What is art?

What is art?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist's_Shit
huckcdn.lwlies.com/admin/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/o-MY-BED-facebook.jpg
fr.muzeo.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_moyenne_def/public/oeuvres/peinture/classique/un_lit_deefait13122.jpg?itok=r-ykSW2M
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Definitely not naruto.

Or any other anime.

But user, what is art?

Everything you determine to be art is art

That only counts for intelligent people like me

s___k

Baby don't hurt me

Human expression manifested into something.

It's shit.

Thanks for the insight user

Subjective

eks pre shun

Something that evokes emotion.

Anything you want it to be. But not that. And no... Not that either.

Art is the simplified representation of the world captured through human perception.

art is its institutions maybe? a response? there's no real easy way to answer that question. all answers so far have been incorrect

Art is something that blossoms for an instant before withering away. Art is beauty that last for just a moment. To me, the essence of art is... AN EXPLOSION!

The only correct answer itt

Wrong

things I like, c.f. things I don't like are not art

This guy knows.

"Wrong" is the correct answer. Art is Wrong.

a miserable pile of ideas

An explosion.

Any craft or human work that represents something. Whenever it is weebish shit or not that picture is technically art.

So Deidra is basically Al-Qaeda

As Icy put it, art is "the best things"... art is what is pleasurable and the best of something.

Anime definitely isn't and never will be. Hope I narrowed it down for you.

>it's a Veeky Forums doesn't know anything about art thread

Leave this talk to the big boys back at /ic/

...

You can't spell art without /a/

Art is something that serves no practical purpose but for one reason or another has meaning to the viewer or the artist themselves. What that meaning is however is different from person to person. Sometimes there is a meaning that becomes attached to it and that becomes the default meaning for that piece, but that does not mean that that one meaning is the final say.

>tilde; art is subjective

art is beautyful
is the thing you claim to be art not beatyful? then it is not art
art takes skill to make
could a three year old make it?
then it is not art

art shows the beauty of whatever it displays

See, pleb opinions like this is why Veeky Forums shouldn't talk about art.

then what is your definition, oh patrician

do you know how much skill it takes to make marble look like cloth

Art is anything anyone produces with the intent of producing art

Something along the lines of this user's post.

Art doesn't need to be beautiful, art doesn't need to be skillful, art doesn't need to be meaningful.

People confuse defining "art" as "good art."

Just because something is shit, doesn't mean it isn't art. It's art, it isn't good art, but it's art.

A child's doodle is art the same way a Rembrandt portrait is art. Now there are massive gaps between the skill of those two, but they're both art.

There are valid arguments to be made on what is "good art," but to say something isn't art because you don't like it just shows that you don't really understand art.

false

Anything that tries to present the abstract through concrete (material) means.

By abstract, I mean ideas, emotions, beauty, etc.

so portraits aren't art

you do realise that the guy who wrote his name on a urinal, the guy who cause the hell of modern "art" hated all art and seeked to destroy it

cucks didn't get the joke and "artist" without skill perpetuate this meme to further earn money

*an urinal, not a native speaker and on my phone

duchamp only caused neo-dada and that sort of shit in the 50s. that's rather late when it comes to modern art

there is some duchampian influence in surrealism but for the most part no he didn't cause modernism

A piece with a statement critiquing art would make it art.

Does it make it good art?

That's entirely up to you.

I'm right, pls reply to me

intent doesn't matter

there is literaly a piece of art called "merda d’artista" "artist's" shit
and it is just that he shit in a can and sealed it
i cannot take something like that seriously

and a kid's drawing isn't art
just like a tick figure isn't art
just as elephant "art" isn't art
just as this post isn't art

otherwise you would have to accept that i just created art if i would stated that i have created art

proof there is shit in the can?

Do you have bad digestion or something? Toilets trigger you?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist's_Shit

" The work consists of 90 tin cans, each filled with 30 grams (1.1 oz) of faeces"

open one up

And I'd argue that all of that is art.

You're still having trouble differentiating "art" from "good art."

art isn't created by stating you have created art. i have not created a diamond by stating i have created a diamond. art has a 'form' that answers to what is accepted by the art world, based on a long and complicated history of 'art making' in the west

no, i just don't like pretensious fools

> you would have to accept that i just created art if i would stated that i have created art
And the problem with that is?

One of Manzoni's friends, the artist Agostino Bonalumi, claimed that the tins are full not of faeces but plaster;[6] in contrast, Manzoni's girlfriend Nanda Vigo, who helped him produce the cans, claimed the contents really were faeces.[citation needed] Vigo's assertion is disputed by Manzoni's brother and sister.[citation needed] An art dealer from the Gallery Blu in Milan claims to have detected a fecal odor emanating from a can.[7] The cans are steel, and thus cannot be x-rayed or scanned to determine the contents, and opening a can would cause it to lose its value; thus, the true contents of Artist's Shit are unknown

then don't come off sounding pretentious

oh yeah, a can of shit loses its value

>shit

[citation needed]

btw
tracy emin stated "it is art because i say so" when asked about this piece of "art"
huckcdn.lwlies.com/admin/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/o-MY-BED-facebook.jpg

now compare that to the same idea, an artist's bed, from eugen delacroix

fr.muzeo.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_moyenne_def/public/oeuvres/peinture/classique/un_lit_deefait13122.jpg?itok=r-ykSW2M

Yes but he's white so it's acceptable

then everything is art and nothing is art
if everything is art, then it holds no value, if nothing is art, then art does not exist

but it holds value and does exist
its value is to show beatuy

>otherwise you would have to accept that i just created art if i would stated that i have created art
Welcome to post-modernism

> If it painted than it is a real art!
> If this is a thing that exist it isn't!
I fail to see your logic here beyond, maybe the one that first bed technically wasn't created by person, but more like result of collective effort.

no it was creteated by one person

and my logic is that the second one is beatiful and took skill to make, yet it shows the same image as the first one: an artist's unmade bed becuase of his ideas and tumultuos life

that means: you can created the same thought in a beatiful skillfull way

modern art is made by idiots without skill quod erat demonstrandum

'beauty' does not precede the art, it is beautiful because it is found in the art. so the things you think aren't art can still be art because they are still beautiful in a certain context

technical skill doesn't matter

also i already posted a statue, a real existing thing, which i considered art

meant fo
r

>if everything is art, then it holds no value

But art doesn't hold any value. Art is the relationship between the viewer and the subject. It is up to the viewer to add meaning.

>its value is to show beatuy
But there are many pieces out there that show filth, hate, violence and all other negatives aspects/emotions. The craftsmanship is there. Is it not art just because it isn't pretty or nice?
Are you saying that art should only be happy or that it should only never show negative emotions?

yes it does
brb shitting in cans selling each for 100k

no, it does not directly matter, but creating something beautiful without skill is very hard

show me something man made which is beatuiful,but took no skill to make

i am not even being rhetorical, please show me

> if everything is art, then it holds no value
This is right, art holds no value by itself. It is for a person to decide if they value so called art or not. Some could say that it is a beautiful painting, but the other that it just shows piles of random items.

>It is up to the viewer to add meaning.

not that user but the viewer does not create the entirety of the meaning. the viewer does not view the art because he or she thinks it isn't valuable

art shows even the beatuy in hate hate and filth
art should show negative emotions
what's was the name of the guy who draws really disturbing art? i'll post some of his work if i find it

photography makes it very easy

i'm not arguing for beauty in art

> muh skill
Who the fuck cares? End result is only thing that matters here. If I wrote book while being raped by niggers with my blood, it wouldn't be better book, than what I could write in my normal way. Even if being rape writer is considerably harder to do and requires more skill from you.

>It is for a person to decide if they value so called art or not.

this can only really be true due to the contemporary art world where the market is king. in the past vanitas paintings had (and still do have) a very real meaning and it was painted for a specific purpose that others understood

baby don't hurt me
don't hurt me
no more

a photo is not man made
it shows nature by clicking a button
a painting of nature is man made

see here you use 'beauty' to mean whatever you want. so in what way is tracy emin's work not beautiful? because you also have a bed?

>photography isn't an artform

that would be correct if a book was art

> brb shitting in cans selling each for 100k
You couldn't sold even one because you lack the necessary skill. It is like saying brb composing a symphony selling music for billions.

being man made had nothing to do with my argument

paintings of nature were some of the lowest forms of art

> it was painted for a specific purpose that others understood

A photo is made by man, who do you think transports the camera and sets up the framing, lighting, aperture, etc? Or do paintings not count as manmade because a machine mixed the paint and made the paintbrush and canvas?

yes so was this. what is your point? does suprematism not show the beauty of simplicity? pure painterly feeling?

i made an interactive cloth simulation with opengl, using the formula for elasticity and normal lightning, does it compare

> Literature isn't art
Guess, Shakespeare was literal nobody, if you say so.

Paint simple square is arguably even easier than shitting in cans.

so? ease has nothing to do with art if in the end 'beauty' is achieved

i think this was one of his works

that's really poorly painted though

i don't even know anymore if this is bait
i sure hope so

> muh 'beauty'
You know that there are paintings of ugly things, right?

i think it's just the resolution
there was another one of a bunch of figures sitting around campfires
each group of people on their own plateau

that's why it's in quotes dummy

>muh skill
>muh painting

I don't know why people have this discussion over and over. The minute they try to dismiss art with the, awfully pedestrian I might add, claim that "it is not art" they're tacitally recognizing the piece in question as art.

Because someone might pass through a gallery, see a ready-made and go all "this shit is not art!", but they don't go through their lives calling urinals in public bathrooms "not art" to random people that pass by. That's stupid.
They understand that the piece has an artistic intent to it, even though they don't understand that intent.
It's more of a contextual, symbolic thing. Having this discussion is like being confused about whether the fire extinguishers at an art gallery are part of the exposition or not. Obviously they are not, and you know this already, unless you're a special kind of stupid which would make you unfit to have this discussion in the first place.

So anything you think might be art is probably art.

How this is a bait? Do you think a random person could shit in cans and sold it for huge price? Like do you really think that is possible for you to do? How can you deny skill if random person couldn't do that shit? Like random person couldn't write a symphony or create marble statue.

no it's the bad shading, lack of dynamism and depth

it's not shocking to me that people who talk about 'skill' and 'beauty' can't recognise it in paintings

> this post is an art
Kekmate, m8