Is this art?

[Eddi]

Discuss.

It succeeded in freaking me out

So yes, it made me feel something

So I suppose that makes it art?

 

[leov]

https://heartcommunicators.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/HAARP-archon-spiderbodies.jpg

 

[Erebus]

You'd honestly have an easier time finding a single, universally accepted definition of god than you would for art.

In the broadest possible terms, art could be seen as the means by which somebody expresses their creativity. I assume that's what's happening there so yes, you can consider it art.

 

[Milton Platt]

Art is a word which has many definitions and is subject to personal opinion and taste. If this fits your definition of art, then it is art to you. If not, then it is not art to you. If art is anything that produces an emotional response, then the Holocaust was art. No, I don't think so....just making a point about defining words.

 

[dybmh]

My Art teacher in high school said: "Art is anything you can get away with."

 

[Laika]

Voted no. but it's a purely personal choice.

 

[McBell]

Art
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.​

 

[ChristineM]

I voted yes, i can't say i was impressed, none of it did anything for me but creative in their own way.
Art is a strange one, you can like it or hate it but if the artist considers his work as art then art it is.
BTW, i am (was) an artist to perhaps i am biased

 

[Brickjectivity]

There are two kinds of 'Art', because it has an older and a newer meaning both of which are still in use. Originally art refers to 'Artifice' which is anything man-made. Obviously it is art under that definition. Under the second definition "Does it transmit a message or multiple messages?" yes, it is also art under the second definition.

Why use this second definition? First of all some messages can only be conveyed through non-standard means. Secondly it is a preservative of public protest. Sometimes you can protest through art. Third sometimes its is more effective than normative methods of communication. Fourth, the laws do not grant us the powers of communication. We have them innately. Fifth laws cannot enable us to communicate. We communicate with or without laws. Sixths every person has the need to communicate, and by agreement we observe that each person has the right to do so.

 

[PureX]

Yes, it is art.

Unfortunately, that video doesn't present the work well, at all, so it's impossible to know, really, what any of it is about, or how well it achieves it's intended purpose.

 

[PureX]

There are two kinds of 'Art', because it has an older and a newer meaning both of which are still in use. Originally art refers to 'Artifice' which is anything man-made. Obviously it is art under that definition. Under the second definition "Does it transmit a message or multiple messages?" yes, it is also art under the second definition.

Why use this second definition? First of all some messages can only be conveyed through non-standard means. Secondly it is a preservative of public protest. Sometimes you can protest through art. Third sometimes its is more effective than normative methods of communication. Fourth, the laws do not grant us the powers of communication. We have them innately. Fifth laws cannot enable us to communicate. We communicate with or without laws. Sixths every person has the need to communicate, and by agreement we observe that each person has the right to do so.

All art is man-made. Animals do not make art. Nor does nature. Seeing beauty or even "messages" in natural circumstance does not make it 'art'. Otherwise, I agree with all you've posted.

 

[PureX]

I voted yes, i can't say i was impressed, none of it did anything for me but creative in their own way.
Art is a strange one, you can like it or hate it but if the artist considers his work as art then art it is.
BTW, i am (was) an artist to perhaps i am biased

The presentation by video was awful. We need the context, relative placement, sense of space, sense of smell, sense of communal experience (or non-communal experience), etc. to actually grasp the power and relevance of this kind of artwork. Also, I saw no reason whatever that the viewer should need to see the artworks being set up. As the process of setting them up had nothing at all to do with their final result.

 

[PureX]

Art
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.​

Only very vaguely true, but OK.

 

[PureX]

My Art teacher in high school said: "Art is anything you can get away with."

Your art teacher was an idiot.

 

[McBell]

Only very vaguely true, but OK.

Poor reading comprehension perhaps?

 

[ChristineM]

Your art teacher was an idiot.

Looked in the mirror lately?

 

[ChristineM]

Only very vaguely true, but OK.

you knock every description of art, including dictionary definition and professional opinion but strangely i have never seen you describe what you consider to be art.

 

[ChristineM]

The presentation by video was awful. We need the context, relative placement, sense of space, sense of smell, sense of communal experience (or non-communal experience), etc. to actually grasp the power and relevance of this kind of artwork. Also, I saw no reason whatever that the viewer should need to see the artworks being set up. As the process of setting them up had nothing at all to do with their final result.

Maybe the setting up, the creative side, the actual art taking place was worthy of being observed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Voted no. but it's a purely personal choice.

Same here.

People will think I'm your sock puppet.

 

[PureX]

Poor reading comprehension perhaps?

Rather: a romantic and very antiquated definition.