What do you guys consider art?  I'm asking in both the general sense and in the sense of what you could consider artful enough to be here are renderosity.  Technically the word art means skill.  So an artist is someone with skill.  However skill alone might not be something for renderosity. 

For example criticizing things is a form of art, but would you put a criticism up in the galleries?  Changing tires is a skill of sorts, however if someone posted a video of the perfect way to change a tire, would you consider that a piece of art?  I once had to read Civil Disobedience for a lit class.  Now because Thoreau was a master of writing, that would be considered a work of art.  However if someone wrote a political piece today, the likelihood of them being a contemporary of Thoreau is not very likely so would it be accurate to say that such a thing is not art?  Then there is that "modern" art junk which I have no idea on how to classify.  Would a white dot on a black background be considered art?  Then there are things where elephants paint with a brush or a dog chews randomly on colored paper.  Would those be considered art?

Ah this piece is fantastic moving piece of art! The circle is at odds with it's environment, feeling totally alienated. The circle feels small but not so small as to be insignificant. Or not. :)

It all depends on who you ask. "Art" is a ridiculously subjective term. i drew comic books for the first 6 years of my working adult life/career. My friends in the art department at the nearby university swore to the heavens that while what I did required skill and even imagination, it wasn't "true art", only "illustration". Those are the same people who would swear Frank Frazetta was a mere illustrator, not to be confused with an artist. Frankly, those people didn't remain my friends for long and to this day I don't get along well with what I consider the "artsy fartsy" types because of the attitude.

Here's a real conundrum for you though...

I am an artist. I design, sculpt, texture and rig characters for a living. The majority of the works I do end up being sold as downloadable goods so that others, dare I say, artists, may then use those works to create works of their own. I've actually been called by some people a "production artist" and not a "true" artist because they say what I make is merely an intermediary product before someone else actually uses it to express themselves. Personally, that's a load of crap. What I and ever other content creator does, IMO, is definitely an art, and beyond that it's part of what I feel to be a wonderful fledgling art form where one, or many, may create something that is then used by others to express something. Now, some could say that some things are more artful than others, but again, I think that's all in the eye of the beholder.

Oh, and just for the sake of the topic...

Outside of this stuff, I LOVE martial arts. Traditional Japanese martial arts, Shotokan, Kobudo, Goju Ryu, Chito Ryu, Iaido... the list goes on and on. Now, when some folks see what we do with any of these, they might initially say, "where's the art? It's just kicks, punches, fighting and physical training". But to them I would say this: watch a 7th Dan in his mid 50's run a kata they've been training to perfect for 20 or 30 years. Watch a 70+ year old sensei perform a kata he's been honing for over 50 years. It is just breathtaking. When performed with true expertise and experience, a karateka will seem to almost remove their mind from the world you see and experience the nature of the kata right before you. It is beautiful and I feel exemplifies why they are called martial ARTS. Just something I thought I'd throw out there into the grand, overwhelming debate of art. Oh yeah, and I just love any chance to start babbling on about karate-do. :)  -Les

My own PERSONAL definition of art is this: ART is what I like.

-ergo JUNK is what I don't like.
DPH

Instead of saying true art you could say fine art. There is a difference between fine art and illustration.                                       
 A Generalized short list:

• Illustration often uses lines to define surfaces while fine art generally uses ahding to do the same.
• Illustration is generally figurative , fine art, well not so much
• illustration generally tells, or fills out, or accompanies, a story where in fine art there is no such requirement
  -Sci-Fi is generally thrown in with illustration although I have seen some great abstracted sci fi pieces that could only be considered fine art
• The difference may also be garnered from where the piece of art resides or is supposed to call home. If it adorns the pages of a magazine or a book and if it was created within an agency who was hired to create it then it is probably illustration. if its telos is to hang in a callery or decorate a persons wall then it is probably considered fine art. I think that Frank Frazettas book covers are illustration but when that original oil bookcover is framed and hung in a gallery then I would personally consider it fine art..

One mans opinion with a little factual resonance...

You could. And yes the white dot can be art. As well as the "beat the dead horse," images that will turn up.

It's all art in some form or other to someone some where.

"It's all art in some form or other to someone some where."

And apparently even photos of Feces!
DPH

The arts generally are the non-technical cultural skills, including languages etc. The fine arts are more specialized, including e.g. painting, sculpture, music.

But not every painting or piece of music is fine art. For instance there is "graphic art," which uses some of the media of fine art, but is primarily a means of communication/advertising. There is also a distinction between "fine art" and "popular art," although this is arguably less hard and fast. Generally, though, popular art is less rigorous. Compare e.g. folk music to classical or baroque. The latter is fine art, the former is not.

It's become popular to say that anything is art, but I disagree. If anything is (can be) art, then nothing is art; the term is utterly meaningless. At any rate, certainly not everything created has the right to be called fine art.

The 'what is art/Art' question is one we could debate endlessly. I'd usually get very wordy right now but instead I'll just throw out just a few words to think about when considering whether something is 'art' or not::

Idea/Purpose/ Intent.
Function.
Form, Materials, Scale.
Idiom.
Structure.
Craft.
Context.

I got my own way of determing what is art.  Let's take a canvas with artwork that looks like it was done by an elephant.  If done by the elephant, its not art.  If a person was to take a brush in hand and make the creation stroke by stroke, blending the colors and forming the shape using just a brush, to me that would be art.  Splattering paint at random is not.  The white dot on a black background, was the white dot formed by a brush using carefully calibrated hues of white and the black background done the same way, then I would classify that as art.

However, in both cases, I wouldn't even think of having the crap in my house and I don't care if the artist was famous (except perhaps to turn around and sell it to someone else at a profit using the P.T. Barnum philosophy).  Jan

Quote - ...However, in both cases, I wouldn't even think of having the crap in my house and I don't care if the artist was famous (except perhaps to turn around and sell it to someone else at a profit using the P.T. Barnum philosophy).  Jan

If there weren't a sucker born every minute there would be no one to buy anything...lolol.

Because art is such a subjective thing, I don't even feel it's worth arguing. Whatever takes a skill and moves you in some form is art. I could be something a simple as a recipe. Depends on the person. That's why it's subjective ;o).

Laurie

Interesting thread....

If I letter a vehicle or paint a sign, is it art?
If I whittle a walking stick, is it art?
If I build a piece of furniture, is it art?
If I create a logo in Photoshop, is it art?
If I purchase content , arrange it in a scene, arrange lighting and render an image, is it art?

Art or not I have no idea.

I have been told, "Oh, you have such wonderful talent", or "You are a wonderful artist" .
So assuming that any of these 'Art Projects" are actually art I would answer yes.

Either way I get paid to do each and every one of these types of "Art" things.
Now the question to ponder is, Because I accept money in exchange for "Art" does that make me a Professional.... 8)

Quote - What do you guys consider art? ...

Art is that which is intentionally created to project a meaning that is more than simply the sum of its parts.

(That's my short definition, consider yourself lucky I didn't go into the full one.. ;) )

Art does not require "skill."  However, in order to make "good art", art which is successful at projecting an intended meaning greater than the sum of its parts, it takes considerable skill.

Art is NOT simply in the eye of the beholder regarding its quality.  In any medium, there are those that can understand a message and those that can not.  A lack of ability to understand a message being conveyed does not mean the creation is not Art.  Most people target everything they do to a narrow group.  It takes considerable skill to produce art that successfully conveys its message to a very, very wide audience.  But, regardless of its success, it is still ART if the intention of the creator is to make something conveying a meaning that is more than the sum of its parts.

Note: To understand the difference between Art and Illustration, look at a picture of a wire mesh and then look at a picture of that same mesh which is textured and posed in a scene, lit, etc..

The picture of the simple wire mesh in a zero pose is not intended to convey any more meaning than that which is the sum of its parts.  It's a picture of a mesh for illustrative purposes only, not an attempt to convey a message.  If there was some intent their by the artist to convey a "message" using such a pic, they would probably be a "bad" artist.

Your white dot on a black background "could" be considered Art if you are attempting to convey a message larger than just a that of a white dot on a background.  But, if that is what you were doing then that particular work probably wouldn't be considered "good" Art to a broad audience. :)

On porn - Had to mention it because it frequently is wrapped up in this type of discussion.  Many people consider "pornography" art.  However, pornography is meant to titilate and not usually meant to project anything more than the sum of its components.  In that respect, most poronography is NOT art.  There could be some that could be considered it though.  It all depends on the intent of the creator and not whether or not that creator was very successful at communicating that intent.

Quote -
On porn - Had to mention it because it frequently is wrapped up in this type of discussion.  Many people consider "pornography" art.  However, pornography is meant to titilate and not usually meant to project anything more than the sum of its components.  In that respect, most poronography is NOT art.  There could be some that could be considered it though.  It all depends on the intent of the creator and not whether or not that creator was very successful at communicating that intent.

I have seen some pretty amazing things accomplished in this realm of "Non-Art" that I would absolutely categorize as "Performance Art"  :woot: :lol:

Quote - Is something like this art?

Well, a white ball on a black background may not be art unless, you are trying to convey some sort of special meaning (Art) that is more than just a white ball on a black background. (Illustration.)

So, if you were, then it may just be "bad art."  There's nothing wrong with that.  Art isn't always good just as every cake can't be truly delicious cake.  But, your theme of a white ball on a black background COULD still work as Art.  It just needs to be refined to have a chance of communicating the message you intend to your audience.  So, let's do that -

Is this Art?  Maybe.   If I was intending to communicate a meaning here, it would be Art.  Does it speak of a meaning that is greater than the sum of its parts?  Sure, it could.  It could give a message of "Be Different."  or "Enlightenment" as being some uniquely individual thing that can directly effect others..  There are plenty of messages that could be communicated with this piece. Singling out one particular message out of all the possibilities could also take some skill if the artist wished to stay with this particular theme.  But, communicating a broad message of individual hope, achievement or personal strength would definitely fit within this render.

But, the means I used to convey the message wasn't very different than your simple white ball on a black background, was it?  I just refined it and made the "message" more appealing to a wider audience.  That is what separates "Good" Art from "Bad" Art for most people - The skill the artist has at refining basic concepts and communicating them to an audience.

Quote - > Quote -

On porn - Had to mention it because it frequently is wrapped up in this type of discussion.  ...

I have seen some pretty amazing things accomplished in this realm of "Non-Art" that I would absolutely categorize as "Performance Art"  :woot: :lol:

Well, there's "Art" and then.. there's "ART!" 

Just like anything, Art is much more fun when you're actually doing it instead of simply watching others do it.. :D

art is what happens when I press the 'make art' button in Poser...;)

"Compare e.g. folk music to classical or baroque. The latter is fine art, the former is not."

Uh, no. Sorry, but no.

Actually, while I firmly believe that most of the work we see in the galleries would be examples of great craftsmanship and not art, I dont think one can just cavalierly write off something as "not fine art" simply because it's populist in nature. Mozart was, in his time, a pop musician, the equivalent of a folkie today. Yeah, he used orchestras for his music, but his intent for most of his work was little different than the Jonas Brothers today. "The Magic Flute" was his era's version of a Broadway musical.

So when did this pop star become "fine art"?

Morkonan, what about art for the sake of art?  I mean you can create a picture or write a poem not because you want to convey any meanings, but because they wanted to paint a picture or write a poem.

And as dphoadley said, "art is what I like".   So if I don't agree with the meaning, I'm certainly not going to consider it art.  If the meaning is intentionally offensive I wouldn't consider that art, I'd consider that junk that some b****** made to piss people off.

Plus you might not know if something with created to express a meaning or not.

BTW, a shameless self plug inspired by this conversation: www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php

Quote - Mozart was, in his time, a pop musician, the equivalent of a folkie today. Yeah, he used orchestras for his music, but his intent for most of his work was little different than the Jonas Brothers today. "The Magic Flute" was his era's version of a Broadway musical.

So when did this pop star become "fine art"?

When someone started referring to it as fine art and everyone else listened to him.

 Art, in my eye, is what moves me.  Something can be pretty, nice to look at, and I don't have to consider it art.  In the same vein, not all art is pretty.  

Quote - >> "Compare e.g. folk music to classical or baroque. The latter is fine art, the former is not."

Uh, no. Sorry, but no.

Actually, while I firmly believe that most of the work we see in the galleries would be examples of great craftsmanship and not art, I dont think one can just cavalierly write off something as "not fine art" simply because it's populist in nature. Mozart was, in his time, a pop musician, the equivalent of a folkie today. Yeah, he used orchestras for his music, but his intent for most of his work was little different than the Jonas Brothers today. "The Magic Flute" was his era's version of a Broadway musical.

So when did this pop star become "fine art"?

I think you're misunderstanding. There was also folk music in Mozart's day, and his was certainly not it. "People's music" has a very long history that spans many, many centuries.

The matter of fine art vs folk music is indeed a fine line, to be sure. But the traditional distinction does not have to do with how popular something was. (Hence whether Mozart's music was "pop art" in his day is irrelevant.) Folk art is less rigorous because virtually anyone can do it with very little training, although of course some will do it better than others. That's generally not true of fine art.

To put it another way: you don't have to be a musician to perform "folk music." People who perform classical music are generally musicians (keep in mind that I'm not saying they are necessarily professional or paid).

So...
Someone with no official training creates something beautiful, it's not art.
Someone with official training creates something beautiful, it's art. 

>> "Hence whether Mozart's music was "pop art" in his day is irrelevant"

Huh?

Sorry, but that's reaching, and it actually smacks of elitism. As Jen asks, does that mean one has to be of certain level before s/he is considered a "fine artist"? There's some magic line one has to cross?

Grandma Moses, from Vermont, was what we would call a "naive painter". Her subjects are all populist in nature, but she's considered a fine artist. Norman Rockwell can run circles around other artists when it comes to composition, colour, and form -- but I dont know of many who consider him a "fine artist".

Quote -
To put it another way: you don't have to be a musician to perform "folk music." People who perform classical music are generally musicians (keep in mind that I'm not saying they are necessarily professional or paid).

Hmmm I think this would call for another thread about what we call a musician.  To me you don't need a diploma or classical training to be a musician.  I know musicians who have had a lot of schooling and training and that by no means makes them a good musician.  On the other hand there are popular musicians who have very little training but have a good way speaking to us through their music. That's a good musician and an artist.

A classical musician playing from notes something that was written hundreds years ago maybe a good musician but not much of an artist. You could say the classical musician is painting by numbers while a good pop/rock musician is painting from heart. Who would you say is more of an artist?

no no the definition of art is simple.

can I get someone to pay a lot of money for this mess of paint on a canvas/stack of tires in the shape of a submarine/me kicking a curry container along a street/unmade bed?

if yes, it's art.

I make pictures. Call them what you like. Defining art is more faith than science so I choose not to meddle in other people's faith.

Quote - no no the definition of art is simple.

can I get someone to pay a lot of money for this mess of paint on a canvas/stack of tires in the shape of a submarine/me kicking a curry container along a street/unmade bed?

if yes, it's art.

you forgot "cubic mm of my own feces" (and, yes, I've seen that listed in "amazing art shows you have to see to believe")

Can I sell it on e'Bay?

I just don't like the prejudice and "nosing down" that goes on when start to talk about art. Like in music. People who say heavy metal isn't music or that genre isn't as valid as that genre.

I don't like country but there are some country songs I like.
I don't like techno music but I've heard techno songs I like.
I like Rock but there are some rock songs I hate (Creedence Clearwater makes me physically ill for some reason)
I´m not into classical music but some songs are so beautiful they almost make me cry.

There is too much categorizing going on and I feel sometimes when I ask people if they like a particular song they first need to know what genre it belongs to before they make a decision.

I think art is in the eye of the beholder and it's creator and I don't understand how buying and selling factors into it. If I would make a beautiful painting that symbolizes something that I feel and I'd store it in my closet where no-one else can see it, is it not art?

 The moment you see (or hear) something and starts thinking over it and/or discussing it with other people, it is art.

If something leaves you completely blah - it's probably not art.

a tin filled with someone's shit becomes art the moment we all know that such a thing exists and are able to debate it.

What I did this morning on my toilet is NOT art, because I was the only one to (briefly) see it. But a shit in a can... although personally I find it stupid, is art, because it evokes emotions. Positive or negative, but still emotions.

Thus, anything that can evoke an emotion, is art.

Quote -
Thus, anything that can evoke an emotion, is art.

Well put.

Quote - Morkonan, what about art for the sake of art?  I mean you can create a picture or write a poem not because you want to convey any meanings, but because they wanted to paint a picture or write a poem.

IMO, if it is not created with the intention of conveying meaning, then it is not "Art."

Anyone can interpret something to have some sort of meaning to it.  So, someone stumbling across your personal doodles may say "Look!  It's ART!"  But, they'd be wrong.  They could just as well pickup a rock and say "Look! It's ART!"  The creator must have intent to create it as a form of expression which conveys more than the sum of its parts.

Now, figure out why you may like to doodle or write a poem to yourself.  Does it give you some sense of meaning greater than the sum of its parts even when strictly interpreted by yourself?  Hey, you can create art just to entertain yourself, you know?  In that case, if you intend or experience the creation of greater meaning in your doodles, then it IS art.

Quote - And as dphoadley said, "art is what I like".   So if I don't agree with the meaning, I'm certainly not going to consider it art.  If the meaning is intentionally offensive I wouldn't consider that art, I'd consider that junk that some b****** made to piss people off.

Plus you might not know if something with created to express a meaning or not.

Whether or not it is bad art, successful art or even decently inspired art isn't the point.  If it was created with the purpose of conveying a meaning greater than the sum of its parts, it's Art.  You'll find that definition should stay valid through any artistic circumstance you can think of.

I'm not going to elaborate further, other than to deny things that some people are imputing to my words.

I never said that because something is popular, it's not fine art.

I never said that art is only done by those with degrees.

I never said that just because something is not fine art, it's not art at all.

The difference between fine art and folk art is not the proficiency of anyone who does it so much as the proficiency intended to master it. And the fact that there is good art and bad art applies to the fine arts.

Trekkie, I can walk around the streets and randomly kick guys in the nuts, and it would evoke an emotion, but that wouldn't be art.  I could steal candy from little babies, and again it would provoke emotion, but it wouldn't be art.  I was watching the game earlier and it provoked a lot of emotion in the fans, but I wouldn't consider football an art. 

So there needs to be more than that.

Morkonan, I think conveying meaning is a subset of art, however in order to convey meaning your audience has to pick up on it.  And I'm still not convinced that you can't have art simply for art's sake.

You know.. the way I feel is what I may think is art,  50 other people may think its crap. giggles

I'm a sucker for a painted look. Victorian style. But art to me is anything that moves me.

Quote - ... Morkonan, I think conveying meaning is a subset of art, however in order to convey meaning your audience has to pick up on it.  And I'm still not convinced that you can't have art simply for art's sake.

You can't use a word to define itself.

So, "Art for Art's Sake" doesn't really make any sense.  What is "art's sake?"  See what I mean?  If you're trying to define something, you have to put the definition into words that actually tell you what the word means.

If you apply my definition to your idea of "art for art's sake" then you will find no conflict.  You can create something that means something more to you than just the simple sum of its parts.  There's a gray area there that is arguable through.  However, I will say that there is no physical law that makes it necessary that any daydreaming, intellectual or emotional musings you undertake must always be non-physical.

I wasn't trying to define or answer "Why Art?"  I was answering "What is Art?"  A subtle yet important distinction. :)

Quote - You know.. the way I feel is what I may think is art,  50 other people may think its crap. giggles

I'm a sucker for a painted look. Victorian style. But art to me is anything that moves me.

So, is something "Art" that doesn't move you yet moves other people?

Admittedly, we all can't have the same tastes.  We're also not all within the same social groups, able to interpret the same sets of symbols and various uses of communication techniques.  So, something that may evoke meaning for you may not interest a primitive tribesman from South America.  Or, he may just not be equipped to understand the methods an artist was using.  Similarly, a blind person may not find the Mona Lisa to be especially engaging yet, the "touch garden" with its stones, sculptures, flowers and sounds at the local park moves them deeply.

Hmm... Here's something to convey that message, I hope:

When I was growing up and then later in college, I, like many self-proclaimed geeks, played the game Dungeons and Dragons.  That is a "subculture" which exists in many Western Societies.  This piece of "art" above makes a unique reference to cultural ques that are only fully realized within the subculture of D&D/Roleplaying aficionados.  Outside of that group, it's full message is somewhat meaningless.  But, the intended audience would find it amusing, evoking the memories of the game and a playful irony.  To them, it is probably "good art."  To others who view "art" as only having meaning when it applies directly to their experiences, it would not be "Art."

One fundamental intellectual idea is called Aristotle's Three Laws of Thought.  Summarized, they are:

1) A thing is identical to itself. (Equivalence, not to be confused with G.R. though)

1. A thing can not both "be" and "not be" something. (Contradiction)
2. Given a specified quality, a thing must have it or not. (Excluded Middle)

Why bring them up?  Simple, when looking to define or describe something, we need not ignore the rules we have used for millenia to define the world around us.  A quick application of Aristotle would seem to show that a thing can not both be "Art" and be "not Art." (Contradiction)  It must either have the quality or not. (Excluded Middle)  Is "Art" a direct enough category for it to apply to Equivalence?  Perhaps so.. A thing is always equal to itself.  IOW, it can not "Be" and, at the same time "not be" itself.  Either it is "Art" or it is "not."  It can't be both.   So, if you attempt to define something, you must not violate the Equivalence Principle or else the definition makes no sense. ... It all depends on your definition.

Why the long spiel?  Because, while I admit my tastes in Art are virtually non-existent, I have to acknowledge that lack of enthusiasm for certain "art" doesn't devalue it or make it "not Art" in a wider sense.  Much of what I see in, for instance, the Renderosity Galleries isn't very appealing.  But, a lot of people find meaning in those pieces so, I'll not devalue their experience by claiming that "Art is only that which appeals to me."  Besides, to do so doesn't fit with my definition. :)