24 replies to this topic

[winkent]

hi everyone,

 

i'm going to ask a question that is keeping me busy for quite some time now. it's a question about art and what makes art art. 

personally i find art and especially artists who say they make art, really pretentious. they make a painting or an installation and say 'it's art because i made it and i'm an artist' 

 

we're all, without exception  people with problems and insecurities. how can something you create as a simple doubting human being be called art, meaning it's more than just something you made, it's bigger and almost divine.

 

but enough rambling about art. a discussion where, if you make it in your head and keeps asking questions, you will always come to contradict things you earlier said or stopped believing what you believed in the beginning of your inner discussion, and makes you confused.

 

the question i want you guys to answer is a short one, but with hopefuly less short answers:

 

what's the difference between a painting and art?

 

meaning, where does art distinguish itself from a painting or an installation.

i can paint a wonam on a canvas, but that's not considered art. whereas the women painted by michelangelo or rubens are considered art.

 

i know it's a heavy question but i figured since you guys are smart and mature enough to code autobuyers you're mature enough to form toughts on this topic.

 

ps: i don't want to shit on any artist with this question 

[KaibaSama]

General difference: Hm...I'd say art can be anything. Music, a painting, a story, a photograph, a sculpture, a film or play. 

Art is not limited to just one thing.

A painting is just a form of art, and thus there is a limit on it. (only certain things are called paintings. For instance, a play is art but it isn't a painting).

 

However, if you've made a painting, it's art. Even if it's not "pretty" it's still a form of art.

Some people only call "pretty" things art, like the works of Michelangelo or Picasso. I have no idea why people do this though (beauty is in the eye of the beholder). You see parents call the finger paintings their children make, "art". As thus, they are art. Just not a type of art that would ever be in a museum because they're not advanced enough/pretty enough/old enough/well known enough to be there.

 

I suppose what I'm saying splits art into to categories: 

Those that hang in museums (which are "museum art") 

Those made by non-famous people (children finger painting, amateur writers/painters.. Or what I would call "real" art).

Edited by Satsuki, 18 June 2013 - 05:13 PM.

[Waser Lave]

Anything can be considered art to somebody, it's one of the most subjective subjects out there so it's pretty much impossible to answer the question imo.

ps: i don't want to shit on any artist with this question

I'm sure somebody out there would still consider that art. Damien Hurst could smear his own shit on a dead penguin and somebody would pay a million for it.

[Tubbz]

A painting is a form of art. 

 

The problem with art is, it's art if someone says it is. 

 

There's so much rubbish out there. What makes something "art" and not just a painting is someone, usually with no artistic talent themselves, says it's art, everyone goes mad, and it's considered art.

 

My view, it's art if I like it, or can see purpose in it. 

 

I'm sure somebody out there would still consider that art. Damien Hurst could smear his own shit on a dead penguin and somebody would pay a million for it.

 

Didn't someone piss and shit herself in a bed for a week and now it's in a gallery? (Don't consider it art so don't care enough to remember her name

[Kauvara]

i can paint a wonam on a canvas, but that's not considered art. whereas the women painted by michelangelo or rubens are considered art.

 

 

That's not necessarily true. I define "art" as a form of expression. The beautiful thing about art is it's interpretational. You do not need "talent" to create art. You just need to convey a message... which can be absolutely anything, even if it's nothing at all. I realize that sounds contradicting, but think about it. It's up to the viewer to determine whether or not your piece is beautiful... in its own way of course, whether it be aesthetically, psychologically, or otherwise.

Edited by Kauvara, 18 June 2013 - 05:35 PM.

[LegitRSer]

Art to someone isnt art to me. Its totally subjective.

[Pirates]

Art is in the eye of the beholder

[NapisaurusRex]

Art is something that I can find meaning in. 

 

And that is all art is.

[vaxinas]

art is sold idk lol

[Syntax]

art is sold idk lol

 

wow so deep

 

Art is everything that symbolises something. Paintings can be art, but paintings that are made for commercial purposes isn't art.

[Eefi]

Anything can be art and you're free to call anything art. What I don't like about is that people always want to argue that X is art but Y isn't.

 

I can't appreciate stuff that is supposed to be deep but that no one understands or stuff that is hyped because it has never been done before (like making sculptures out of butter and letting it rot), but that's just me I guess. Art doesn't even need a message, in my opinion. If its sole purpose is to be beautiful, that's enough of a reason for me to be called art.

[krislox]

I think someone already said this, but art can be anything expressional. Music, dancing, singing are all arts.

Painting is a type of art.

 

Art is an umbrella and painting is just a branch of it.

[Scot]

The IQ of the patron, which is inversely proportional to whether or not something is art.

[frostz]

a painting can be anything. if you randomly splash some paint onto canvas that would be considered a painting.

 

There are three kinds of paintings. Stylized, realistic, and abstract

 

First of all when we talk about stylized and realistic paintings, they really can't be considered art unless it took some skill and effort to paint.  For example if you were going to draw a turkey and you made a hand print turkey in like 3 minutes that's just a painting that's not art.  But if you painted a stylized or realistic turkey and its quality is anywhere between decent and great that could be considered art.  In other words if you are going for realism and you half ass the job or simply don't have the skill don't expect other people to think your painting is art.  In this example trying to pass off stick figure turkeys in a practice sketch pad as art isn't going to fly.

 

On the other hand if the painting is abstract (which imo is just an excuse for people who can't draw but that is a different topic) it needs to have some kind of symbolism or meaning that enough people accept and acknowledge before it would be considered to be art.  So in this example a handprint turkey could technically become promoted from painting to art but it would have to be a damn good handprint turkey.  Maybe if you covered the wall in handprints and label it "Turkey Flock"  someone might recognize it as art.  Its not good art but it is probably still art.  Although I would personally never recognize it as such.

Edited by frostz, 23 June 2013 - 08:37 PM.

[Revisions]

The IQ of the patron, which is inversely proportional to whether or not something is art.

 

...I'm sadly inclined to agree with this. 

[Kauvara]

First of all when we talk about stylized and realistic paintings, they really can't be considered art unless it took some skill and effort to paint. 

 

But it would still be up to the viewer to determine if the piece was skillfully created, or if enough effort went into the process of creating it. It's completely subjectional.

 

On the other hand if the painting is abstract (which imo is just an excuse for people who can't draw but that is a different topic) it needs to have some kind of symbolism or meaning that enough people accept and acknowledge before it would be considered to be art.

 

Not true. Abstract covers a very wide range of subjects, from those that are mere paint splatters to subjects that are heavily detailed. Abstract art is something that is nonrepresentational of anything you find in real life. For example...

 

Spoiler

 

 

[frostz]

Not true. Abstract covers a very wide range of subjects, from those that are mere paint splatters to subjects that are heavily detailed. Abstract art is something that is nonrepresentational of anything you find in real life. For example...

 

Spoiler

 

 

mmhmm but we are talking about the difference between a painting and art.  You actually proved my point by posting 2 drawing exercises and a drawing labeled as having no meaning.

 

Those images cannot be considered to be art for the same reason why the below image is not art even though they took more "skill" to draw.  Remember skill theoretically does not matter in abstract "art".

Spoiler

 

However there are many idiots out there who try to find meaning in any piece of abstract "art".  Honestly abstract "art" is terrible and I hate it.  Every time I see something like the below and a 5 page essay talking about it's "meaning" I can just imagine the artist going "ROFL dis idiots all fall for the BS description I came up with for the image and are trying to figure out what I was thinking when I drew this!  However  dis is just a bunch of lines on a canvas that took me 5 min to make and has no actual meaning at all! trollololololol"

 

But just so you can understand the BS that is "abstract art".  Under my argument I would be forced to consider this image I linked art because apparently enough people are so awed by it they went and "analyzed" the drawing and slapped an essay length descriptor of it's "meaning" right under it. 

 

 

Spoiler

There is no subjectivity at all.  The image you linked are abstract drawings with no meaning and is therefore not art.  This image is an abstract drawing with "meaning" and apparently a whole bunch of people agree with that "meaning" whatever that may be, since the drawing is famous and so therefore it is art. (although I totally disagree with it and I think that it is just a bunch of stupid lines).

 

We aren't even talking about which piece of abstract "art" is better here.  If i were just trying to compare images by how they looked I'd say what you linked is a better painting.  But knowing that it is an abstract and that they are just drawing exercises with no meaning I will never say that it is art.

 

Now if we were talking about realistic /stylized paintings,  and this image I posted earlier were not in fact a piece of abstract art and was just something in a novice's sketchpad.  Would it be considered art? No of course not.  Would anyone accept it as art if they were going around advertising it as a realistic painting? Again No of course not.  Unlike the BS that is abstract art, when we are talking about realism or stylized art the differentiation between  "crap", "painting", and "art" is very easy to make.  Crap would be the below, A painting would be something of middling skill, Art would be something more advanced and looked amazing.

Spoiler

Edited by frostz, 25 June 2013 - 01:46 AM.

[Kauvara]

Woah. Alrighty.  First off, I was adressing the following statement regarding abstract art

 

(which imo is just an excuse for people who can't draw but that is a different topic)

 

I disagreed because abstract pieces can still be very skillfully created, which is where the examples I posted come into play.

 

 

Second, I beleive you need to approach the term art with an open mind. The fact that you do not find meaning in a piece, or you think it looks "stupid" does not mean the piece in question is not art. Art does not need to look amazing to be considered art. Every piece is completely subjectional to the viewer. As you stated, many people might find meaning in a piece in which you do not.

 

 

Here's what I mean.

Spoiler

 

Some might say "It's a chair, so what. Not interesting."

Some might find it to represent isolation, a feeling that something is missing in your life.

Some might simply enjoy the simplicity of the painting.

 

It's a simple painting, but it is still art. Someone created this, either with the intention of evoking intense feeling or because they just wanted to paint a chair, I don't know. Art is simply a form of expression. Sketches, drawings, sculptures, dance, makeup, modeling, assemblage, all forms of expression and all forms of art.

 

The artist who creates something strange and different with the intention of trolling their audience has still created a piece of art. Perhaps he was trying to convey how something many might regard as stupid draws others in like moths to a flame.

[GothicxToy]

There is no difference? Painting is art, just like drawing, digital media, sculpture, etc...

[Grandmaster]

I think in general, art refers to all forms of artistic expression, whether it is painting, sculpturing, photography, etc.

 

But you specifically mentioned about a painting by a normal person like you is not considered art but by an artist is considered art.

 

Actually, this is just an opinion. I would consider all paintings by anyone a form of art. But of course, not all art are appreciated by everyone or would fetch a high price when selling. It depends on your skill and the kind of emotions your painting can evoke.

[luvsmyncis]

However there are many idiots out there who try to find meaning in any piece of abstract "art".  Honestly abstract "art" is terrible and I hate it.  Every time I see something like the below and a 5 page essay talking about it's "meaning" I can just imagine the artist going "ROFL dis idiots all fall for the BS description I came up with for the image and are trying to figure out what I was thinking when I drew this!  However  dis is just a bunch of lines on a canvas that took me 5 min to make and has no actual meaning at all! trollololololol"

That's not always true. Sometimes an abstract piece is more about the process of creating it.

How did the artist make this thing that you think is a pile of crap? Did they glue a bunch of shit together? How long did that take? It smells pretty weird, I wonder if the artist was high on fumes while making it.

Or is the piece just two scribbles in the middle of a big white canvas? Why did the artist decide to put them in the middle and not on the side? Why are the scribbles red? Is that the only color this broke ass artist had?

I like this drawing.

It's a walking potato person. I like that they didn't add color and that it looks unhappy because it's right arm doubles as an unsmiling mouth. I don't care that it probably only took two seconds, and that maybe the artist is 'trolling' us. I'd actually like to read a 5 page essay on the meaning of it. I certainly wouldn't pay money to see it, but I still enjoyed it.

Even bad art can be interesting if you make the effort to think about it. I tend to find realistic artwork more boring because you are seeing EXACTLY what the artist saw. "Oh. The artist made a bowl of fruit, because that's what sat in front of them." or "Here's a naked lady, wow, this artist is so observant to get all the bumps on her nipple just right." I'll take a paint splatter over that any day. But even though I have preferences, I'm not going to say something isn't art just because I don't like it.

[Bear]

You want to know why a famous artist can literally take a rock and draw a smiley face and call it art?  Blame this http://en.wikipedia....ntain_(Duchamp)

 

Art hasn't been the same since. A famous artist using their shit to paint mona lisa is not art, it's shit.

Edited by Bear, 14 July 2013 - 03:42 PM.

[Waser Lave]

You want to know why a famous artist can literally take a rock and draw a smiley face and call it art?  Blame this http://en.wikipedia....ntain_(Duchamp)

 

Art hasn't been the same since. A famous artist using their shit to paint mona lisa is not art, it's shit.

 

I blame speculators. If people only bought a piece of art because they actually liked it rather than hoping to make money in a few years then I'm pretty sure we wouldn't see the ridiculous prices that often these things sell for.

[MishaZheleza]

Art is something that I can find meaning in. 

 

And that is all art is.

If it sparks an emotion of some sort, any reaction, that's what I believe art is.

[VaultBoy]

Painting is a form of expressing art. Basically painting is a subset of art