do u no i think i no what u mean like a coffe mug ppl would call art but its not its just a coffe mug ! lol

How do you define anything? It always seems that art is the one place that doesn't have doors with perscriptions written all over it therefore it is open and will continue to be open to all sorts of materials,ideas, thoughts.

As far as I'm concerned art should be images created with drawing skill... not some lazy excuse for art like an unmade bed. Can I just say that the Tate Modern is full of complete rubbish.

quote:

Originally posted by Wobbletastic:
As far as I'm concerned art should be images created with drawing skill... not some lazy excuse for art like an unmade bed. Can I just say that the Tate Modern is full of complete rubbish.

maybe you should visit a James TUrrel room, or have gone to see the sunset at Tate Modern, art can be sublime and interesting without any drawing skill, yes classical artists learnt workshop style to be draughtsman but the best had ideas even back then. Their skill wasn't just the paint it was to engage the brain like all good art.

the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

it is not art unless it features bums.

i'd say anything that ISN'T taken for granted, (in other words special) is art

Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Story about rubbish - one day, a few years ago I walked into Tate Britain (which it is now) and just inside the entrance was a huge pile of litter. On top was one half of a pair of shoes, and I was just bending down to pick it up to see what make, and a curator rushed over saying "no, no, NO!- that's an exhibit!" You could have fooled me, but someone thought it wonderful, obviously.

Haha I bet they have to brief the cleaners very carefully, about what it supposed to be swept up and which rubbish is there on purpose.

hmmm , art gallerys are strangly clean ... i wouldn like to be a cleaner in an art gallery , if you broke something you'd have to pay loads ...

just out of interest , if it had been a good brand what would you have done ? brought some ?

Art seems to mean different things to different people.

I beleive art is a personal thing. Anyone should be able to declare virtually anything as art if it means something to them. This ought to be celebrated.

The only problem I have is with people saying "that isn't art". If some people can see that it is in their opinion art then that's like saying that their views are invalid. It's rude.

Many people can only accept art in it's classical form. But even this wasn't all just pretty pictures. Bloodshed and risque works can be found in all our great galleries but usually it's the pretty pictures that are in a lot of peoples eyes when defining art.

When I see a classical picture I can enjoy looking at it, I will also have respect for the artist who displayed their talent in creating it... when I see an unmade bed, a pile of rubbish or a light that goes on and off I just think it's a waste of space and my time.

Art is in the senses of the beholder.

If you look closely, you can see art everywhere.

No art is a picture... I had a deluded tutor at university who wrongly informed me that art was all around us! Imagine how annoyed you would be as a proper artist if you spent weeks or months creating a wonderful picture of a lovely landscape or a portrait of a beautiful woman and had it hanging in a gallery, unnoticed by hoards of chinless wonders with cameras and clipboards who were more interested in a pile of junk that had been left seemingly on the floor by a bored tourist, but was actually put there intentionally by some artistic drunk twerp with a brain the size of a pea such as Tracy Emin. Artists who claim that art can be anything are largely the ones without the talent to create proper art, so they create some rubbish instead and then attempt to con impressionable people into believing it has some value.

quote:

Originally posted by Wobbletastic:
Art used to be a picture or something but now it seems it can be any old rubbish. I think the reason people try to justify an unmade bed etc. as art is because they are not skilled enough to draw a proper picture.

Although a huge generalisation, I do agree with this statement. It irrates me immensly when I spend hours sketching a building etc, trying desperately to get it to look like the real thing, only for the art teachers to ignore it and praise the other students who trace around a photograph or splat paint on some wood. I also just got told my A2 essay was basically rubbish because my teacher didn't agree with my view of abstract (being seeminly easy). This makes me wonder, what qualifications do art teachers/art examiners have which means they can judge students' art work?

I think modern art is judged on a scale of ‘ponce value’ the more irritating and stupid the better in the eyes of the artistic hoity-toity.

I think the problem people seem to have with the term 'art' is that they think 'an artifact' (the outcome of artistic activity) must have the SAME 'authenticity' in the eyes of the entire human population.

Given the fact that the degree of 'authenticity' cannot be 'measured' with a standardised 'indicator' and thus there is no way this entire human population can agree on the degree of authenticity for a given artifact, it may be useless for us to debate what an 'art' IS amongst all human population as well.

Instead, if we accept that there are always differences in the perception of (wo)men how authentic an artifact is and that such perception changes within one's lifetime as well as between different historical periods, what we should be asking is 'WHO interpreted WHICH artifact as a piece of 'art' and HOW did (s)he come to such a conclusion?'

What the word 'art' represents, therefore, is not something 'objective': it is deeply 'subjective' and that no individuals (groups of people) can define it for the rest of the humanity like a mother can 'teach' to her child.

Or, if you like, 'art' could be defined only according to what I have just described: a WORD.

I'd agree with that.

art is just a word

still, there are some pieces of art that I believe don't need to be described by words and still would induce awe - take St Peter's square for an example.

on the other hand, if some1 calls a random creation 'art', there may actually be some ppl who would like to see that creation in that context and that would actually be content with that description of it.

I really hate this question, it's such a cliché.. what is art? Art is anything you want it to be! It's impossible to define it.

quote:

Originally posted by bigbeardedman:
I really hate this question, it's such a cliché.. what is art? Art is anything you want it to be! It's impossible to define it.

Exactly. If a person says "that is art", then, as if by magic, you have art.