-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What makes something "Art"?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
I can't say exactly what art is, but to me, it's something that inspires us. What I do know, is that porn is not art.
Everything and anything can be considered art by someone. Some art just has more history or more people who consider it art than others.
There's probably some things that I wouldn't consider art, just like I don't think that some things that people call god should be considered a god, but they still have the right to consider it art if they want.
There's probably some things that I wouldn't consider art, just like I don't think that some things that people call god should be considered a god, but they still have the right to consider it art if they want.
Thrice Great
Member
True Art is something that would not exist unless someone created it.
Generally, I would say art is something created for no purpose other than its aesthetic value. Or, where purposes are not simply aesthetic, the aesthetic function is primary rather than secondary. Aesthetic value can be contrasted with utilitarian value; art places aesthetic value above utilitarian value.
How do you distinguish between porn and art? Would you agree with the person who said, "Porn is just art with bad lighting"?
Must art attempt to communicate anything besides an aesthetic?
What's the difference, if any, between art and non-art -- assuming the non-art in this case were created by someone?
:clap What to you is the difference between what you would consider art and non-art?
By aesthetics I mean a sensory experience. Communication is intrinsic to any sensory experience, for all sensory experiences convey information. I wouldn't say it must attempt to communicate anything besides an aesthetic, because it is in of itself a form of communication already. Not sure if I'm making sense...
You seem to make sense to me. Thanks!
I took an art history class once where the main question by the professor throughout the semester was, "What is art?"
The professor didn't have an answer and was maintaining it as essentially an open-ended unanswerable question, though he did collect and provide several practical definitions that together could reasonably describe what art tends to be.
Probably the best description of the difference I've seen is from Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who concisely described the difference between science and art as one of inevitability.
Art in this sense is something that, if the creator had not made it, would not be made by anyone.
Loosely speaking, most actions are either science, art, or a combination of both. Actions with rationality in mind are science, while actions with expression in mind are art, and certain actions blend a bit of both. If Einstein had not described relativity or the photoelectric effect, someone else likely would have, even if it was much delayed. Science is iterative, So that wasn't art. In contrast, if a given symphony had not written by Mozart, then nobody would have written that symphony and it would never exist. If a given picture had not been painted by Monet, then nobody else would and it would never exist.
It's not meant to be a flawless definition, but I think it isolates what art is:self-intentional expression. There's something unique in any piece of art from the individual.
Art has a piece of humanity in it.
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
Porn has a strict goal of "turning on" those who watch it, ending, basically, in sexual gratification of some sort. Is this art? I don't think so, but others would certainly disagree. But someone might ask me, "is Michelangelo's "David" porn or art?" What is the goal of the work? To inspire, or to "turn on"?
Porn is porn, bad lighting or not.
Secret Chief
Degrow!
Designation.
(eg Fountain, by Duchamp).
(eg Fountain, by Duchamp).
chinu
chinu
dust1n
Zindīq
Agreed.
Intentionality on behalf of the mover for aesthetic appreciation on behalf of the viewer/listener/whatever/which could be limited to the original mover.
Thrice Great
Member
Interesting is Sufi virtuoso Hazrat Inyat Khan's statement on the only true divine Artform.
"Why is music called the divine art, while all other arts are not so called? We may certainly see God in all arts and in all sciences, but in music alone we see God free from all forms and thoughts. In every other art there is idolatry. Every thought, every word has its form. Sound alone is free from form. Every word of poetry forms a picture in our mind. Sound alone does not make any object appear before us."
That said; the designing of already known ideas is what I would call "craft", not Art. Like I stated, Art is the creation of something that would not be here if not for the Creator of the Art.
e.g. beautiful paintings of nature are aesthetically wonderful, but I see it as a Craft not an Art, thoughtful poetry can describe surroundings in an exquisite manner, but it is also Craft, true Art can open the unconsciousness and enable something to be felt or understood that never existed before . . . it is beyond the limitations of the objective universe.
Last edited: