I agree with Godix's definition of art,
anything that is done for more than strictly utilitarian purposes is art.
I think others already did a good job of shooting down the "100% of your own creation" definition, as this is in fact impossible.
But I don't think this thread is really about defining art. If there was no value attached to being art, then it wouldn't matter what was in the categories of "art" or "not art." I think discussing art is primarily concerned with differentiating good art and bad art / art and entertainment. We then become concerned with what art
should be.
It's no coincidence that art is associated with the elite and entertainment is usually associated with the masses. Tsunami Jones said,
For me personally, the one thing that needs to exist for art to be art is meaning
Meaning sometimes implies a certain level of intellectualism and thus not everyone will be able to understand the meaning. We usually don't say "meaning" when we're talking about the desire to watch beautiful people. Even if it's not a particularly difficult to understand meaning, it narrows the audience in that the more specific the meaning, the more specific the audience will likely be. So why can art still compete with "entertainment" at all? For one, the audience with which the meaning connects are more likely to have strong feelings about the art than they are about more generalized entertainment. Also, people who have the inclination to understand and appreciate more specific or complex meanings are often the people who drive the forces of creation. Thus, the audience may be narrowed to people who will validate the meaning (with things like awards) as well as look towards the future in terms of carrying on its style/message or supporting its creator.
Responding to what Beowulf said,
Do writers go to their exceptionally well written forums and talk about art and how they fit into its spectrum?
I think they do. I know that most of the writers I have met are far more concerned with such discussions than the average person.
You, as a person with a soul, immediately know when you see art. Its not an intellectual response.
I don't agree with this. As a person with a soul, do you feel the same way at the age of 10 as you do at the age of 20? No, opinions change with time -- and not just because you hit puberty. As your mind changes, your appreciations change, and it can take a short or long time. I've often had my opinion of a song or band completely change. Although I personally don't attach much importance to it, many people change their opinion of art based on how original it is. In other words, they change their opinion based on an intellectual response that relies upon considering the work in relationship to other works. That said, I really like your videos, so I guess your philosophy is working pretty well for you in terms of your ability to create things and perhaps that's all that matters.
A thread like this does have a purpose in that it may influence what people choose to create in the future. If you agree with Tsunami Jones, then you may consciously try and create meaning with your AMV. If you don't, then you'll go with other criteria or try to rely purely on your instincts or emotions. Maybe there will still be meaning there, but it might be a different type of meaning then you would come up with if you were consciously thinking about meaning. Similarly, the degree to which you feel that art can/should be derivative will influence what kind of art you choose to make. I think the trend is towards appreciating more and more derivative work as art (fits in with postmodernism), and discussions like this might be contributing to that trend. Although according to godix's definition such efforts have always been art, I think they're getting appreciated more as "good art."
I think ultimately the discussion of what is art and what art should do just relates to people, as servo mentioned with his Scorsese quote, "If you like movies, then you must like people. Because that's what movies are about is people." The type of things you look for in people probably influences what you look for in art.
