- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
what is art?
- Thread starter CatParty
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2015
The worst part is, given how subjective art is, this is not wrong.
Last edited:
The Demon
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2017
- Joined
- May 27, 2017
Art is way more than just slapping a brush onto paper. They created graphics to a website, the sound that you hear when there's an error on your computer, the silverware you hold when eating food, the buildings you're surrounded by... all of those were created by artists, whether or not they see themselves as one. Art is simply a skill, no matter how good or bad it is.
Art is when a combination of molecules come together and the invisible spirits declare it to be a "thing" that emotions can flourish off of by someone or something happening during that time existence of it being there.
I mean art is just an invention from a creative background.
I mean art is just an invention from a creative background.
Puppet Pal Clem
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2016
Art is the abstraction of communication.
It is the broadest interpretation of understanding as a result of observation.
This upsets people because it means anything and everything is art in some sense, but that doesn't mean it's good art.
This upsets people further because they think art is subjective and that you can't reliably identify good vs bad art.
Good art is that which communicates effectively.
In the same sense art is the novel pursuit of objectivity or truth.
If you communicate effectively, there is objective understanding between people.
A painting of a sad scene, may make its author sad, but a good painting of a sad scene should communicate that abstract emotion to its audience.
In that way it has communicated some profound abstract truth beyond its physical composition.
This is a major hurdle for burgeoning artists to understand.
That it isn't necessarily the content of their product that represents their art, but how they express that content.
The construction of the plot of story is an art independent of the actual storytelling in putting it to page.
The powerful direction of a movie scene, doesn't come solely from the narrative context of the characters, but in staging and composition of the visual frame that they sit in.
A joke is not the punchline, but its delivery.
There's an Alan Moore quote or something, and it's probably bullshit but I think still truthfully and effectively illustrates an important aspect of "art".
Something like how in Sanskrit or some other primitive human language there is one singular word encompassing three distinctive concepts which in modern language have their own names: art, magic, and storytelling.
That art is magical or obscure in nature, one doesn't have to understand how it communicates for it communicate, distinguishing the consciousness from the unconscious, it may speak to a deeper part of you, and often times is more effective in doing so (see: Jung).
In the pursuit of objectivity we've created sciences and maths which are indeed mediums of art, but they have largely lost a lot of novelty.
They can encompass and reflect simple and powerful low-level objective truths, but there is more to truth than just physical attribution.
There are higher order or more abstract forms of truth, that are created from sentient perspective.
How to be a good person, how to frame cause and effect, how to rear a child, etc. which don't have simple answers but none the less have more correct solutions.
Art is the abstraction of communication.
It is the broadest interpretation of understanding as a result of observation.
This upsets people because it means anything and everything is art in some sense, but that doesn't mean it's good art.
This upsets people further because they think art is subjective and that you can't reliably identify good vs bad art.
Good art is that which communicates effectively.
In the same sense art is the novel pursuit of objectivity or truth.
If you communicate effectively, there is objective understanding between people.
A painting of a sad scene, may make its author sad, but a good painting of a sad scene should communicate that abstract emotion to its audience.
In that way it has communicated some profound abstract truth beyond its physical composition.
This is a major hurdle for burgeoning artists to understand.
That it isn't necessarily the content of their product that represents their art, but how they express that content.
The construction of the plot of story is an art independent of the actual storytelling in putting it to page.
The powerful direction of a movie scene, doesn't come solely from the narrative context of the characters, but in staging and composition of the visual frame that they sit in.
A joke is not the punchline, but its delivery.
There's an Alan Moore quote or something, and it's probably bullshit but I think still truthfully and effectively illustrates an important aspect of "art".
Something like how in Sanskrit or some other primitive human language there is one singular word encompassing three distinctive concepts which in modern language have their own names: art, magic, and storytelling.
That art is magical or obscure in nature, one doesn't have to understand how it communicates for it communicate, distinguishing the consciousness from the unconscious, it may speak to a deeper part of you, and often times is more effective in doing so (see: Jung).
In the pursuit of objectivity we've created sciences and maths which are indeed mediums of art, but they have largely lost a lot of novelty.
They can encompass and reflect simple and powerful low-level objective truths, but there is more to truth than just physical attribution.
There are higher order or more abstract forms of truth, that are created from sentient perspective.
How to be a good person, how to frame cause and effect, how to rear a child, etc. which don't have simple answers but none the less have more correct solutions.
Art is the abstraction of communication.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Did the art make me feel like I just got raped? Then it was shitty art.
Did it make me feel like it actually did me a favor while the art cock jizzed inside me and made me as full of joy as I was full of art cum?
Then it was good art.
Did it make me feel like it actually did me a favor while the art cock jizzed inside me and made me as full of joy as I was full of art cum?
Then it was good art.
Puppet Pal Clem
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2016
Jokes aside, more abstract than that too.
If the rape was more effectively communicated than the buttsex then the rape was the better art.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2016
jewelry investor
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2017
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
daddyfrieza
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2018
Expression + refined craftsmanship = art
Whether it's performing or visual
Whether it's performing or visual
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2016
Art is entirely, truly subjective. There's no such thing as good or bad art because it's completely subjective, creation of a singular mind, the something from nothing, even if it's "bad" or poorly executed. It's not like math where there is a wrong and right answer. You could literally shit in a sock and hammer it to a slab of drywall and that's art. You can spend fifty hours painting a picture that someone shrugs at in a museum. At the end of the day, art is only as valuable as the person who's willing to pay for it, and only as good as the person who likes looking at it. There's no rules and it's a simple as that. Shit in a sock or paint a Mona Lisa... it's all the same.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2018
Art is anything man-made for the express purpose of inciting emotions or as a form of self-expression and display of specialized skill. Then there is art within art, where it actually pulls off what it's attempting to do with competence.
It's similar to the definition of food (from a human's standpoint): Food is anything that can be consumed and give nutrients to the entity consuming it. There is "good" food [insert your favorite food here] and then there is "bad" food [things that are technically edible but...why? Like boiling leather or books to get the animal-derived glue to use as soup. No one would eat that as their first choice. It's always out of desperation.]
It's similar to the definition of food (from a human's standpoint): Food is anything that can be consumed and give nutrients to the entity consuming it. There is "good" food [insert your favorite food here] and then there is "bad" food [things that are technically edible but...why? Like boiling leather or books to get the animal-derived glue to use as soup. No one would eat that as their first choice. It's always out of desperation.]
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2017
Art is pretentious shit you can either hang on a wall or display for other fgts when they visit your home.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2015
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2015
Art is posting a short sentence or sentence fragment in Deep Thoughts that provokes a deep thought in and of itself.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2015
This is a great question and debate. For the longest time I always felt art was something, that had no use aside being pleasing or expressive. For example a Ferrari may be pretty but it's not art since you can drive it.
But as of late I started to think the great artists knew they invoked a lot. We all have heard stories of how art effects life. Say, John Lennon, knew a song would effect people.. is it art? Because it has a use, you heard that song and were ready to enroll in college, quit your job, ask your girl to wed etc. It's a motivator, so is it still art?
Now I clearly picked a big name for ease, but think the little niche people like and how deep that can be.. is it art anymore?
I love this question and re ask myself it and thank you all for posting here it's just a fun debate.
But as of late I started to think the great artists knew they invoked a lot. We all have heard stories of how art effects life. Say, John Lennon, knew a song would effect people.. is it art? Because it has a use, you heard that song and were ready to enroll in college, quit your job, ask your girl to wed etc. It's a motivator, so is it still art?
Now I clearly picked a big name for ease, but think the little niche people like and how deep that can be.. is it art anymore?
I love this question and re ask myself it and thank you all for posting here it's just a fun debate.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2016
Art doesn't mecessarily have to be something with no other pupose than to evoke a thought in the viewer. Take blacksmithing, for example. I've learned through experience that there's an art to forging metal (an art that I am terrible at.) Sure, they could just rush through and pound out a bunch of nails and that's not art as much as it is just a trade, but there's also forging for quality. A very well-made knife won't evoke many emotions in whoever uses it except maybe that they're using a quality tool, and the smith who made it probably didn't poor their heart out into making it. Yet, it represents a lot more than the simple trade of producing cutting tools.
player#21498112
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2021
art to me is an individuals attempt to express parts of their being that i find to be sophisticated and relevant in context to the standard expression of the average human.