I saw a quote the other day by the poet Qwendolyn Brooks. She wrote " Art hurts. Art urges voyages Â- and it is easier to stay at home". I think this speaks volumes and is so on point for the discussion on the conversations side. Someone wrote that they like more lighthearted and postive art and I believe it was Parma who said that she liked Munch. Not lighthearted at all. I like Munch but sometimes his work for lack of a better term hurts.

Art sometimes is in the eye of the beholder. Art taken out of context could be immediately dismissed and devalued, something that is not always fair.

I don't always understand modern art but to me it is still art. I like Monet, Renoir, the Sistine Chapel. My neice things that anything that is not contemporary is not art.

Art is not easy to define nor understand and that is what's so beautiful about it.

Deb

Of this I am convinced: There is no one, true definition of art. It's an inexact expression of myriad emotions, formed out of an endless variety of materials to bring something into existence that speaks.

Surely there can be no disputing that this is art:

But I also have no difficulty in appreciating something like this, and calling it art as well:
{{gwi:1512292}}

Most art is easy enough to define for me whether contemporary, modern, traditional, conceptual or childlike. It is when it moves into depravity and ugliness that I no longer consider it art. Dead animals, urine, pedophilic elements, etc. even if used for the purpose of righteous responses are still not art to me.
And I can appreciate something for being art while disliking the subject matter intensely (erotica) and am certainly able to distinguish levels of talent and creativity.

Why do you have a problem with that, AJ?

Or in other words; what is your litnus test for 'art'? I find a great many things to be not to my liking or even distasteful, but I don't don't find myself denying them the definition of 'art' simply because I don't appreciate them.

So is the original definition given in this thread not applicable to certain things? Or in certain mediums?

Personally I have to see some beauty or drama in the art I love.

I'm not touched by most landscapes; I'm attracted to abstract painting, it speaks to me.

I have spent a great part of my life pondering this question. My conclusion has been that art is a creation of the soul. Any further definition limits the bounds of human creativity.

Jason, I think that you misread auntjen's post. She said "But I also have no difficulty in appreciating something like this, and calling it art as well"

ha! I missed that too, Terriks. Thanks for pointing it out. I would call that art, also, and think the person who created it is talented -- though the Canvas they selected makes it grafitti and destruction of personal property ¡size>

yay, I found the upside down excl mark!!size>

PaintChips, I love your definition.

Oh; my apologies.

Tonight on Dave this was art ... first time hearing Regina Spektor Far.

Laughing With

Here is a link that might be useful: Regina Spektor Far

Maybe I can comment from another direction, i.e. art vs. craft. This is something that mosaic folks think about a lot. We've just come home from an incredible day spent at what is being billed as the largest mosaic art show ever assembled in the US. Right here in river city. Well, actually, in Lake Oswego (all PDXers -- GO TO THIS!). It's astoundingly delicious. I haven't had time to try to make something to submit to this, but I did volunteer some time on the mosaicist-group-collaborative piece that will be donated to the Lakewood Center, so some of my DNA is there anyway :).

There was a panel discussion tonight on "what is mosaic" and one of the big issues that the mosaic world has just maybe begun to be able to see daylight on is the idea that mosaic is *not* just "craft". That there is such a thing as fine art mosaic. Mosaicists, even ones who make things that serve no practical purpose (like a backsplash, say) and that are framed and hung on walls, have long been kept out of juried multi media shows because their work doesn't qualify, to older folks, as "art". It's pissed the mosaicists off intensely, as you can imagine.

But now, and I do believe this show and others like it will play a pivotal role, mosaic is being brought into the family of art media and made an honest medium, as it were :). Indeed, this annual, large art show always does a spotlight exhibit on one or another medium, say watercolor, glass, etc. -- this year it has been mosaic-- AND mosaics are randomly scattered through the open part of the show as well. It's like desegregation finally has hit and it's *so* refreshing.

Here is a link that might be useful: this is the invited exhibit -- look also at the juried collection

the ones I do have a VERY hard time calling art -- the rows of bricks that SOMEONE called art ......

sorry. no. A wonderfully laid brick garden path is a marvellous form of art -- but some artist claiming and a row of brick on the ground is art ...... and it ends up in a museum somewhere .....we always say that there is an artist laughing their butt off as the millions of dollars pour in from some "benefactor" that thinks they are a "collector"

Here is a link that might be useful: Reaction to

So you're a big Duchamp fan, teacats, am I right? ;)

Art moves me and makes me think. It stirs my soul and makes me question how one human being can create something that can evoke certain emotions. Art has to speak to me and capture my attention. If it moves me, I can stare at it for hours and I'm usually looking for the "why" of the artist. What made the artist choose that particular subject? What was he/she thinking? What was the intent?

I've been blessed to go to some of the most famous museums in the world and I always become overwhelmed in a good way. I love museums and if I'm lucky enough I will be able to travel all over the world to visit them.

Ah yeeeeeesssssssssss ........

good grief.

Pass the popcorn and a martini.

(although his Nude Descending a Staircase (Duchamp 1912) is fascinating and kinetic)

Although there are MANY common objects (referring to Duchamp's "Readymades") that I do regard as pure artistry (and darn handy too) -- the one that springs to mind -- my DH's grandmother's vegetable scraper from the 40s. Still in use and a brillant design.

Jan (whose DH often says as he looks at many modern sculptures and says "ah ..... man's inhumanity to stainless steel" LOL!)

Here is a link that might be useful: Duchamp info

I don't believe that the most avant-garde of pieces are art by their mere existence. It is the controversy and dialog surrounding them are what creates the artistic exercise.

Unlike more traditional pieces that have a static connection between viewer and art, the avant-garde creates a fluid dialog between art, viewer, and public. So in reality, by us discussing Duchamp's work we are forwarding culture and the arts, thus creating a beautiful experience.

Sometimes the questions of, "why" are what makes things beautiful, not because the item in question is beautiful, but because when we ask, we are reaching out to our fellow man for his perspective. With nothing else in common, two people can walk into any museum in the world, view any piece ever created, and have a rush of emotions and reactions that reveal the commonalities of our humanity.

I had a very early childhood experience walking through a gallery, wondering why a man was pondering a large canvas painted white. I walked up to him and asked what he was looking at, but before he could reply, I was called away by someone who didnÂt take the time to realize that art was about to be created, that a blank canvas was about to be filled.

Strange really, I still have a vivid memory of the spotlights dancing on that canvas, how the man was lit by the reflection. And to this day, I have always wondered what the man was about to say.

Awesome, PaintChips.

But the creation of beauty is the last thing from many artists mind. They may want to shock, inform, or educate the viewer if they even care about them. I have seen too many disgusting perverted things called art but is not to me.

When I was in art college, the final show of the year by faculty, included one piece that had dead birds in it. I believe the teacher changed out the birds over the course of the exhibition for the sake of sanitation, smell, etc.
It was talked about, of course, but was it art? Most people seemed to think it was.

Bumble, that is why I said, "I don't believe that the most avant-garde of pieces are art by their mere existence. It is the controversy and dialog surrounding them are what creates the artistic exercise."

Calling something art doesn't make it so, much akin to how a single note is not music. Both are artistic exercises, a prelude to the possibilities of a larger experience, good or bad. But the reverse to this argument is that none of us are qualified to dictate when the sounds become music.

So the original question, "what is art?" is much easier to answer than the question, "what isn't art?"

"There was a panel discussion tonight on "what is mosaic" and one of the big issues that the mosaic world has just maybe begun to be able to see daylight on is the idea that mosaic is *not* just "craft". That there is such a thing as fine art mosaic."

Indeed, mosaic is art. Just ask my father...
WPA "Public Art for Public Schools"

Those are beautiful, mrsmarv! Could you say more about them? Date, materials, who all helped make them, etc.? Any more closeups?

Natal - thanks for posting the link. I like the new album. :)

And thank you for the reminder, lol! I just added Laughing With to my iTunes shopping cart.