What is art?

[Emotive]

What is love?

[AaronAMV]

You ain’t artsier than me

'Cause you got sideburns and a vintage tee

[hasteroth]

What is love?

Baby don't hurt me. Don't hurt me. No more.

[Vivaldi]

Sorry. The art community recognizes readymades and "found art" as art. No planning or forethought are put into them. They are ordinary objects simply declared art by someone. WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW!?!?

That would fall under conceptual art, in which the "object" is not the whole of the art piece itself, but rather a method by which to communicate an idea. The idea and its relation to the object being the human creation.

So you're saying the utilitarian device itself, made for a primary, non-artistic function is not what's art in the process, it is the act of calling it such (i.e. the performance of stating it). I call bullshit grasping-at-straws reasoning on that one, sorry.

the word art is a label - one that (due to constant questioning and pushing by people that wanted to announce the fact that it was poorly defined for centuries) has little definitive meaning and that people apply to things to impart the idea that they value them. It's a concept like "faith" or "opinion" that serves the purpose of deferring logical discussion by saying logic does not apply.

Eh, conceptual art is tricky like that. But basically, when you really look at what art is, it's the communication of ideas. In traditional art these ideas are simple or at least fairly simple. Happy, Sad, love, hate, ect. Now these ideas get more complex until they cross the line with conceptual art. Where the philosophies become too complex or too unsuitable to be holistically embodied by an art piece.

The idea is then distiled down to a level that can be represented, but that leads the viewer on a logical train of thought to the overall idea. Even if they don't comprehend it, it creates a unique emotional experience to what is being show. If not having an actual philosophy, conceptual art is often about making you aware of things in a different perspective. Joseph Kosuth's One and Three Chairs is a good example of this.

The fact that it's based on the viewer having some kind of revelation means two things. 1. it's so meta that the physical aspect of the art is highly unremarkable, since it's only a component. 2. If you're cynical it simply does not work. That's why it's so hit and miss with people.


In the end, I like to think of artists as philosophers who use skill to give their ideas relevance. Some artists focus more on the skill side, some more on the philosophy. But Yes, you can declare an ordinary object art as long as you can give a good reason as to why it is.

[Megamom]

It is the magic that makes my heart beat!

[hasteroth]

If it doesn't make Mega's heart beat, it's not art.

[Emotive]

What is love?

Baby don't hurt me. Don't hurt me. No more.

Could hasteroth be.. blabbler in disguise?

[Emotive]

It is the magic that makes my heart beat!

Wait, was that going for the "what is art" question or the "what is love" question?

Or both!

[blabbler]

Could hasteroth be.. blabbler in disguise?

no?

[Emotive]

Could hasteroth be.. blabbler in disguise?

no?

Missed me?