NicNac said 8 years, 7 months ago:

I got into a debate with my Art Appreciation instructor and the entire class about a comment I made. The comment was, “everything is art. The walls in this room are a form of art, your writing on the board is art, your thoughts and imaginations are a subconscious form of art. It’s all about how you perceive it.”

So, what do you all think? I want to hear YOUR thoughts.

The Giggle Blizzard said 8 years, 7 months ago:

If it’s made to be art it is art, even if it’s really bad – not everything is art though.

an average girl said 8 years, 7 months ago:

I actually agree. It’s all about how you perceive things.
Art can be absolutely anything, if you see it that way.

Vivid Melody said 8 years, 7 months ago:

I think these scenes from Six Feet Under sum it up pretty well:

(ignore first scene):

NicNac said 8 years, 7 months ago:

@giggleblizzard Well, what is something that you believe is not art? I’m not saying you’re wrong or anything– I’m just curious.

The Giggle Blizzard said 8 years, 7 months ago:

@NicNac To state the obvious, a mountain is not in itself art (although a picture of one would be) – but to be a little more relevent, how far would you go to say that “everything” is art? For example I would not call a tarmac road art, unless it is part of some specific architectural design. Nor would I consider an excavator to be a work of art, nor a hammer, nor a pair of speakers. Art is something that was made to induce or inspire a thought or feeling of any kind in a person when taking part of the art in some way. Not everything falls under that description. One could argue that even a hammer or an excavator are made with some amount of asthetic value, but I do not think that to be good enough for them to be considered art.

NicNac said 8 years, 7 months ago:

Literally, EVERYTHING. The paint on walls, that’s art. Air, is art. Your thoughts, thinking process, values, ethics, morals, feelings, subconscious mind, etc. to me are ALL art. I look at life as a canvas (which is art as well), all of these thoughts, values, ethics, … are metaphorically the media in which a form of art is created. But who says all art is expressed to others? We all have the ability to see things in our minds, whether you are envisioning solving a math problem or dreaming of a sunset, you are creating a “picture” that only you can see. There is a sense of emotion there, there is contrast, and value and other ‘textbook’ descriptions of what art is.

I respect that you don’t see a mountain as art. But, my rebuttal to that is; it’s natural art. It may not be a man-made creation, but to me it is a natural sculpture.

The Giggle Blizzard said 8 years, 7 months ago:

@NicNac I respect your outlook on life and that you see everything as art, and that is an art in itself, but there is nothing objective about art – art is a reflection of reality, like our thoughts and feelings it is a way of conceptualizing reality; reality itself is not art. I never implied that art has to be expressed to others; if you find artistic value in working out a mathematical issue by yourself, or philosophizing about something or writing a poem in your diary you wish nobody to read then yes that is art, but if a lonesome star dies in a distant location in space and there is no intelligence of any kind to ever perceive, think about or conceptualize that star or ever take part of it in any way, it isn’t art but merely something that occurs to never be realised and possibly considered art. Sure you can say that it is “natural” art but everything about art is so subjective that if there is no subject it just doesn’t work. You could argue that all intelligent creation is art, but to say that all creation is art is pushing the boundaries of what is to be considered creation. Unless you believe in an intelligent creator such as a god you can’t imply that a naturally occuring mountain is a creation because at that point there is no difference between an occurance and a creation and suddenly the question of “what is art?” is not the right question to ask.

Again I do respect your views, but I can’t take your description of art in a serious way because there is no objectiveness in it and without any objectiveness this is not a discussion worth having (I’m not saying we should not discuss it, that statement is part of the discussion, hah!). While art itself does not have to be scientific or philosophical, the definition of art must be and your definition is not, it is art.

I hope I made myself somewhat clear, it is a confusing topic and when we go into deep discussion like this, communicating concepts and views becomes a challenge in itself.

imdown said 8 years, 7 months ago:

@nicnac hello there, this is a very interesting topic. if you don’t mind i will put in my own two cents.

You can always get philosophical and disagree on terminology. if viewed from a philosophical or poetic standpoint pretty much all terms can be argued.

but in the class you were in, “art appreciation,” i would assume the term “art” would be coined by the practical definition of it. you must realize that depending on the setting, you must be able to adopt different vantage points. for example, it wouldn’t be very helpful to speak of “life” in philosophical terms in a biology class.

by definition art is a product of the human imagination. it is a byproduct of our ability to solve problems, to communicate with each other, and to invent.

the mountains, or “natural art,” which you view as art would be considered the inspiration. i agree that there is beauty in everything, however we as a species are the only ones (by what we know thus far) who actually see beauty in mountains, sunsets, fog, etc. but just because we perceive the object to be beautiful does not categorize the object as art. natural things inspire us, but to call it art would be using the word “art” incorrectly.

i appreciate your viewpoint in philosophical terms in and of itself. it is very poetic and very beautiful. however i have to disagree with you simply because i also acknowledge the time and place in which you applied this viewpoint.

there is a time and place for everything, but you must respect that time and place if you wish to learn or progress.

i’m sorry if this was really long, i hope i made this understandable

Katya said 8 years, 4 months ago:

You’re right. Literally everything could be art if you think about it. Art is not only limited to what we sculpt, draw, and paint. Art is all around up someone had to design all of these things.

Siddharth Raj said 8 years, 4 months ago:

According to me, art is anything that induce human emotions. It may or may not be intended that way. If I look at my walls, and notice the cracks, small cobwebs, the thickness, the quality of the bricks, etc. tells me a story of how it was built and where it will land up. I wonder about the lives of the people involved in building it and also about the people who are going to live within them. To me, that story is an art. Who is the author? Time.

Picasso may have made a painting with no intention of ever sharing it with anyone. He dies, and it is discovered. Is it still art then? Because going by the logic, it shouldn’t be as it was never intended to be. Then? It’s actually a very grey area. Also, people tend to follow categories all the time. All paintings are a form of art. All sculptures are art. Only monuments or modern architectural designs are art. Or the old french, islamic, british architecture is art. Any spin-off on history is art.

These categories somehow don’t fall into the logic of the “maker’s intentions.”

As I said above, for me art is anything that can invoke emotions. Anything can invoke emotions within me at any given time. When I look at a mountain, it invokes wonder. That is art for me. A painting in the end is a depiction of the impression that the painter got. In this case, the depiction is in my mind, along with the impression. I may want to share it, or I may not but as long as I felt something, it is art.

Having said that, I completely agree with @yeahimdown Your class was called “art appreciation.” Their art holds a specific meaning. You tried expressing your views about art and they were not accepted. Well, for the time being, accept theirs then. Try looking from their eyes. Why they feel that everything is not art? This will help you grow more and appreciate the societal as well as your internal definition of art.

Hope I helped!

Adeline said 8 years, 2 months ago:

Art is anything that has deeper meaning than what it seems to be. Art tells a story; art can be a simple drawing of a family by a kindergartner, or a heart-wrenching poem by an adult. Art is something you find beautiful, or if it tells a different kind of story, it is ugly. Art is different to everyone. I’m an author and a painter, and I like my art to tell stories, to make you feel things you’ve never felt before, or haven’t felt in a long time.
That is art to me.

cat said 8 years, 2 months ago:

I think art is a way of doing things. Like martial arts tae kwon doe, cartoon art. Art can have it own sets of rules and regulations for a purpose but isn’t necessarily solidified. Personally, I think for something to be considered art it has to be beautiful in some way. I think feelings of disgust should not be what art primarily invokes.

Deleted User said 8 years, 2 months ago:

Something you can express your emotions or passion through.

Levi-UR said 8 years, 2 months ago:

Yes that one^^