Tuesday, November 18, 2008

What is Art?

One of the biggest questions that watching "My Kid Could Paint That" left me with is: How do we judge what is termed 'art' and what isn't? For that matter, should we even be allowed to? If the old saying holds true, and beauty IS is in the eye of the beholder, then shouldn't the only standard for art be whether or not it sells? I personally have never cared who wrote a book, or who published a piece of music, or who painted an artwork. For me, when it comes to art, I use almost solely sense perception. If it sounds good or looks nice, if I enjoy it, then I consider it 'art'. That isn't to say that it isn't art if I don't enjoy it, because that isn't true either. Maybe it would be better to say that as long as someone, somewhere, feels an emotional connection to an artwork, it can be termed art.
Ultimately, I guess what I am asking is: how do you personally define art? Should there be societal standards like the ones that exist today, or is the old saying true? Is beauty in the eye of the beholder?
(Oliver)

5 comments:

JuliaC. said...

I pretty much agree with your personal definition of art, that something is art when it is personally appealing. But I think art presents an interesting conundrum, because most people who view art tend to place themselves in a position of authority. We talked a little about this in my class last year, that most people who dabble casually in an art form will call themselves artists, but people who dabble in science as a hobby would never call themselves scientists. I think that art by nature opens itself up to amateur criticism and participation, especially now, when the internet makes everything so widely accessible. So although I believe that what is and what is not art is a question of personal preference, I do, in a sense, mourn the elitism that used to exist in the art world. Because really, what does lighting a trash can on fire and showering it in whipped cream say about anything? I don't think that many societal standards for art still exist, which keeps its' possibilities unlimited and its' quality slightly diluted.

Anna said...

I agree with the method of solely using sense perception to determine one's liking of art, music, or literature, etc. However, I do believe that a famous artists' name on a particular piece will tremendously increase its popularity and value. For instance, I've noticed that when I go to the library, I tend to gravitate toward novels by authors whose work I am most familiar with and enjoy. It seems logical that, on a societal level, in order for one to be successful in the art world, they have to have built up a name for themselves. I think that art can exist in a variety of forms, but the conflict lies within peoples' subjective interpretations of the definition of 'art'. A mother may adore a stick figure picture that her kindergartner drew, but that doesn't mean that anyone else will see the same merit in the creation.

Simone S. said...

I agree that art is deemed art or not by the person making the assessment and that may not hold true for everyone else. However, I disagree that they need to have an emotional connection to it. In many cases this is true, which is why we are inclined to define good art as something that illicits an emotional response. But I don't know if I have a strong emotional response to great pieces of art, like the Mona Lisa, yet I still consider it to be good art. I suppose this is mainly because of authority and consensus. And so I think that while the average person can say that art is good or bad from their own personal emotional perspective, on a technical level, emotion may not be necessary to judge art. However, people who are art experts are very invested in art and so perhaps an emotional response would follow their more objective judgement.

Haylee S said...

Art to me is ALMOST always your own self-examination of the piece. For example, if I made something I thought fit all the principles of art but just did not please my perspective on it, then I would not call it a GOOD piece of art. Although it’s not good, that doesn't mean that it’s not art, because somebody else could find it to be "perfection". This brings me to the flaw in the idea that art is ALMOST purely "self examination". I know that there are lots of art pieces with random slashes of paint on them, and many people are fans of that style for their own personal reasons. I am not one of those fans. Just because I am not a fan, doesn't mean I have the "authority" to ignore the piece's respectability or talent by not calling it art. Then again, I can still internally believe its not GOOD art because of my own preferences. I guess in the end, anything that an "artist" wants to call "art", is art. It just all depends who is looking at it, and whether or not they would call it GOOD or BAD (or in between).

madibee said...

I definitely agree with your definition as well. I like the idea of applying the saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" to a piece of artwork but I also wanted to ask how you would define "beauty"? to me something beautiful is something that evokes an emotion or moves my mood in a specific direction, not even necessarily a positive direction. A ballet piece can be beautiful in multiple senses, but an abstract work of art can be beautiful because it moves me to think and ponder and assign meaning. Is that not beautiful? something that provokes deep thought that anyone can view in any way.as Julia pointed out, how does lighting a trash can on fire and adding whip cream create thought besides "why is this wierd person doing this?" perhaps the definition should include a section about how meaningful an art piece is to a person...