So what do people think about art? About individualism, "For Art's Sake," doing things for the aesthetic purposes only, and other things like that?

One thing that comes to mind is fashion. None of my friends, save for one or two, enjoy or understand high fashion. They think a lot of it is pointless and silly and only for the pretentious. I disagree. When they say that too many things on the run ways look ridiculous, that it's stupid things have such high price tags that the general public can't afford them. I counter that high fashion is in most cases, simply high art. It's another medium for an artist to work on, and that a lot of clothes in haute-couture isn't necessarily meant to be "wearable" in real life situations, but instead to showcase design, craftsmanship, and even sometimes a story. And the price tag is just like those on other art forms like sculpture or painting, or even the contrasts of mass production and craftsman's work: where a one dollar plate at Ikea costs an arm and a leg less compared to a Wedgwood plate.

I don't know, I've been thinking about things like that lately when people have been questioning art (especially my own) around me.

Fashion isn't art, it's rubbish. That's all I have to say on the matter.

The definition of art is too broad of a subject to justify as a category. There's art by form of painting, there's art by form of writing, there's art by way of science, there's art by way of mathematics, there's art by way of me hitting someone upside the head with a shoe. There's nothing outstandingly fantastic about any of these things, except for the shoe. I feel that this "high art" doesn't exist. Art is art. Plain and simple. No gradation, nor pattern. People attach names to it and make it out to be something special when, in fact, it's not. There's simply some lingering attachment which makes people feel as though something is superior to another.

As for how art is looked at, I feel as though it should be appreciated, but at the same time, I feel as though it shouldn't be revered. Take, for example, the Mona Lisa. Good painting, but at the same time I don't understand why people claim it to be such a pristine object that is to the point of it being precious to astronomical levels, especially since there's over nine million digital copies that make the painting timeless. Everyone understands that it's a good painting, but at the same time I don't feel that the original is all that important anymore. Bold statement? Yes. Realistic? I like to think so.


Also, do I think that art should be a justifiable cause for "breaking the norm". This sense of Individualism as you called it is just a simple form of rebellion and attempting to attract attention through adversity and abnormality. Nothing's gained outside of negative attention, which I honestly feel is a useless asset.


In short, Art is overrated.

Well M wrote most of what I was going to say but art is art. Like M said it should be appreciated but all the sterotype people wanna make art the light of the world and perserve it When really the pictures look like just slop slung on canvas or whatever mattieral. I would throw out all the retarded looking ones and replace them with better looking art.

In short, Art is overrated.
I'd "high art" is overrated, while "normal art" is underrated. Fashion shows being "high" art...
And just out of curiosity, do you think anything deserves the reverence the Mona Lisa gets?

Also, challenging the status quo isn't something to be looked down upon. It's how the world changes. We wouldn't grow very much if none of us thought for ourselves...

Fashion isn't art, it's rubbish. That's all I have to say on the matter.

Maybe if you took the time to look at some at some good shows and works, you might disagree. Take Alexander McQueen for example. (http://images.google.com/images?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=alexander%20mcqueen&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi)

I somehow disagree a bit with most of you. I don't think paintings should be revered, true, but when you have a good painting juxtaposed to an amazing painting, the amazing painting should be praised. It's not even a matter of "beauty in the beholder's eyes," for in many cases it boils down to realization, artistic revolutions, technique, craftsmanship, composition, and things which are tangible and arguable, which used to "grade" [sorry to say that] a painting.

I mean, it's just like why people praise specific songs of Chopin against songs of other composers, hail movies and television shows which saying others just aren't worth the time to watch, why people say one cook is just better than another.

I'll have quite a bit to say one this. Be prepared :D

Just looking at what people are writing now, it seems people have yet to read as many definitons of art to see even what dictionarys say what art is. We should pay more attention to those kinds of things, in my opinion. ;)

Some dimwitted words of wisdom from me.....ahem

Art all depends on your point of view I guess. Every person has their own opinions about everything. But I guess my point is....I hate hippies and Andy Warhol.

..hm.. let's see.. which mask to put on.. ah, the cynical one.

art? questioning yourself? searching for answers? indentity? creativity? all load of buuuuuuuuuullshit.

let's put it this way. a composition piece i spent six months on perfecting it to my desire got B-. another piece which out of my sloth i've chucked in a few nice generic chords and rhythms and have no originality of my own in it (composed in about 5 hrs) got an A+.

that's just music, but then whats the difference, a picture is a song is a poem is a statue.

art isn't about expressing yourself, its about finding some other dumbass who's going to like whatever trash you make, or changing the kind of trash you make to please the generic masses. or at least if you want some degree of success, that is.

Mozart, Beethoven, Lizst, Brahms etc etc all great composers - says the scholars and your teacher and your parents and so on, and maybe you. Yeah so what? I reckon they're dull. I don't think they were all great composers - or artists in our current context the way music was back then you were guaranteed success once you learned it properly. but that's just what I reckon, and hell of a lot more people disagree with me, so by definition they are great composers.

don't question art. question the commerce of art. your art doesn't mean jack shit if it doesn't sell (not just in a monetary way, someone has to appreciate it) and if it does sell, who gives a crap if it has no true artistic value?

..hm.. let's see.. which mask to put on.. ah, the cynical one.

art? questioning yourself? searching for answers? indentity? creativity? all load of buuuuuuuuuullshit.

let's put it this way. a composition piece i spent six months on perfecting it to my desire got B-. another piece which out of my sloth i've chucked in a few nice generic chords and rhythms and have no originality of my own in it (composed in about 5 hrs) got an A+.

that's just music, but then whats the difference, a picture is a song is a poem is a statue.

art isn't about expressing yourself, its about finding some other dumbass who's going to like whatever trash you make, or changing the kind of trash you make to please the generic masses. or at least if you want some degree of success, that is.

Mozart, Beethoven, Lizst, Brahms etc etc all great composers - says the scholars and your teacher and your parents and so on, and maybe you. Yeah so what? I reckon they're dull. I don't think they were all great composers - or artists in our current context the way music was back then you were guaranteed success once you learned it properly. but that's just what I reckon, and hell of a lot more people disagree with me, so by definition they are great composers.

don't question art. question the commerce of art. your art doesn't mean jack shit if it doesn't sell (not just in a monetary way, someone has to appreciate it) and if it does sell, who gives a crap if it has no true artistic value?

Did you just quote Frank Zappa, from his own autobiography, "The REAL Frank Zappa"? XD

I think art is all about emotion. Everyone'll have different opinions on different things. There are some pieces of music that stir my emotions. Picasso paintings don't really do all that much for me. But maybe they do for other people.

The problem lies with those elitist bastards who "like" art because they think it makes them seem high class and better than you or whatever. Like people who listen to crappy underground music and don't actually like it but listen to it anyway because they think they're cool for knowing about a band that know one else listens to. Or people who think John Cage's 4'33 is a masterpiece (just my belief I guess, but I think they're all sheep.)

So yeah, there's a good and bad side to it. I think enjoyment is okay, but there is a lot of bullshit that goes along with it too.

Well M wrote most of what I was going to say but art is art.

How can be defined/described something by using the same word?

Before you read, there is a very casual tone and use of words in this. Don't kill me if you see a curse word, or if I have a slightly (or highly) sarcastic tone. I hope at least one person even survives through this horrific piece of writing. And understand that I didn't even proofread it. Just fill in the blanks or trust your instinct on what I meant to say.~

You know, many people would probably think that I'm somebody who encourages the discussion of Art. Myself, I tend to ask many people (personally) about their views on art and what they consider art. Since this topic is not really, "What is Art to you" but more, "What is Art anyway!?" This topic goes in the endless loop of religion and politics, but at the same time it doesn't. You see, just as the mentioned topics, people are going to BELIEVE what they're going to believe (whatever it is) and you can never really come to UNDERSTANDING in a setting like this. Why? Forums have the mentality of expressing your opinions and proving yourself. It's not encouraged by anybody to try and change. It's bullshit, this topic is bullshit, and forums for "enlightenment" are pretty much bullshit. SO, you know what I'm going to do? Join in the fest of crap-throwing, and indulge in myself-- because I, like everyone else in this discussion, likes to feel that I am right and everyone should believe what I believe and if you don't, I'll come back with some SOMEWHAT TRUE and SENSIBLE reasoning why I am perfect and you're the misinformed douche. Shall we continue on the topic? *Ehem*

Now, every analytical statement needs a thesis. I absolutely hate writing thesis's because I feel so damn constrained and it leaves no room for elaboration. At least to me I feel that if I go off-topic for a measly second, someone will criticize and push me back into a freaking corner. So here's my frikkin' thesis. I feel that art is 100% in the eye of the beholder. I mean it. And that means anything can be art. I may not even consider an object, idea, or what-have-you a piece of art, but I am a firm believer that ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING can be art (in some way, shape or form).

So now I'll ask the question (and try to "prove" my thesis), what is Art? I know it's cliche to slide in quotations into analytical essays (at least at the beginning, where you need something to go off from) but I think it'll help a lot to get to an understanding. Here's what Wikipedia defines Art as,


Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music and literature. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics.

What does this mean? The first sentence tells us, simply, that Art is something which is either the outcome or the DELIBERATE creation something-- but that's not all-- this something must, in someway, appeal to the senses and emotions. Basically whatever that something is, it HAS TO APPEAL to SOMETHING'S senses or emotions.

So, let's say Bob here draws a picture of a tree viewing an open field. Bob thinks highly of this painting, and he feels that it is beautiful. Bob considers this painting of his a work of art. And by definition, since it appeals to his senses and feels its beauty then, according to Wikipedia, it's 100% artwork.

But that's not it! Bob calls a couple of friends of his to look at his painting and show off his new piece of artwork. Steve, Roy and Joe swing by at the same time. Steve, who enjoys many things in life and is easily pleased. He views the tall, firm tree and the swaying grass as very graceful, and feels somewhat moved by the painting. Steve is clearly stated in himself that it is Art. Roy may not feel that the painting is very pretty to him, as he loves the look and feel of the Impressionists and doesn't like anything to look photorealistic, Classical and detests the "Modern" movement. Roy, however a lover of the soft impressionistic look, is a diverse person and will consider the painting Art. Joe, on the other hand, is extremely grounded in that Art is only something that appeals to him. If it doesn't, it's a piece of shit then and he could care less about anything attached. He doesn't like the painting, and declares it not Art.

Bob asks his three friends, and they spoke their opinions and why (I am NOT going to say what they said, because if you're smart you've already read what they thought. Bite me, literary asses). Bob was pleased with the criticisms, and felt very good about what he had done. Bob is what we call someone who needs positive reformation in order to feel that what he makes is worthy of ANYTHING. Why do I say this? Well, I'll ask the question, why would he call his friends after he finished the painting SO they could tell them their opinions on it? Why couldn't have Bob called it art, and just showed it to people with the intention, "This is art! Come and look at my piece of beautiful artwork!!" You see, people would consider the guy loony, pretentious, and arrogant. People today don't like this, and would IMMEDIATELY, and I mean IMMEDIATELY be put off and probably think that his painting is a piece of absolute shit. What would I think? I could care less about HOW he said something and try to just look at the painting, because that's all that matters, really.

But I can't just stop there. I've only begun my opinion on this situation. Now comes the (careful now, I might go off-topic just a little bit) scenario where people like to have a background on a piece of something-work to appreciate it all the more. For some reason (and I'm victim to this too) when people learn about some intriguing story behind a something-work, we are convinced that it's so much better than what it is on it's own and how amazing and artistic it is. Why in the HELL does this happen? To tell you the truth, I think it's because we are human and are emotional beings. We're naturally compassionate and we like believe that there is a mysterium in the universe. I believe that, and I will not be changed to think otherwise.

So I'm going to close this up pretty soon, since I could ramble on and on and on about this mind-numbing (and believe me, it is) subject at matter. I must say, though, that we can think that something is complete junk and the next day find that the piece of junk is really something amazing. In my experience, I'll take John Cage's 4'33" (which somebody already mentioned. NO ONE SAW THAT COMING, DID THEY!?). So what's my story? I hated this piece, because everyone in the world thought that it was something revolutionary. And whenever I asked why I got two answers, "You wouldn't understand.." and "If you understand it's meaning, it becomes powerful.." This is what I did. I took a big DUMP on John Cage's lovely little three-movement composition for the piano. This is where the whole "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome comes into play in art. I am a person who believes that something must be understood before it can be proved or thought of as convincing (and for you atheists, this is why I am a faithful Christian. Oops, I voiced something about religion.. which is an evil OFF-TOPIC move of mine.. and something unwritten-illegal here.. anyway, moving on). No one gave me any reason to feel that the 4'33" is something worthy of attention, especially art. I found out, in time, that the 4'33" was more of a concept. I don think it should be as praised as it is by people, but it's more of a concept and showing people that music is all around us. It's not a piece you go to hear, but more of something you go to experience. Cage had in mind the sounds that you hear is the piece of music. This is why I am one of the few American's who can live one-day without my iPod, because I listen to everyday soundwaves that my little eardrums pick up. I call that music and it appeals to me-- I call everyday things Art and I'll tell everyone in the world that, because even the all-mighty (almost considered a god, by definition) WIKIPEDIA says so!

I think I've proved myself to myself, and hopefully I've at least showed others that art can be anything. But that wasn't really WHAT I wanted everyone to see. I wanted to get across that everything CAN be Art and that you should RESPECT someone's emotions and views about something beautiful. What would you TRULY think if somebody went off about something you felt so strongly about? I know that everytime somebody says, "Books are fucking DUMB and BORING AS HELL!" that a bookreader cringes and gets angry and maybe even shed a tear. And don't give me that bullshit comment that, "Oh, I don't care what people think!" because you know what that would make you? It wouldn't make you a freaking homosaipen. Everyone cares about what is important to them, and they want everyone else to show compassion and to show agreement to them too. Why do you think Bob called his friends? He NEEDED to know, more than he WANTED. And if he wasn't human, or just trying to be different and make himself even more CONFORMIST (in my viewpoints and beliefs) then he would have stated that his painting was a piece of Art and that he doesn't give a damn about what anyone else thinks. People, this is all this topic REALLY needs:

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

Respect that, respect others, and get over yourselves. Have a nice day.

Goodness gracious me!! Damn Mazeppa, how heavy is your head?
That made me think alot. Im not really smart.....(like you cant tell) but that gave me an idea about what the hell art is...thanks :o

I think Mazeppa has understood the concept of the topic and art better then all of us. Converted me to his dogmas hahaha

Maybe this topic should be closed? Seems like another religion topic, eek. Sorry.

And understand that I didn't even proofread it. Just fill in the blanks or trust your instinct on what I meant to say.

Was that in case I read it? Hahahahaha...

At least someone else here think art can be anything, hurray. I hope that can expand the vision of others.

Did you just quote Frank Zappa, from his own autobiography, "The REAL Frank Zappa"? XD

you telling me someone famous happens to agree with me? wow :mellow:

It was just fishy, because he wrote that exact same thing in his book. Unless it's one of those insane Deja Vu moments where I dreamt of reading it. XD