What is art?

[zigzag]

What is art? What makes art good? What distinguishes art from craft or pop or kitsch?

[Guest farnsbarns]

What is art? What makes art good? What distinguishes art from craft or pop or kitsch?

 

[fl00dsm0k3]

art is a expression of your imagination

[dbreslauer]

here's some Art:

 

Carney:

 

Garfunkel:

 

Shaw:

 

 

:D

 

have fun!

 

Don

[zigzag]

"Okay... art vs craft, "good" versus "not so good" art?

 

In a sense the quality of art is in the eye of the beholder. It's that simple to me. It has little to do with the specific degree of craftsmanship involved, but rather the connection with the watcher, listener, reader or viewer.

 

We must recognize too how art in ways connects best within a given era of time in a given culture. E.g., in music we have no real idea how music might have sounded to the ancient Greeks, but we do know that Orpheus, whether a reality or complete myth, was championed as a musician whose efforts charmed listeners. Would we care for whatever he did thousands of years ago? I really don't know.

 

OTOH, when one discusses art vs. craft I think we have the beginning of difficulty in that an exceptional craftsman may or may not craft good "art." But since "art" is in the eye of the beholder, we have always that question: Art or Craft?

 

Poet T.S. Eliot, for example, referred to Ezra Pound as the superior craftsman in poetry. I really question that myself, largely because I find "more" in Eliot's work.

As a guitarist and in other endeavors I frankly consider myself one whose only ability in life has been to develop decent degrees of skill as a craftsman, but one lacking talent to make that skill take the leap into "art." Others would suggest that merely the effort to create this or that with a good degree of craftsmanship and "heart" took those efforts into the realm of "art" beyond skill.

 

Again, that takes one into the realm of subjective analysis.

 

That's why I have a tendency to describe most of what I do as "industrial art," where craftsmanship is given a degree of primacy - and let the one who perceives such work make his or her own determination whether it is art, either "good" or "bad," in addition to their determination of the craftsmanship itself.

 

E.g., we might all agree that there is high craftsmanship in "shredding," but our argument then is whether it is "art" and, if art, whether it's "good" or "poor" art.

 

Frankly I think the question never truly will be answered on a given "piece" except within our own perception, conscious and subconscious analysis.

 

m "

I hope milod doesn't mind, but I moved this quote from another thread... an excellent and thoughtful answer to the question.

[zigzag]

Since many of us would like to consider ourselves musicians, and a musician is an artist, I thought that we might like to consider what makes a work of art "good." Many of you think that college is a waste of time, and maybe it is. And even though a lot of what I learned is useless, I still value what I learned. I took a philosophy of art course, and the entire semester was spent trying to answer this question- What is it about a work of art that determines its "goodness?" Anyone else care to play the game?

[Guest farnsbarns]

Zigzag, re Milo's quote...

 

A perfect, multifaceted expression of why art cannot be defined. An exploration into the perception of another is futile.

 

Aldous Huxely (roughly quoted from memory) wrote a fantastic passage on the impossiblity of sharing one's own perception with another...

 

We live together, react to and rely on one another, yet always, and in all circumstances, we are alone.

 

Entwined, the lovers attempt to combine their single extacies in to one transendance, but in vain.

 

Hand in hand, the martyrs enter the arena yet they are crucified alone.

 

Each man is an island universe.

 

Good old Aldous!

[zigzag]

You guys are good.

 

In floodsmoke's answer to 'what is art,' he defines it as a completely abstract concept, and I would submit that his answer only partially describes the character of art.

 

In trying to answer the question, I am hoping to assign a system of qualitative analysis to an abstract concept. To say that art cannot be defined may be true, but a piece of art can certainly be qualified and its value as a work of art analyzed. milod's response partially answers the question in that part of the character of art is technique. One aspect that distinguishes art from craft is that the essence of craft is technique. A good work of art must possess good technique, but a well crafted piece may not necessarily be considered a good work of art.

 

milod also includes the concepts of historical/cultural significance. Certainly, an artist's work and his body of work must be evaluated relative to the time and cultural in which it is created. One of the things that makes Hendrix a good artist is that he was able to create a synthesis from artists' influences before him and make it his own, which also reflected and influenced the culture of which he was a part. He created a new relevance and point of departure for his art. He has his place in the lineage/history of rock and roll.

[MANNIC]

Zigzag, re Milo's quote...

 

A perfect, multifaceted expression of why art cannot be defined. An exploration into the perception of another is futile.

 

Aldous Huxely (roughly quoted from memory) wrote a fantastic passage on the impossiblity of sharing one's own perception with another...

 

We live together, react to and rely on one another, yet always, and in all circumstances, we are alone.

 

Entwined, the lovers attempt to combine their single extacies in to one transendance, but in vain.

 

Hand in hand, the martyrs enter the arena yet they are crucified alone.

 

Each man is an island universe.

 

Good old Aldous!

I was feeling a little bit down, but that's really cheered me up.

[retrosurfer1959]

It's like pornography - hard to define but you know it when you see it.

[zigzag]

To determine the goodness of a work of art, the listener or observer must consider the relevant interests concerning the work. Those interests are (in no particular order of importance):

1) Historical relevance

2) Cultural relevance

3) Technique

4) Aesthetic (Form)

5) Success in conveying spiritual, emotional, or intellectual message

[ShredAstaire]

Ziggy...i see where you're trying to take this and thats cool...but you can't intellectualize music, or art. At least I can't...maybe some of yous guys who went to college can ;)...

 

Art, for me, doesn't need to have ANY Historical or cultural relevance....the other points on your list I can agree to somewhat...but those things are in the eye/ear of the beholder. I think Jackson Pollock was full of ****...but his work is considered great... I get no spiritual, emotional or intellectual stimulation from his paintings...but they look pretty cool for the most part.

 

You say the listener MUST consider all of the interests you say below, but i say that is not the case for me. In terms of music...if it sounds good to me, its good music and I don't even think about the term art or how it should be applied. I think over analyzing music ruins it. Music should be enjoyed for what it is.

 

I am enjoying this discussion though as I am curious to what others think on the subject...

[retrosurfer1959]

Totally disagree ZigZag thats more of a textbook definition - Art is anything made to make someone feel something that you feel. Art is something you produce because you have no choice but to create it! Whether are not someone else finds it relevant means little to most artists. I work full time as an artist and i'm both blessed and happy that my work sells but I rarely think about what others will think or feel about a finished piece while I'm working on something. I have something to say when I create a piece of art, if it strikes a nerve with someone and they hear something when they see it then I was successful even if what they hear isn't what i was trying to say.

[retrosurfer1959]

Great art is hearing paintings and seeing music .

[ShredAstaire]

Like I said in my post earlier..when i hear/see something, I don't even think about whether to consider it art or not.

[The RandyMan]

Like I said in my post earlier..when i hear/see something, I don't even think about whether to consider it art or not.

 

I'm reminded of a comic strip I once saw that showed someone looking at a framed painting and remarking, "I may not know art, but I know what I like!" Seems to me, that's all that matters . . . .

 

 

 

[milod]

Ziggy...

 

I didn't mind you reusing a bit I wrote...

 

As for art too, I think it does have some degree of meaning in different times and places. E.g., Amerind art had an entirely different meaning to those who crafted different bits for different purposes.

 

I have personally some mixed emotions about technique and art, but I will add this: I believe that when one attempts to have one's life be something of an art, all he or she does should have a bit of meaning beyond those who simply live to be alive.

 

Too, I think each bit of useful matter, bits made to make life more attractive whether static or temporal, carries a bit of the craftsman with it.

 

What we take from such may be great or small, but it certainly makes our lives richer than were we simply to live in a world of cast plastics. And even that carries something of the designer.

 

m

[cookieman15061]

I took a philosophy of art course,

 

I never would have guessed.

[Guest farnsbarns]

Zig, I only just realized I posted that double face palm with a caption that wasn't what I though. I didn't intend to call you stupid. Sorry!

[zigzag]

Farns, it wasn't taken the wrong way. We're cool.

 

All, I am in no way trying to take anything away from art or the artist. I understand that the artist creates because he must. In an ideal world, an artist doesn't need or even care about critics or others' opinions of his work. I am simply trying to provide a means of assigning value to a work of art as a work of "Art". As cookieman said in another thread, all that is relevant is what he thinks of a work of art, when in fact, what he thinks of a work of art isn't relevant at all. All that matters to him is what he thinks, and that's cool.

 

Thanks for playing our game.

[cookieman15061]

As John Lennon once said avant-garde is french for bullshit.

[Notes_Norton]

What is art?

 

To paraphrase Louis Armstrong, "If you have to ask, don't mess with it."

 

I don't think anyone can draw the line between kitsch, art, and fine art. And I don't always agree with the critics and art teachers. For example I think Jackson Pollock's "art" is pure B.S. - to me it looks like the drop-cloth of a very busy house painter. Some of those "in the know" consider it great art. But I think what motivates a lot of those "in the know" is as much promotion as anything else.

 

I know that a symphony by Shostakovitch or Prokofiev is great art, but others don't understand them any more than I understand Polock's work.

 

So I know what I consider art, what I consider kitsch and what I consider pure B.S. and I don't care if the art critics of the world agree with me or not.

 

Insights and incites by Notes ♫

[zigzag]

As John Lennon once said avant-garde is french for bullshit.

 

As much as I respected John Lennon as an artist, I don' put a lot of credence in much of what he said. He didn't like jazz either. The fact is that he, himself, might have been described as avant-garde. As far as the avant-garde artist, "avant-garde" is a frame of mind and a lifestyle. An avant-garde artist doesn't describe himself that way.

 

Notes, are you familiar with Pollock's early stuff? If you are, you realize that the later stuff represents an evolution to a purer form of abstraction of his earlier ideas. As has been suggested earlier, you don't have to like it to appreciate its significance.

[charlie brown]

I may not know "art," but...I know what I like (and, don't like).

 

CB

[milod]

Hmmmmm...

 

Try this on: "Good art" is something crafted by human hands and is for use - looking at, watching, listening or using - that has a certain special feeling for the user.

 

The special relationship between some humans and their "things" is almost magical and, it appears to me, mythic regardless. The special relationship between certain people and their "things" is perhaps a good example of how something becomes more - or less - than intended by the craftsman.

 

A sword is perhaps as good an example as anything. A guitar, even if made largely by computerized equipment remains something crafted by man even if the tools include a degree of virtual hands-on creation.

 

Bad art? As with the good, it's in the eye of the beholder. I like this guitar more, that rifle more, that sword more... because they somehow become part of me even as my concept of a song, a painting or a statue have somehow become part of me both on the perception and in recollection. In a sense, btw, one might make a case that even a piece of "art" intended to shock and disgust is "good" art in that in recollection it still brings a memory, even though tainted by an emotion that is less than pleasurable.

 

m