What is art?

I think art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions; in its broadest sense.

Note I didn't say pleasent arrangment, I said one that appeals to the senses. There is a distinction between decoration and making art, design isn't called art for that reason.

Duchamp proved that art can be anything that the artist intends.

That's just my opinion, what do other people think?

i think a piece of art is something that conveys a feeling or emotions

or just something awesome

Originally Posted by Yosemite

i think a piece of art is something that conveys a feeling or emotions

or just something awesome

Conveying is a bit off, I think. A narrative conveys, a urinal on its side with R.Mutt written on it doesn't convey anything in particular; it does however appeal to a sense of indescency or curiosity perhaps. While you are correct that art can and does convey feelings and emotions not all art does.

Would you disagree?

Originally Posted by Arch-hereticK

Conveying is a bit off, I think. A narrative conveys, a urinal on its side with R.Mutt written on it doesn't convey anything in particular; it does however appeal to a sense of indescency or curiosity perhaps. While you are correct that art can and does convey feelings and emotions not all art does.

Would you disagree?

yes, some pieces of art are awesome but they dont convey anything specific, just something "hahaha oh wow"

Jesus, 80.000 dollars for a can of poop...
this is probably one of the few issues I will agree with whatever Monarchist's opinion is

Originally Posted by Pallantides

Jesus, 80.000 dollars for a can of poop...
this is probably one of the few issues I will agree with whatever Monarchist's opinion is

Do you mean Winter Light's opinion or Monarchism's?

What have you got against the myth of value being taken advantage of by a financial and artistic elite?

I'd agree it's the intent that makes art. A photograph of a flower can be either art or just a document depending on the intent. But then again I feel there should be something besides the "artist" proclaiming whatever hes doing as "art". And then I get the feeling that not all art was intended as such.
Well to be honest, I have no idea.

Art is subjective.

Originally Posted by Hakkapeliitta

I'd agree it's the intent that makes art. A photograph of a flower can be either art or just a document depending on the intent. But then again I feel there should be something besides the "artist" proclaiming whatever hes doing as "art". And then I get the feeling that not all art was intended as such.
Well to be honest, I have no idea.

I think there is more than a mere proclamation by the artist. It has to be accepted by some sort of concensus by a cultural elite at some point in time for it to be truly designated art.

There are chancers out there who really don't know what they're doing, but they are easy to spot if you know where to look, and they are very rarely in any way successful.

Originally Posted by Arch-hereticK

I think there is more than a mere proclamation by the artist. It has to be accepted by some sort of concensus by a cultural elite at some point in time for it to be truly designated art.

There are chancers out there who really don't know what they're doing, but they are easy to spot if you know where to look, and they are very rarely in any way successful.

But if the only way for something to be called art is for a group of old men who don't know their arse from their elbow to say so, then can we really trust that the word "Art" is ever gonna be the right word? Maybe "Sensationalist bull " would be a better label?

Originally Posted by Leeham991

But if the only way for something to be called art is for a group of old men who don't know their arse from their elbow to say so, then can we really trust that the word "Art" is ever gonna be the right word? Maybe "Sensationalist bull " would be a better label?

For it to be sensationalist it'd have to have a populist agenda. I'd argue it's the exact opposite; it's decided by the experts in each respective field. In a similar fashion that science is agreed upon, or medicine. An individual's taste has nothing to do with art in the slightest.

i think that some stuff that is called art shouldn't be called art.

Art: emotions, feelings and thoughts translated into senses.

For me, art should tell a story within a single frame.

An excuse for people to wear berets, go and live on secluded islands, and get paid for doing something you can do fifty times better and a hundred thousand times faster with a camera or computer.

Originally Posted by Arch-hereticK

For it to be sensationalist it'd have to have a populist agenda. I'd argue it's the exact opposite; it's decided by the experts in each respective field. In a similar fashion that science is agreed upon, or medicine. An individual's taste has nothing to do with art in the slightest.

Then it's just "Bull " and not sensationalist? Well thats a matter of opinion. It's either one or the other at least. Exactly the reason I quit art school. I want to stay an artist, not an overpaid talentless dick head.

Originally Posted by Copperknickers

An excuse for people to wear berets, go and live on secluded islands, and get paid for doing something you can do fifty times better and a hundred thousand times faster with a camera or computer.

Haha! You'd think that, but most artists don't even make pictures, they make splats.

Originally Posted by Leeham991

Then it's just "Bull " and not sensationalist? Well thats a matter of opinion. It's either one or the other at least. Exactly the reason I quit art school. I want to stay an artist, not an overpaid talentless dick head.

Of course it can be bull , there's no rule against it, infact a literal pile of bull has a far greater profound signifigance than a photograph of the most beautiful sunset or a painting of an unknown woman that no-one can tell if she is smiling or not.

Art can't be sensationalist as it exists outside popular culture, once it enters into the public acceptance it's just entertainment and has lost all meaning.

Originally Posted by Arch-hereticK

Of course it can be bull , there's no rule against it, infact a literal pile of bull has a far greater profound signifigance than a photograph of the most beautiful sunset or a painting of an unknown woman that no-one can tell if she is smiling or not.

Art can't be sensationalist as it exists outside popular culture, once it enters into the public acceptance it's just entertainment and has lost all meaning.

BAH

Entertainment is the meaning of life.

Originally Posted by Leeham991

BAH

Entertainment is the meaning of life.

How marvelously cynical.

Originally Posted by Copperknickers II

An excuse for people to wear berets, go and live on secluded islands, and get paid for doing something you can do fifty times better and a hundred thousand times faster with a camera or computer.

You think doing it on a computer makes it better?