Originally Posted by GoodBox
Hrm, after typing all of this up I realized my definition is pretty much hanz0's Definition...
Basically, yeah, but with a lot more detail. :D
I'd definitely agree that Art for one person does not have to be Art for another person. I'm a little iffy about the "purity" of art that's been brought up, though.
"i wish i could do that ken watanabe face where his eyes are really wide" -siku 2015
DONSELUKE, MASTER OF LAWSUIT
if you love america please sign this petition
B&B&B&
This is art.
BTW, this thread has been brought up before, ending with said picture above. It causes expression (omgwtflol), causes thought (wth he has 4 arms, why is he eating "this cactus"), and you can attempt to read what expression the artist was putting into it (self torture?).
Now, there might be crappy art and good art. Good art causes more thought or has more apparent expression. Unfortunately, that also means someone could read "That guy was so angry that he put the urinal upside down" onto "I just screw these things into the wall, right?".
BTW, this thread has been brought up before, ending with said picture above. It causes expression (omgwtflol), causes thought (wth he has 4 arms, why is he eating "this cactus"), and you can attempt to read what expression the artist was putting into it (self torture?).
Now, there might be crappy art and good art. Good art causes more thought or has more apparent expression. Unfortunately, that also means someone could read "That guy was so angry that he put the urinal upside down" onto "I just screw these things into the wall, right?".
Last edited by FNugget; Mar 12, 2011 at 01:27 AM.
Originally Posted by DaBandito
Art has no function.
Why not?
The thing is - the individual can define art as they please, whether their definition is educated or ignorant.
Why should art have no function? Should art have a function? Is art a definate thing or a label applied to a number of different things? Does putting an object in a gallery make it a work of art?
These are a few questions that come up all the time in art theory, especially when discussing contemporary art. Art cannot be defined in one sweeping sentence or concise summary.
It's art cause someone called Picasso just drew a line. The name is everything.
But it's also called art because it's a unique, you can't repeat that color splash, and the mix of color have a reason, if you repeat that it would be just a copy not art.
this is my opinion eh? ^^
Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, photography, sculpture, and paintings. Traditionally, the term art was used to refer to any skill or mastery.
this is just thing from internet not my opinion.
But it's also called art because it's a unique, you can't repeat that color splash, and the mix of color have a reason, if you repeat that it would be just a copy not art.
this is my opinion eh? ^^
Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, photography, sculpture, and paintings. Traditionally, the term art was used to refer to any skill or mastery.
this is just thing from internet not my opinion.
