the definition of art

[internet]

"Art" is a very powerful word that commands a lot of respect in modern day society - calling something art is an endorsement in itself, and saying something is not art is usually deemed tantamount to calling it worthless. When doing either of those things, usually people like to talk about "meaning" or "themes". But let's take a look at the Wiktionary definitions of art.

Literally no mention of "meaning" or "themes". The first definitions strays near this, but is far broader. But obviously, a dictionary could be wrong. How is the word art typically used? Is it exclusively connected to media rive with meaning and themes? or is it completely normal to deem things void of narrative, such as cooking, furniture making, or even sailing art? The latter is obviously true - almost any activity that requires skill and creativity (or at least some creative problem solving) is commonly referred to as an art. An artist is someone who draws or plays music or engages in one of a plethora skillful activities.

The only time this "meaning" and "themes" definition of art actually comes up is when debating whether something is or is not art. Not even really in defining the qualities that make something art in order to facilitate the reaching of a definitive conclusion - it is just asserted, exclusively in these kinds of discussions, that art needs to have "meaning" and "themes" in order to count.

Personally, I think this attempt to add "meaning" and "themes" to the definition of art is solely a result of people - especially critics - wanting to discredit something they personally dislike, in order to connect their personal tastes with intellectual superiority. What do you think? Let me think in the comments down below. And don't forget to hit that like button and follow me.

 

[chimp]

I think the definition is very broad. My definition of art is anything created in order to convey an emotion or a different perspective. Anything that is created by someone who is trying share how they are feeling or what they are thinking.

 

[brightobject]

debating about whether something is or is not art seems to usually come from a elitist POV designed to gatekeep (or troll).

I kind of feel the same way about the way in which we try to separate "artists" from other aspects of our life. It's a balance: being an artist is a respectable profession and should be normalized, but at the same time everyone should be able and willing to recognize their artistic capabilities. This is almost antithetical to the way we've been taught to see the artist as an individual genius, ignoring the potpourri of communal influences and history every artist draws from. The roles we set up for artists feed off of and feed into the myriad hyper-specific impressions we have surrounding art--which looking at its dictionary definition is about as broad as the idea of emotion itself (one could argue it is basically just the opposite of thought or emotion, being its external counterpart).

All of this of course decides whether something is perceived as GOOD art or not...a much more interesting debate (equally prone to overblown generalizations)

 

[lio]

I would say that if we admire something that we wouldn't have been able to produce ourselves, then it is art. So the definition itself would become pretty subjective depending on what we admire or not, but generally, I think that something needs to be creating positive emotions amongst a majority of its public in order to be considered art.
If we look at the word itself and its original meaning, then basically anything that's created is art, but if we try to minimize its definition by drawing the limits of its modern-day meaning, then that would be it.

 

[earl]

I would say that if we admire something that we wouldn't have been able to produce ourselves, then it is art. So the definition itself would become pretty subjective depending on what we admire or not, but generally, I think that something needs to be creating positive emotions amongst a majority of its public in order to be considered art.
If we look at the word itself and its original meaning, then basically anything that's created is art, but if we try to minimize its definition by drawing the limits of its modern-day meaning, then that would be it.

I wouldn’t say art is only things we wouldn’t be able to produce ourselves, but things we DIDN’T produce ourselves. Plenty of postmodernist art could have been made by anyone, but the fact that it was even made evokes emotion and forces the viewer to think, even if the thought is “anyone could’ve done that”. I don’t think art needs to generate positive emotions either, just any emotion in general. Even under the umbrella of “traditional” art there’s plenty of masterpieces that aren’t particularly joy-inducing.

 

[Bughouse]

Tons of excellent videos discussing a range of topics people have mentioned itt at The Art Assignment on YouTube. Highly recommended.

for example:

 

[aaronarium]

I think the definition is very broad. My definition of art is anything created in order to convey an emotion or a different perspective. Anything that is created by someone who is trying share how they are feeling or what they are thinking.

not sure I agree with the definition of art just being something created in order to share how one feels. by that token, any conveyance of feeling would constitute art. is a Tweet a piece of art? is a get-well-soon card? i'm of the opinion that passion needs to be a part of the creative process for the end result to be art, since it eliminates connotations of obligation or duty.

 

[MAMP]

i think trying to come up with any sort of formalist definition of art is pointless and inevitably exclusionary. art is such a vast, vague, weird, complex thing that i think any effort to definitively say "these things are art but these other things are not art" is always going to be a fruitless endeavour. re the above post: i think tweets and get-well-soon cards absolutely could be art. defining art based on how it was created seems especially silly to me, because for a person viewing a piece, what is the difference between something that an artist put their whole soul into versus something that was made with no passion at all?

my philosophy on art more generally is that art isnt an innate quality of the work, but rather is an effect or a process that happens within the audience as they engage with it. in other words, anything can be art if it is perceived as art, if people respond to it as art. like with most things, the most useful definition for art for me is that i know it when i see it

 

[aaronarium]

i think trying to come up with any sort of formalist definition of art is pointless and inevitably exclusionary. art is such a vast, vague, weird, complex thing that i think any effort to definitively say "these things are art but these other things are not art" is always going to be a fruitless endeavour. re the above post: i think tweets and get-well-soon cards absolutely could be art. defining art based on how it was created seems especially silly to me, because for a person viewing a piece, what is the difference between something that an artist put their whole soul into versus something that was made with no passion at all?

my philosophy on art more generally is that art isnt an innate quality of the work, but rather is an effect or a process that happens within the audience as they engage with it. in other words, anything can be art if it is perceived as art, if people respond to it as art. like with most things, the most useful definition for art for me is that i know it when i see it

Not entirely sure I understand what you're trying to say. I'm persuaded to an extent by the argument that art is so indistinct that we can't apply definitions to it (though we can make generalizations), and I can understand where people are coming from when they talk about the ways that things I personally don't consider artful could be perceived as such. But I'm puzzled by the implication that there isn't a difference (in terms of "artful impact", if that makes sense) between something created with versus without passion.

That may be true in mediums where the information you can extrapolate from a piece is limited, like a single painting, or a couple short tweets. I genuinely don't believe that you're trying to say that the passion of the artist is meaningless, but consumers can definitely tell when someone did or didn't put passion and effort into a project, especially in more complex forms like film or video game. Therefore, a creator's passion can alter the consumer's perception of the piece, and by your definition, the piece's status as art.

 

[Myzozoa]

would you agree that my deliberative stacking of sponges and cleaning chemicals is an artistic critique of capitalist notions of scientific progress and uncompensated gendered labor or not? why?

 

[chimp]

not sure I agree with the definition of art just being something created in order to share how one feels. by that token, any conveyance of feeling would constitute art. is a Tweet a piece of art? is a get-well-soon card? i'm of the opinion that passion needs to be a part of the creative process for the end result to be art, since it eliminates connotations of obligation or duty.

"Is a tweet a piece of art? Is a get-well-soon card?"

I would argue that yes, unironically, they are. Whether they are of quality or any cultural or emotional significance is another argument, but I am of the opinion that the definiton of art is actually quite broad.

 

[pupbert]

Hello. I lookted This up for You.

the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

I hope that this Helps !

 

[Bughouse]

LMAO so I swear I don't run the channel and that I'm not psychic, but TAA's new video today was literally titled "The Definition of Art" and I found it very illuminating.

 

[Myzozoa]

LMAO so I swear I don't run the channel and that I'm not psychic, but TAA's new video today was literally titled "The Definition of Art" and I found it very illuminating.

I support the Russian's definition, ostranenie, where art is that which renders something that was once habitual or ordinary as strange and unfamiliar.

 

[THE_IRON_...KENYAN?]

I think art is something that is made with the intention of stimulating one or more of the senses, or beyond the senses. Like how a zen koan aims to frazzle your mind to the point where something without any describable quality is illuminated to you (beyond one of the senses), or a painting of a flower (stimulating one of the senses).

 

[desire driver]

art is what the strong consume to refresh themselves for more conquering.. there is nothing beautiful that is not within my complete control

 

[desire driver]

3. Literature has up to now magnified pensive immobility, ecstasy and slumber. We want to exalt movements of aggression, feverish sleeplessness, the double march, the perilous leap, the slap and the blow with the fist.

7. Beauty exists only in struggle. There is no masterpiece that has not an aggressive character. Poetry must be a violent assault on the forces of the unknown, to force them to bow before man.

This is the meaning of art.

 

[Kiwi]

Thought I'd share this and discuss how it relates to 'what art is.' The artwork is what the artist has depicted the work or creation to be. For example, Marcel Duchamp. He put a bike wheel on a stool. The audience will say, this isn't art, but what they audience sees is part of their perspective and the true perspective of the art is what they artist has been aiming to portray. Within the past, contemporary art was more about what the audience saw, and art had a basis on what it had to be. If the audience didn't call it 'art,' then it wasn't art. But now, art is anything a creator creates and claims to be art. It may be a painting comprising of layers upon layers, and it may be a pencil on a table. This edges to a new perspective of what art is in the form of the postmodern frame. This frame challenges aspects of modernism and expresses that art is anything the artist wants it to be, and what they want to show the world. Art's definition has been changing as time has gone, from the staple it once had to be to the concept that it can be anything, and not what others want it to be.