Or shortly asked, at which point an object/picture/whatsoever starts becoming art? I think this is a very interesting question and probably everybody here got his/her own opinion about it. Lets share all the different points of view, I start with the mine: For me, art is the realisation of an idea to awake a certain emotional reaction. In a positive or negative, beautiful or ugly sense. Maybe you know the sentence of Frederico Fellini: If the people are puking onto the floor its also a kind of appreciation. (Ok, he really was a bit of a maniac but I couldnt resist to mention this quotation ;)) Art follows rules! Or why do you think is theory of colours, perspective, proportions, aesthetics etc. taught after all since ages? And if this point woulnt be of any importance, you could close every art academy in the world as well. This includes also the proper handling of your tools! That doesnt mean that you need to study at university to produce art, but you should keep some essential basics in mind. Some lucky people inherit a natural sense for it, the others have to learn. Art needs its time! If the way from the first idea till the final result doesnt last longer than 15 minutes, I dare to say that you didnt put your real heart-blood into it. Art needs accuracy! What has a blowzy technique in common with a masterpiece? Both are eye-catchers, first in a negative, second in a positive way. Art is unique! If every piece of your output looks like the hundred ones before, one of the worst art-killers has successfully trapped you: The mass production. Art is vivid! Producing a piece of art is spirited process, a continuous development and a constant improvement of the artists skills. If you neglect or even ignore this process, the absolutely worst of all art-killers got you in his claws: The stagnation. And last not least, art can tolerate any criticism as long as it is said in a constructive and polite way. Always remember Confuzius and what he said centuries ago: If you are annoyed by criticism you admit that it was legitimated. ************************************* P.S: I hope this is halfway understandable; I always have problems to write a longer text in English.

ART: Expression expressed. To critique art is to envelope it within another reality than it was created. The Expressionist creates within his own reality, to make the expression known (public) is to ask for acceptance, ultimately risking denial....but who am I to deny anothers request, but only to question the expression itself from within my own reality. I express, risk, accept, question the outcome....and express again. (psychobabble) ;)

In my opinion you could close the art acadamies. Aside from teaching the technical aspects of whatever field you are in they show stay out of the vision area. However most teachers want to shape you into clones of their selves. Their vision is the only TRUE vision and you should be honoured to accept that! been there, told them to shove it up their ego! (Part of why I now design helicopters for a living and do my art for personal enjoyment (and that of anyone else who likes it!)) Sorry for the rant.

Everything is art, the rub is in whether it can be considered good art or bad art, which is at heart a totally personal opinion and only valid for that person!

I do agree with the time. I do a lot of sketches I never consider them art and would not post them. Art takes soem time and consious deliberate effort. Accuracy is something else. I beleive that accuracy should be to the original vision in the artists head not to pure realism. If you make something out of proportion if you do it deliberatly is different than if you do it because of lack of technique and ability. A response is a big part of art too. Does it make you respond in a certain way the emotion that is conveyed by the artist is it felt by the viewer. I always try to do somethign different each time I make a picture try new things and try to get better every day. To me it is important to improve in technique and ability. It is important to try new things. Not every new thing will be received well but that is a chance you take. Also it is about fufilling inner vision of the world and universe. What are the things you find inside yourself. Last have some fun and don't take yourself too seriously.

It's something I aspire to, and perspire for..;) actually, I think if you go back a week or so in the Poser forum, they've done this one to death..;) It's the way I think of a given musical style..if you can define it in simple terms, it's on it's way out..;) there's 6 billion definitions out there, and climbing..

I think art is defined by the intentions of the creator. Art never happens accidental, you have to project a thought in it. My english isnt the best either, so Im having a little bit of trouble finding the right words.

I don't know art, but I know what I like.

you could close every art academy, you surely can we now have the internet. art is a fart without the f. evry body who wants to define art is a censor in the bud.

The trouble with this question is that there are too many critics and not enough artists.

Art is defined in the mind of the beholder. Len.

Yup. I make art about every other day...then I promptly flush the toilet. It may be crap, but its my crap, and believe me...in my eye, its a work of art every single time. AS

Make art to please yourself and do it only because you enjoy doing it.

"How do you define art?" Many years ago, at school (which was Pre-PC) in art class, a fellow pupil asked more-or-less this same question of the art-master. His reply was: "You cannot define art. Art defines itself." To this day, I've not worked out whether that was a genuine insight or just twaddle. And, to be honest, I don't really care... Cheers Diolma