Yes, this means "math" is also an art form. When applied correctly.

 

My thoughts exactly; though in my case I was/might still be good at it. My idea is more: Art is the production of profound elegance. This means what one persons deems art can be different from another (seen in practice) and that anything can be turned into art if the crafter is willing to become an artisan (whether that be an arrangement of flowers or a particularly beautifully laid-out circuit board).

Art is human expression. It doesn't have to be elegant at all. Daubing curse words in faecal matter on bathroom stalls is art.

Daubing curse words in faecal matter on bathroom stalls is art.

 

All that proves is that not all art should be subsidized. ;)

Art is human expression. It doesn't have to be elegant at all. Daubing curse words in faecal matter on bathroom stalls is art.

 

Personally, I would disagree on that (despite loving a good fecal show). But that's the great thing about "art" -- it is, ultimately, in the eyes of the beholder.

 

To me, art has intent, thought and purpose, even if that's entirely subconscious (e.g. a mentally retarded painter). And I have to be personally impressed by the effort to call it "art", even if it is a minute effort. Still, that's all subjective. Your mileage may, and probably should, vary. :)

Art is human expression.

 

I will respectfully disagree to this blanket description. If I tell someone: "It's cloudy today." I have expressed myself. That makes it human expression, but not art. It could be made into art if the wielder of that particular expression paints a background and writes those words across the sky, or if it's a particularly witty retort to someone asking "What's with that attitude?" or something much better, or if it's encoded using an impressive algorithm, or anything else that the wielder could be proud of. Again, very subjective, but there are rules.

 

Disclaimer: IMHO

It doesn't have to be elegant at all. Daubing curse words in faecal matter on bathroom stalls is art.

 

This could be considered "profoundly elegant" vulgarity (and hence an art form). I will continue to call it disgusting.

 

I will agree that the degree and type of elegance required may vary. For example, a child's stick-figure family portrait drawing/painting is art by virtue of the relative elegance of a child's imagination and ability to express their thoughts/ideas/emotions through drawing/painting, even if that only applies to the parent or friend it's presented to. To someone else it may just be a bunch of scribbles or paint splatters. In other words, the difference in what people consider "profoundly elegant" in largest part depends on the value they attach to those things.

To me, art has intent, thought and purpose, even if that's entirely subconscious (e.g. a mentally retarded painter). And I have to be personally impressed by the effort to call it "art", even if it is a minute effort. Still, that's all subjective. Your mileage may, and probably should, vary. :)

 

An excellent corollary :)

I will respectfully disagree to this blanket description. If I tell someone: "It's cloudy today." I have expressed myself. That makes it human expression, but not art.

 

I disagree. It is art. But that's just my opinion, of course. :)

No argument over the definition of art ever ends well. My theory is that there are two ways to look at something - from a utilitarian perspective, or from an artistic perspective.

 

Here's a door:

From a utilitarian perspective, it serves as an egress; a means of passing through, or keeping out. You appreciate the fact that it's a door, and it does what it's supposed to.

From an artistic perspective, you could analyze the architectural aspects of the door - the handles, the design of the metal spirals, the coloring, etc. The fact that it's a door doesn't matter so much as the feelings it may conjure up.

 

Art is not a property that some objects have and others don't; it is a perspective that one takes in observing something, and it varies from person-to-person. An artist like Kandinsky can conjure up an abstract image and explain what he was feeling when he drew it, or what it represents, but a second observer may tell an entirely different story based on the painting. Yet it also makes sense that people deride post-modern art as not being "artistic", simply because they cannot perceive how such things could possibly be appreciated from an artistic perspective.

 

My point is further made when we realize that art appreciation is distinctly a human quality. While we may admire our Van Gogh collection, the bear that breaks into our house and inadvertently knocks the paintings off the walls while foraging for food obviously doesn't.

From an artistic perspective...

 

And the hammer drops. Whether or not an individual considers something art has to do completely with their perspective :) Okay, I'm done now.

"Art" is somebody's brain vomiting its ideas out into the physical world, and then someone else's brain lapping up that vomit like a hungry dog and then misinterpreting it, thus completely ruining the whole point.

 

Art, my friends, is communication. Sweet, disgusting communication. ;)

 

Here's a door

This door sucks. The technical skill of the artist leaves much to be desired, the thematic symbolism is confusing and self-contradictory, and it's not blue enough.

 

</art critic>

 

While we may admire our Van Gogh collection, the bear that breaks into our house and inadvertently knocks the paintings off the walls while foraging for food obviously doesn't.

I hate that bear. :angry: He keeps breaking into my study and drawing cartoon mustaches on all of my paintings. Even the ones that aren't portraits.

A work of art which did not begin in emotion is not art.