What is art?

[Vivaldi]

Art is anything that the maker of said art likes to believe is art. It may suck in the eyes of many, but it's all subjective. There is no right or wrong answer, which is why this discussion/"debate" always angers me XD.

Why do you believe this? What makes you think that it's subjective?

[NS]

because it is. One piece of "art" can be seen as many people as amazing, and just as many people will think it's the worst thing they've ever seen. There is no debating the fact that art in any form is subjective (music, visual, etc..)

[Brad]

After Effect

[-BL-]

Bier.

[Vivaldi]

because it is. One piece of "art" can be seen as many people as amazing, and just as many people will think it's the worst thing they've ever seen. There is no debating the fact that art in any form is subjective (music, visual, etc..)

The question you're proposing isn't what art is, it's what is art. If an aspect of art is that it creates emotion, then if it doesn't create emotion in someone. (which is clearly subjective) Then they won't considerate art. But has nothing to do with the actual meaning of the word.


And then you always have to consider the possibility whether a person thinks something is amazing or it's the worst thing they've ever seen is irrelevant, since the term "art" has no pretenses to the quality of the work, only a set of attributes.


It's like, you've got a refrigerator, and a person says it's clearly not a refrigerator because it has too little shelf space. They can believe that, sure. They can love or hate it. But none of that changes the fact that it is most certainly a refrigerator simply by virtue of the fact that it's existance has nothing to do with how you feel about it, but rather its measurable attributes.

[Vivaldi]

because it is. One piece of "art" can be seen as many people as amazing, and just as many people will think it's the worst thing they've ever seen. There is no debating the fact that art in any form is subjective (music, visual, etc..)

The question you're proposing isn't what art is, it's what is art. If an aspect of art is that it creates emotion, then if it doesn't create emotion in someone. (which is clearly subjective) Then they won't considerate art. But has nothing to do with the actual meaning of the word.


And then you always have to consider the possibility whether a person thinks something is amazing or it's the worst thing they've ever seen is irrelevant, since the term "art" has no pretenses to the quality of the work, only a set of attributes.


It's like, you've got a refrigerator, and a person says it's clearly not a refrigerator because it has too little shelf space. They can believe that, sure. They can love or hate it. But none of that changes the fact that it is most certainly a refrigerator simply by virtue of the fact that it's existance has nothing to do with how you feel about it, but rather its measurable attributes.

Edit: I just noticed this:

There is no debating the fact that art in any form is subjective (music, visual, etc..)

Though I mentioned it, I just wanted to be clear that I'm talking about the definition of the word art. I wouldn't ever argue that individual works don't have a huge subjective element. You're correct there.

[NS]

The fridge example is different though. Because It is a clear invention. The fridge is something that cools or keeps cool, whereas I'd debate that art has ALWAYS been. Sure it is technically an invention, but its most primitive forms are nothing different then the forms today when it comes to principle. Art is art, there is really no better way to say it. Art is art.

[Mr Pilkington]

Bier.

Warsteiner and nothing less!

[Vivaldi]

The fridge example is different though. Because It is a clear invention. The fridge is something that cools or keeps cool

And art is something created that triggers emotion. if you take that out of context I'll fucking kill you

The question you're proposing isn't what art is, it's what is art. If an aspect of art is that it creates emotion, then if it doesn't create emotion in someone. (which is clearly subjective) Then they won't consider it art. But has nothing to do with the actual meaning of the word.


And then you always have to consider the possibility whether a person thinks something is amazing or it's the worst thing they've ever seen is irrelevant, since the term "art" has no pretenses to the quality of the work, only a set of attributes.


Bottom line. Art is a word that is essentially meant to describe something. What is describes might be subjective, but it is not. You are correct, art has been around as long as humanity as, that doesn't change the fact it's a definable set of conditions that has nothing to do with how "good" it is.

and please don't meander into doublespeak. I'm not interested in an argument, just a discussion.

[NS]

oh. I didn't know this discussion was about the actual definition of art. That's easy, and you are correct. I kept kinda straying from the discussion then.