the 3 year old’s nothing more than spilled juice, is the fact that Pollack’s piece had thought behind it. It was purposeful, he purposefully made a decision to break down the barriors of painting, by getting rid of his paint brush and subject matter. He pushed the idea that art was what you made it; because he planned to drip that paint, and because he tore down the stereotypes of what art could be, it therefore made his art real, it became successful. It was successful because they followed the basic principals of art(line, shape, color, etc.) And also because there was an idea behind it… art is purposful.. whether to be decorative(ala the art neauvo) or functional(ala post modernism) all art has purpose. The purpose to create the beautiful, to deconstruct the beautiful, or to redefine the beautiful. Successful art, is art that you can look at and go… “yep, he meant to do that, and he did it well.”

        Reply
        1. Gracie (Post author)

          Re: hmmm… let me jibber jabber a bit here…

          i love you! Man, I wish I had the discussion with you the other night. Last night I somehow got around to it with my housemate and he felt the same way as the last guy. But whatever. I still think it is fun to think about.

          Reply
  2. anacat

    My defintion

    any observable expression

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *