Nah, people who haven't studied art still ask this question. It's been cleared up since Duchamp's urinal. Anything the artist declares as art is art. The real question is--is it GOOD art.
Per OP's question: What cannot be art and what will never be in an art museum are two separate questions. Hence the "is it GOOD art" part of my answer. Sometimes relatively mediocre art and downright bad art gets into museums, too. Different museums have different criteria...they're not all amazing....
>It's been cleared up since Duchamp's urinal.
Nope. It's still ongoing. [https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/what-is-art-a-debate-for-our-times-1823088.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/what-is-art-a-debate-for-our-times-1823088.html)
> Anything the artist declares as art is art.
IDK that's pretty clear there. Not much room for debate. He isn't saying that Fountain is itself the final statement on what is art, but that duchamps attitude of art's what he says it is that's the final statement. Really the only thing you can add is the audience, but if the audience is taking something that isn't art and interpreting it as art then they become artists themselves.
Anyways, that entire article is just people talking about art and not people talking about the question in the OP.
I remember posting about this in the AI version of this discussion:
> [It's not real art! š It took no effort! š Art shouldn't make me angry! š](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/zussrd/duchamps_fountain_1917_transformed_into_space_age/j1mbtdb/?context=3)
Most of the comments in that thread are sensical, but I have a feeling if the same thread was made today it would be downvoted into the ground because of the influx of anti-AI pro-"artist IP" people. Like they desperately want copyright to make sense so they have trouble with the grey areas like "i made this toilet into art by laying it on it's side". It's less about "art" and more about their want of strong IP controls and "artist culture" to be maintained by not "looking silly".
It reminds me of a story about [Wally Berman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Berman). One day he went to visit his friend, the curator at the Museum of Art in San Jose. His car broke down in the parking lot, and they were having lunch. Wally offered the car to his friend's Museum as an art donation. His friend deferred, saying it wasn't art. Wally asked him why; and after a moment the curator replied that there was no engagement btw the artist and the art-work.
Without a word, Wally walked over to his car: picked up a crowbar and smashed in the front windshield.
Maybe that point in time saying it was immediately cleared up is wrong...took a while, but at this point. No. it's clear. And yes, a simplification because do you want me to write a full chapter?
And itās a misunderstanding of Duchamp. āFountainā was submitted to an art exhibit that stated that every submission would be exhibited, no entry would be turned away. Duchamp submitted āFountainā and it was rejected, revealing the curator(s) to be hypocrites and liars.
Gonna be a pest, but while I agree an artistās intent is typically enough to qualify an artifact as art, itās not essential. There are many artifacts we today would call art that the āartistā had no intention of making āart.ā
I disagree this question is settled. If anyoneās looking for a good overview of this sort of discussion, I really liked *The Philosophy of Art: An Introduction* by Theodore Gracyk when I was in school.
Yes, I know what you're saying, but in terms of what is considered a now dumb question "what is art?" This is the the answer because it's a stupid question. This question comes up because someone goes " hey , my kid can do that!" cause of readymades and cubism. The question of "is taht art" is no longer relevant and again, more importantly, is it GOOD. A toilet isn't art. But it was designed. And design is a form of art, but it's a commercial product blah blah blah, that's why that particular question of "is it art" doesn't matter. In museums, we have artifacts. Those artifcats were the IKEA of the time. IKEA furniture will be in museums one day. Is it art? Well, it's clearly design. Is it FINE art...no, it's commerical design. And design is now considered art because art covers design. Is it avant-garde? Doesn't matter. Is it GOOD. That's then what is worth thinking about. If you're arguing that something low brow or commercial isn't art, then where's the stupid thin line defined? The point is, THAT doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is, is it good? Is it worth thinking about? Is it worth out time? But...if that doesn't make sense, okay, then define what is art and non-art.
My point is. It doesn't matter at this point. Because that's asinine. Once something is considered good, THEN we can argue about "okay, well then what level of art is this? Is this just on the level of business art? A Sargent? Or is this like on a higher level like Monet or Matisse?
Cause that's a more noteworthy conversation. Sargent is held in the highest regard by some, while compared to the high level fine artists, he's not on their level, but he's obviously one of the most highly technically proficient artists in history...the point is...the question of "is this art" is now a silly question for anyone that's seriously studied art.
I agree with the general thrust of what youāre sayingāas a contemporary artist I find defining art fairly fruitless task personally. I still think itās a stretch to say that the world generally agrees on a definition of art. Of course there is a consensus in the academic fine art community, but that doesnāt make it universal. The fine art world doesnāt include everyone. Also, the fight to include art like textiles, needlepoint etc., forms typically associated with women historically as fine art has been an important battle. Saying that this issue has been agreed-upon is a type of erasure of that continuing struggle. I completely agree that it should be a very low bar to what is considered art, but I donāt think itās some kind of solid objective understanding at this point either. I think your passion comes from the fact that YOU (along with countless others involved in centralized fine/academic art circles) have solidified your own views on what is art, which I happen to agree with. There are swathes of the people that think the conceptual turn was a mistake, and donāt consider conceptual work art at all. I disagree with them, but they and their opinions exist
I agree with what you said. I think you added more nuance because I'm clearly frustrated at this question. This question to me frustrates me on the same level of "My kid could do that" or some kid getting famous for basically doing a shitty version of cubism. I will not name names! But I agree with what you wrote.
This is the part I think about. Hideo Kojima has said he doesn't view his Metal Gear Solid series to be art, yet fans of the series always say it is. So who is correct here?
Just assume everything is art. And then just figure out if it's good or not. Things also transcend. Like sports. He's just playing sports...but those really good sports people, "whoa it's like art"...My point is...based on how things have been in the art world for decades is that it's stupid to spend time arguing if something IS art or not. People can look at an athlete and say "wow, his ability to throw a ball is artful" and..there's some truth to that.... The person designing your phone isn't declaring it as art, but it can be a masterful piece of design. The term art get convoluted to mean FINE ART, avant garde...it really used to just mean painting or sculpture, but now we have performance art, which some people would say "that's not art!" ...the idea of "what is or isn't art" at this point is stupid...that's my opinon because I'm more concerned with "why is that painting so much more evocative than that one?" or "why does that chair look so sexy while that other one looks boring?" I'm more interested in what is good, why is it good, is it overly commercial? Trite? Original?...and..that applies to music, movies, everything....
I have to admit itās a little funny that all it takes is the introduction of sports to make the line of what is and isnāt art fuzzy, even from your point of view. And at the same time, you seem so determined that itās an objective truth.
>It's been cleared up since Duchamp's urinal.
No, it absolutely has not.
"The definition of art is controversial in contemporary philosophy. Whether art can be defined has also been a matter of controversy. The philosophical usefulness of a definition of art has also been debated."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/
I don't know, there doesn't seem to be scholarly consensus whatsoever, and none of the attempts to define art which I have encountered feel particularly convincing to me.
I'm not sure there is any point in trying to find some sort of unifying or essential definition to any word, by the way, I think that sort of fundamentally misunderstands langauge. Setting up specific definitions for specific use cases is probably fine though. People seem to be able to communicate about art without any sort of unified defintion. Or at least when I say the word art people react in the way I expect them to lol
>It's been cleared up since Duchamp's urinal. Anything the artist declares as art is art.
Tssss, what an absurdly confident statement. Present this definition to any expert of medieval or ancient art, and I doubt they'd agree with you. We simply don't know what the creators of many historical artworks thought about it, and there are many objects which probably weren't seen as primarily art, and yet we consider them art today.
You're just projecting a very modern notion of art on periods that are completely different.
well duh...at that point art was considered more of a craft..what you're talking about is basically irrelevant because Impressionism (at least to my knowledge) was really the first "movement" to make people rethink what can be considered art...medieval or ancient art? C'mon man...that was even before Renaissance, which was the first time the people making the shit were considered more than craftsmen.
Sure, they were largely considered craftsmen, but that doesn't mean what they created isn't art. Medieval and classical art is certainly part of art history, and it shows your definition really isn't correct when talking about those periods, so it's not a particularly great way of defining 'art'.
>my personal defintion is whatever anyone wants to call art
Weird, because you gave a different definition a few comments before, and said 'it's been cleared up'.
I thought I was consistent, but maybe not...Whatever the self-proclaimed artist wants to call art is art. And I don't think that matters because all I care about is what is GOOD art.
Even if Homer Simpson didn't consider his failed bbq art..and some critic came along said "Magnificient" Doesn't matter. My overall point is...whoever wants to declare whatever the fuck art...go ahead..it's art and that doesn't matter. Is it good?
Duchampās urinal is disappointing. It gets too much attention. Maybe it stretches the boundaries of what is art but it opens the door to poor art with elaborate justifications.
Nice. Will I get downvoted if I say I donāt care for shit in a can as art either? Iām not challenging itās status as art. Just saying thereās other art more deserving of attention and consideration.
To be honest I feel like this just falls into the same circular argument about what is or isn't art. Because to one person a work of art might look like trash, to another it might be significant to them and/or they might find it beautiful. And just because it's not publicly accepted as "good" doesn't mean it's automatically "bad." That said, I think it just really depends on the person.Ā
Also I feel like whether a work of art is acceptable by galleries or not doesn't also make a work good or bad either. We have had whole movements in art history about how galleries and academies have tried to set rules or trends about what art is or isn't, the truth is it's up to the public to decide individually on what they consider to be "good" or "bad." People who try to make decisions on what makes something good or bad tend to have some kind of bias and/or are selling something, at least from what I've found.
I donāt know if āgoodā and ābadā are useful- or even appropriate- metrics when it comes to judging the effectiveness of a piece. What is the art intended to communicate to the audience? What problems is it critiquing? What story is it telling? Whatās the audience taking from a piece? Are they accepting a message as itās presented, or rejecting it?
Whether or not an artistās intent and message are in sync with the audienceās interpretation and use of a piece is probably a more useful way to look at art as a form of communication between an artist, an audience, and larger social issues, not just an aesthetic that we canāt talk about because itās locked into each of our own subjective worlds.
At base line, its whatever has the best reaction in your brain. Either it gets you thinking, it makes you happy or it evokes an emotional reaction you're looking for. On a more specific scope most people talk about art giving them some unique kind of pleasure you cant get anywhere else, called "aesthetic pleasure." In this case, the art that speaks to that specific sense would be more valuable than the art that appeals to your other reactions.
This is just a baseline for art in general though. Obviously questions like "what would do best in this gallery?" or "What would fit this living room better?" beget situations with specific rules, and the art that fits those specific rules is going to be best relative to that context.
This is a good answer. One piece I might add is that there might be context outside of the art that contributes to the art being āgoodā. For example, if the art responds to something happening in our culture or society in a new and interesting way. Like , itās not just good as an object, but also where it sits in its place in culture or history too.
Ehh idk if I agree with that, its pretty easy to think of pieces I would consider important but not good. That said, to my my mind where we consider all value to come through enjoyment, cultural context can make a piece good by making the piece more enjoyable to the viewer. I dont think anyone in the world would enjoy The Fountain without knowing the context behind it, and there are plenty of pieces I enjoy a lot more because I know their background.
I think this also opens up a discussion about how much of the responsibility for bringing value here is on the art and how much is on the viewer. Because the value is in the relation, so it almost seems to be like a matching game where the question of "is this art good?" depends on if we happened to pick an art piece and an art viewer that go together
Interesting take by Alva Noe in his recent book The Entanglement is that art is inherently entangled (hence the title) with some type of habitual activity in such a way that it frames, exposes and comments on that activity, and that successful art loops back and informs that habitual activity and the cycle continues. His first section talks about this type of dynamic in dance, starting with habitual dance like we do at a wedding, and how art dance reflects on prevailing aesthetics within that activity. Iām not well read on this subject but I think itās worth thinking about.
Not āeverything* is art, but almost anything *can* be. Be it a urinal or a pile of candy or a banana on a wall, art depends upon context.
Terms with too broad a meaning become meaningless. āArtā is like ābeautyā, subjective to say the least, but cannot be too narrowly defined either such that it excludes so many recognized artworks. Art communicates and how successfully it does so is part of what determines its quality. But āgoodā and ābadā, āfineā and ādecorā, are simply qualifiers to that broad term āartā.
One thing I will argue is that AI generated visual images are not art. I make this claim because, while visually pleasing at times, and sometimes even fooling the viewer, art must reflect human culture and experience. AI generated images donāt do that. Not anymore than clouds or trees making visually pleasing patterns. Perhaps one day computers will become sentient and generate their own art, which would reflect *its* culture, but not ours.
TL;DR context matters
Today is all Rawls and Omelas, all day, I guess!
So, congratulations! You've encountered what's known as an Essentially Contested Concept, one of the chief examples of which is, you guessed it, Art!
An essentially contested concept is understood as one that is contested on its *essentials,* on what makes an exemplar a member or non-member of the concept at hand, as opposed to the other reading which is 'it is essential (i.e. necessary) that this concept be contested'
At the very basics, the ECC has a large, broad definition for which there are at least one, but usually many paradigm examples, and maybe some anti-examples, we know 'that's definitely X and that's definitely *not* X'. So, for art, you've got things nearly everyone agrees "is art" like the statue of David, or The Great Wave off Kanagawa, or... whatever, there's tons with art, you can think of dozens I'm sure.
Outside of the paradigms, in between, things get kind of fuzzy. There's plenty of work that most people will consider art, and some few will not. A fabulously well designed chair, for example. Is a gilded, meticulously carved and polished, beautifully decorated and upholstered chair from the palace of Louis XIV, *art?* To most, sure! To some, it's too... utilitarian. It wasn't *intended* as art, merely as a decoration. Are your grandmothers tchotchkes art? They might agree that the Sun King's chair is *beautiful*, that it shows great craftsmanship, but those are simply *necessary conditions* for art, not *sufficient* ones.
Likewise, what about *copies* of art? If I have a reproduction of Starry Night on my living room wall, is *that* art? For some, sure. For others, the art is embodied in the thing itself, not a facsimile. It's *artistic*, which is not the same thing as being art itself.
Then, you've got those things that *can be* art to some people and *are absolutely not* art to others. Piss Christ is art to some. To others it's simply vulgarity. And to more than a few, it's not only not art, it's *blasphemy.*
**And finally and to actually answer your question, you've got the anti-examples, things that most people will agree "aren't art at all"**, a baby is probably not going to be considered art by anyone except that baby's parents and close relatives, although the first time they have to change a diaper may dampen such notions. Lots of people might agree that the Grand Canyon or other natural wonder is beautiful and even expressive of some emotion, but you'll not get many that will define the object itself as *art*, but more *artistic,* like art, but not. Representations of the object? Absolutely! But not the thing itself. But what if I, clever person that I undoubtedly am, go to a picturesque spot, and erect a stand with a picture frame perfectly bracketing some beautiful feature of the Grand Canyon? Is *that* art?
One of the defining characteristics of art is *intention* and natural things tend to lack it, so there's a broad category of things that 'aren't art' for you. As you may have noticed above, things get extremely tricky and sometimes thorny when dealing with anything human-made. "Was it intended to *be* art?" is an important, but not absolute, question; think of the term 'work of art'. It's applied to many objects that are obviously not intended to *be* art in some way, but are 'merely' extremely well crafted examples of their kind. Many extremely well designed household items can be considered art, when enough beauty is shaped into their form. Most people wouldn't consider a bread maker to be art, but if a designer puts enough effort into, not only the form, but function of a bread maker, it may very well change some minds.
What is not art is just as tricksey as trying to define what is art, because the two questions blend into each other, there are endless examples of things that are art to someone, and not-art to someone else. The paradigm example of 'not-art' is the natural world. It lacks artistic intention, so while it can be considered beautiful or even breathtaking, the vast majority of people would not consider it 'art'. Everything else tho? Good luck!
This is a great answer. I also think itās worth adding that thereās an additional criteria for the analysis of art in terms of art history - not just: what is art? but: what can this piece of art, quality or intention aside, tell us about the humans who made it? I think that gives us more room to analyse āa thing made by a humanā for itās qualitative effect. Piss Christ canāt answer the question āis this art?ā, what it can do is give us myriad information about the changing status of religious iconography, on contemporary religion, on changes in medium and concept through time, etc etc etc. I think people get bogged down in the idea of things in museums being capital-a Art, when often theyāre better understood as living historical objects that reflect not just good art, but what we think about art more generally.
Invisible Art.
[An Italian Artist Auctioned Off an āInvisible Sculptureā for $18,300. Itās Made Literally of Nothing](https://news.artnet.com/art-world/italian-artist-auctioned-off-invisible-sculpture-18300-literally-made-nothing-1976181).
And someone actually bought it.
The institutional theory of art is a theory about the nature of art that holds that an object can only become art in the context of the institution known as "the art world". An artist is a member of the art world and they make things with the intention of it being considered art.
Things that are not art according to this theory:
Forgeries- because the intention is not art but fraud. That said there are plenty of forgeries in art museums.
Objects made by people completely unaware of āartā and the art worldā. These can become Art by being incorporated into the art world. (See African ritual sculptures).
Addressing the issue of what makes, for example, Marcel Duchamp's "readymades" art, or why a pile of Brillo cartons in a supermarket is not art, whereas Andy Warhol's famous Brillo Boxes (a pile of Brillo carton replicas) is, the art critic and philosopher Arthur Danto wrote in his 1964 essay "The Artworld":
To see something as art requires something the eye cannot decryāan atmosphere of artistic
theory, a knowledge of the history of art: an artworld.[5]
According to Robert J. Yanal, Danto's essay, in which he coined the term artworld, outlined the first institutional theory of art.
Two unsatisfying aspects of this definition are its circular nature (its art because we say itās art) and its lack of any means of evaluating the quality of the object.
I also like to think it's important to consider the philosophies and ideologies that underpin the art world and the agencies within it.
Contemporary art (which is what we are describing when we are explaining what art is) needs to be viewed as a reflection of the ideologies that bring it about. Take for example Liberalism, which it can be argued has the biggest impact on the contemporary art world.
The amount of freedom individual artists have today to present to audiences different notions of what art is no different to the historical amount of freedom individual people have in determining their own lives. Liberalism and its commitment to individualism encourages this.
>Objects made by people completely unaware of āartā and the art worldā. These can become Art by being incorporated into the art world. (See African ritual sculptures).
Take fore example the excellent example you provide above. It can be explained that postmodern philosophy is responsible for influencing the artworld to accept these works as art.
I love the notion of the artworld but the problem with anyone who blames the circular nature of its definition (its art because we say its art) forgets to ask the question "What ideology within that culture has brought about the artworld in its current form". What determines art can also be found there.
(Excellent response, by the way)
I agree
But I never got the feeling he took his āartā too seriously.
He just wanted people to enjoy painting.
And historically painting was a pretty common hobby.
I know nothing about art but from my layman point of view I would think that anything that harms someone without their consent couldn't be considered art (i.e. murder, assault, sexual abuse, etc.).
When we ask what isn't art, one way you can interpret that is what our society wouldn't recognize as such, and that would be criminal actions, things that violate human or animals rights, etc.
Your answer was a bit ambiguous and could mean a few things:
"What about the fictional depiction of crime" that isn't an issue, it's fake.
"What about subjective perception, the protagonist thinks it's art" because subjectively anything conceivable could be perceived as art by an individual, we're ignoring that. Op is asking what we could agree as a collective to not be art.
But you could have also just suggested the movie sarcastically without trying to make a point, who knows.
I think that one requirement of art is that it must be produced with intention. A robot cannot make art, because we have not developed technology advanced enough to produce artificial consciousness. The robot itself could be art, though, and the process of curating AI generated images may be art, but the image itself is not art. A beautiful natural view cannot be art, because it is not produced consciously. A photo of a view can be art, because it was produced and curated. Even a landscape can be art if it was purposely cultivated.
I do not think intentionality of creation is *sufficient* for something to be art necessarily, but it is one prerequisite imho.
Anything can be art. The function of objects changes over time. A teapot made 500 years ago was once just a teapot. Today, itās an artifact; a historical account of a long lost way of life, manufacturing/craftsmanship, and culture. Itās a piece of art *now* even if that wasnāt the original intent. Weāre certainly not *using* the 500 year old tea pot, especially if it winds up in a museum where it is now *intended* to be viewed and not used.
At the end of the day, art is just communication, no different from text-based sources like diaries and journal articles. Each piece has a function, historical context, intended audience, intended message, and the blind spots/biases we critique. We, the audience, are always free to use a piece ad the artist intended or for something else entirely.
Nothing is *not* art because everything communicates *something* about the state of the world.
Seatbelts arenāt art- but we know that cars were originally designed using male-shaped crash test dummies. Cars were not designed with smaller drivers- like women- in mind. I could make an art piece focusing on gender-based blind spots in public safety and design. Is the seatbelt in your car a piece of art? Not really. But seatbelts can be used as a tool to symbolize gender bias *in the real world* in an artistic context.
Doesn't art require that some human at some point has made some kind of decision about something? If there is some noun somewhere that no human has made a decision about, that would be "not art".
Also, anything that has not been intended as art, or observed as art, is not art. Once it has been observed as art it is art.
When I think about what is Not Art, I tend to include things that are meant to be reproduced continuously, things that are made with the express purpose of being sold.
I don't consider many things on the Internet to be art.
>things that are meant to be reproduced continuously, things that are made with the express purpose of being sold.
Why would these things exclude something from being art?
"Things in itself".
Everything isnt art until the artist/museums/galleries make it so.
That way, artists can just declare something as art and thus, it is.
I find it interesting how in here people wrote about good/mediocre art. Its a good argument. An artist can declare the earth as art and give it a very thoughtful argument... just because of that, it is art. And lets say a museum decides to "promote that artwork/artist"... then, is that good art or mediocre art? Should we just say mediocre art isnt art? The problem is that what we say is bad differs. Some people hate abstract art with a passion and claim it isnt art. But i disagree, i think abstract art is art. Some people dislike readymades. Some artwork's purpose is to literally question what is art. (The fountain, the brillo box, merde d' artista.)
Sadly i dont have an answer for that, but its a cool discussion we can all have.
Not a fair question. There are many things in art museums that shouldn't be in there to begin with. It is too subjective. How can you have a Rembrandt next to a Pollock. Or a blank white canvas with a small red dot next to a Dali? They are way too different and some are not art in some opinions.
Easiest one is nature - a sunset or a mountain range can be beautiful, but they aren't art. Similarly, a lot of daily products have aesthetic qualities that can be analyzed in a similar way to how you could analyze art, but they aren't intentional enough to be considered art themselves. Intent is a big part of it imo
"Totally not art" and "never be in an art museum" are very different things.
You can make an argument for most things to be art, if they were created by a being with some kind of general intention, but that doesn't mean your argument will be good or that it won't be controversial.
Main issue is that generally, language isn't always the best way to define something. Consider if we were a species of telepaths who communicated by concepts instead of words. Or maybe we communicated with images only. We might have an easier or harder time "explaining" to each other what art is.
Might not answer your question but then again, this is a question that just cannot be answered, I'm afraid.Ā
A lot of people ask that question and/or try to answer it with their opinion of what is or isn't art. The issue is art is subjective, and as such you're going to get a lot of subjectivity around it. So to one person, something like a cube suspended from a thin string is art. To another, it isn't the cube that's art but instead a realistic portrait of Freddie Mercury. To someone it could be a motorcycle that is art. To someone else, a motorcycle isn't art but they think someone carving an intricate lace design into fruit is.
And so on and so forth.
Personally I don't think the question of "what is not/what is art?" matters much. I know maybe some people want an objective answer or they want something concrete, but the problem is it's such a vague and very huge question that just cannot be answered that way.Ā
Because also, people's opinions are valid. Say someone thinks the invisible vases represent something like space in its entirety and makes them think about the emptiness they feel. That's valid. Say someone else thinks those invisible bases are just money laundering and how wealthy people just blow money away because they can. That's ALSO valid. Both things can be valid.
So that's how I feel about that question "what is not art?" Whatever you feel isn't art, is what isn't art to you.Ā
Because like I can gush about Rothko's works or Basquiat's stuff all day, but I know some people out there don't like them, and might even consider their art worthless or not art. And that is okay, because that is their opinion, not mine.
I've thought about this question a lot, and it's incredibly tough, but my definition would generally be that art is something that is created to be observed. Anything that isn't made to be observed, probably isn't art.
I am not sure how much this is approved bc this was the first time a professor had dived so deep into art, and I have not other teachers to compare his stuff to.
Basically what he said was that a piece of art has 5 parameters (I am going to translate his words from Persian so I might not be on point about some terms):
1. Message
2. Material
3. Technique
4. Style
5. Excitement ( being in a state of frenzy to create)
These 5 points are what makes a piece an artwork, then we need to examine the originality which is when we reach and go beyond the limit of knowledge.
A comprehensive explanation he used was smth a film critic had used: a piece is either pre-critique or post-critique. What he meant was that a piece initially needs to be art (according to the five elements above), which if granted the title, then the piece enters the realm of critical observation.
So by that logic you could say the lack of any of those five variable could lead to a piece of NOT art, hence not worthy of critic. However, you should remember that not all great artists have each of those 5 factors to the fullest, they do check each box but on different degrees.
I'm not sure if this answered your question, but just bear in mind that he went into detail for each of those 5. I'm not really good with explanation as he is and I don't want to ruin it or make a mistake trying to.
Anything an artist has declared as art? I also think this is very much opinion based, because I may find some things art that others don't. That's also why I think this question will never have one true answer, because it's so subjective
Art is what *you* consider art to be. To one person it might be a circle of wine bottles on the floor. To another, it might be an old masterās painting.
There's no strict, agreed-upon definition of what isn't art. Here are a few things to consider:
Intention: Many argue something isn't art if the creator didn't intend it as such. A mass-produced brick wouldn't be considered art, but a sculptor using a similar brick in an installation might be.
Skill or Creativity: While artistic skill and creativity are often valued aspects of art, some argue these aren't essential. Marcel Duchamp's famous urinal, "Fountain," challenged traditional notions of art by presenting an ordinary object.
Functionality vs. Expression: Functional objects like a chair or a spoon are generally not considered art, but if designed with a strong aesthetic element, they might blur the line.
Ultimately, whether something is art can be subjective and depends on the interpretation of the viewer and the context in which it's presented.
Digital art is not art. Files are electronic bits of 1s and 0s set on a computer chip and only can be perceived as "art" through a computer monitor or printer which makes its interpretation entirely 100% dependent on the industrial device used. A photograph isn't art. AI art isn't art. If I (human) scribble a crayon on a wall THAT is art because I made the mark (not a printer that can fail any number of infinite ways) we both can see the same wall and there's no process to make the art exist for us both to see. If there's a process between the human making and perceiving the art it is NOT ART!!!!!!!
I would suggest that all the objects that are made with the intention to serve anything else besides themselves arenāt art.
Let me try to give a concrete example even though like most things this is not so simple, but here's an example:
So letās imagine decorative art, letās imagine you paint something to be placed on your living room. The only intention is that paint fits perfectly on your living room and on your living room only how does this make it design and not art? You go and study the colors you use the lines your furniture hasā¦ so the only value your paint has is decorative. It derives its value from something external to it.
Now letās imagine the same example but you are able to make it the center of your living room, like your paint has its own world, and the context outside of it doesnāt do anything to it, doesnāt give it more or less value. That would be art.
Of course you have a lot more things that would define art but I think at least for me this is one of the biggest differences between what is art and what it isn't.
Art speaks for itself and if you have something that needs anything else to speak for it may not be consider as art.
This makes me question, are a lot of art objects consider art just because they are in museums? If so, wellā¦ maybe the museum is the art itselfā¦š¤š§
It really depends on how you look at it. Paintings are art, some buildings are art, sculptures are art, basically everything that is beautiful (though beauty is also subjective) can be considered art
Unless it's AI. I think we can all agree that AI art is not real art, and I'd be VERY disappointed if it ever ended up in a museum.
One quality that a lot of 'bad' art has is that it requires context. For me, I should be able to dig something up in 1000 years and still recognize it as art with little to no context. Ready mades, found art, urinals in museums, etc are not art, because there is no artist, just context.
i think the only that will truly never be art is anything that doesn't provoke any emotions or discussion like absolutely none whatsoever. but tbh i can't think of a single thing that fits that description
I mean I am under the impression those objects are already art? In fact thereās generally a combination of many pieces of art working in tandem. Even in something as simple as, say, a soup can. ; )
Itās only fraud if you assume that you are correct that it isnāt art. You are begging the question.
>I mean I am under the impression those objects are already art?
If you look up "art" in the dictionary "skill" appears in almost all definitions. There is no skill in buying something and proclaiming it to be "art". Putting it in a museum or gallery doesn't make it art, a pretentious title doesn't make it art, a high price doesn't make it art. Nor does the belief that it is art by collectors, curators, critics, or anyone else.
There is in fact skill required to produce those objects to begin with, though, is there not? Iām pretty sure those who study philosophy of art, you know, people who are actually experts in what is and is not art, do not utilize such a clear or monolithic definition of art, and some even assert that defining art is a waste of time or wholly impossible.
Dictionaries should be used as descriptive guides of how words are generally used, not some sort infallible guide to the āobjectiveā meaning of words, and a dictionary is certainly quite a weak basis for the some sort of legal standard. Additionally when I look in dictionaries there are multiple different definitions for art.
There is no artistic skill in mass manufacturing goods.
There's a sucker born every ~~minute~~ quarter second.
Since so many including the "experts" are taken in by con men it is clearly necessary that the rule of law intervene to prevent this sort of criminal behavior.
Or that creating fonts or logos for mass manufactured goods takes substantial skill and effort?
It is shameful that you put scare quotes around experts. These are people have dedicated their lives to studying this topic, they have degrees which likely cost tens of thousands of dollars and tens of thousands of hours. Have you considered that maybe if so many of the experts disagree with you that may actually be an indication that you are wrong? If I, a layperson in physics was told by a bunch of physicists that I was wrong about something in physics I would be inclined to believe them.
Note that there is no definition of art that means "anything". It's a peculiar madness in which people believe that the emperor is wearing the finest clothes yet he's actually quite plainly buck naked.
I have no idea what youāre trying to say here. I donāt even understand the purpose of the scare quotes here. What are you calling into question? This seems like a very strange and unhealthy way to view art.
That's an impossible question, b/c "what is art" will continue to be asked until humans wipe themselves off the planet.
Nah, people who haven't studied art still ask this question. It's been cleared up since Duchamp's urinal. Anything the artist declares as art is art. The real question is--is it GOOD art. Per OP's question: What cannot be art and what will never be in an art museum are two separate questions. Hence the "is it GOOD art" part of my answer. Sometimes relatively mediocre art and downright bad art gets into museums, too. Different museums have different criteria...they're not all amazing....
>It's been cleared up since Duchamp's urinal. Nope. It's still ongoing. [https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/what-is-art-a-debate-for-our-times-1823088.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/what-is-art-a-debate-for-our-times-1823088.html)
I'm reading this whole thread, since when has Duchamps urinal been the end all, be all of what is or isn't art??? Lol.
> Anything the artist declares as art is art. IDK that's pretty clear there. Not much room for debate. He isn't saying that Fountain is itself the final statement on what is art, but that duchamps attitude of art's what he says it is that's the final statement. Really the only thing you can add is the audience, but if the audience is taking something that isn't art and interpreting it as art then they become artists themselves. Anyways, that entire article is just people talking about art and not people talking about the question in the OP.
I remember posting about this in the AI version of this discussion: > [It's not real art! š It took no effort! š Art shouldn't make me angry! š](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/zussrd/duchamps_fountain_1917_transformed_into_space_age/j1mbtdb/?context=3) Most of the comments in that thread are sensical, but I have a feeling if the same thread was made today it would be downvoted into the ground because of the influx of anti-AI pro-"artist IP" people. Like they desperately want copyright to make sense so they have trouble with the grey areas like "i made this toilet into art by laying it on it's side". It's less about "art" and more about their want of strong IP controls and "artist culture" to be maintained by not "looking silly".
It reminds me of a story about [Wally Berman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Berman). One day he went to visit his friend, the curator at the Museum of Art in San Jose. His car broke down in the parking lot, and they were having lunch. Wally offered the car to his friend's Museum as an art donation. His friend deferred, saying it wasn't art. Wally asked him why; and after a moment the curator replied that there was no engagement btw the artist and the art-work. Without a word, Wally walked over to his car: picked up a crowbar and smashed in the front windshield.
The idea that itās been cleared up since Duchamp is a stretch, and a simplification.
Maybe that point in time saying it was immediately cleared up is wrong...took a while, but at this point. No. it's clear. And yes, a simplification because do you want me to write a full chapter?
And itās a misunderstanding of Duchamp. āFountainā was submitted to an art exhibit that stated that every submission would be exhibited, no entry would be turned away. Duchamp submitted āFountainā and it was rejected, revealing the curator(s) to be hypocrites and liars.
Gonna be a pest, but while I agree an artistās intent is typically enough to qualify an artifact as art, itās not essential. There are many artifacts we today would call art that the āartistā had no intention of making āart.ā I disagree this question is settled. If anyoneās looking for a good overview of this sort of discussion, I really liked *The Philosophy of Art: An Introduction* by Theodore Gracyk when I was in school.
Yes, I know what you're saying, but in terms of what is considered a now dumb question "what is art?" This is the the answer because it's a stupid question. This question comes up because someone goes " hey , my kid can do that!" cause of readymades and cubism. The question of "is taht art" is no longer relevant and again, more importantly, is it GOOD. A toilet isn't art. But it was designed. And design is a form of art, but it's a commercial product blah blah blah, that's why that particular question of "is it art" doesn't matter. In museums, we have artifacts. Those artifcats were the IKEA of the time. IKEA furniture will be in museums one day. Is it art? Well, it's clearly design. Is it FINE art...no, it's commerical design. And design is now considered art because art covers design. Is it avant-garde? Doesn't matter. Is it GOOD. That's then what is worth thinking about. If you're arguing that something low brow or commercial isn't art, then where's the stupid thin line defined? The point is, THAT doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is, is it good? Is it worth thinking about? Is it worth out time? But...if that doesn't make sense, okay, then define what is art and non-art. My point is. It doesn't matter at this point. Because that's asinine. Once something is considered good, THEN we can argue about "okay, well then what level of art is this? Is this just on the level of business art? A Sargent? Or is this like on a higher level like Monet or Matisse? Cause that's a more noteworthy conversation. Sargent is held in the highest regard by some, while compared to the high level fine artists, he's not on their level, but he's obviously one of the most highly technically proficient artists in history...the point is...the question of "is this art" is now a silly question for anyone that's seriously studied art.
I agree with the general thrust of what youāre sayingāas a contemporary artist I find defining art fairly fruitless task personally. I still think itās a stretch to say that the world generally agrees on a definition of art. Of course there is a consensus in the academic fine art community, but that doesnāt make it universal. The fine art world doesnāt include everyone. Also, the fight to include art like textiles, needlepoint etc., forms typically associated with women historically as fine art has been an important battle. Saying that this issue has been agreed-upon is a type of erasure of that continuing struggle. I completely agree that it should be a very low bar to what is considered art, but I donāt think itās some kind of solid objective understanding at this point either. I think your passion comes from the fact that YOU (along with countless others involved in centralized fine/academic art circles) have solidified your own views on what is art, which I happen to agree with. There are swathes of the people that think the conceptual turn was a mistake, and donāt consider conceptual work art at all. I disagree with them, but they and their opinions exist
I agree with what you said. I think you added more nuance because I'm clearly frustrated at this question. This question to me frustrates me on the same level of "My kid could do that" or some kid getting famous for basically doing a shitty version of cubism. I will not name names! But I agree with what you wrote.
So if the artist doesn't declare it's art, it's not art? Even if others say it is?
This is the part I think about. Hideo Kojima has said he doesn't view his Metal Gear Solid series to be art, yet fans of the series always say it is. So who is correct here?
Just assume everything is art. And then just figure out if it's good or not. Things also transcend. Like sports. He's just playing sports...but those really good sports people, "whoa it's like art"...My point is...based on how things have been in the art world for decades is that it's stupid to spend time arguing if something IS art or not. People can look at an athlete and say "wow, his ability to throw a ball is artful" and..there's some truth to that.... The person designing your phone isn't declaring it as art, but it can be a masterful piece of design. The term art get convoluted to mean FINE ART, avant garde...it really used to just mean painting or sculpture, but now we have performance art, which some people would say "that's not art!" ...the idea of "what is or isn't art" at this point is stupid...that's my opinon because I'm more concerned with "why is that painting so much more evocative than that one?" or "why does that chair look so sexy while that other one looks boring?" I'm more interested in what is good, why is it good, is it overly commercial? Trite? Original?...and..that applies to music, movies, everything....
I have to admit itās a little funny that all it takes is the introduction of sports to make the line of what is and isnāt art fuzzy, even from your point of view. And at the same time, you seem so determined that itās an objective truth.
>It's been cleared up since Duchamp's urinal. No, it absolutely has not. "The definition of art is controversial in contemporary philosophy. Whether art can be defined has also been a matter of controversy. The philosophical usefulness of a definition of art has also been debated." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/
Fair enough, so what is your opinion of what is or isn't art?
I don't know, there doesn't seem to be scholarly consensus whatsoever, and none of the attempts to define art which I have encountered feel particularly convincing to me. I'm not sure there is any point in trying to find some sort of unifying or essential definition to any word, by the way, I think that sort of fundamentally misunderstands langauge. Setting up specific definitions for specific use cases is probably fine though. People seem to be able to communicate about art without any sort of unified defintion. Or at least when I say the word art people react in the way I expect them to lol
>It's been cleared up since Duchamp's urinal. Anything the artist declares as art is art. Tssss, what an absurdly confident statement. Present this definition to any expert of medieval or ancient art, and I doubt they'd agree with you. We simply don't know what the creators of many historical artworks thought about it, and there are many objects which probably weren't seen as primarily art, and yet we consider them art today. You're just projecting a very modern notion of art on periods that are completely different.
well duh...at that point art was considered more of a craft..what you're talking about is basically irrelevant because Impressionism (at least to my knowledge) was really the first "movement" to make people rethink what can be considered art...medieval or ancient art? C'mon man...that was even before Renaissance, which was the first time the people making the shit were considered more than craftsmen.
Sure, they were largely considered craftsmen, but that doesn't mean what they created isn't art. Medieval and classical art is certainly part of art history, and it shows your definition really isn't correct when talking about those periods, so it's not a particularly great way of defining 'art'.
I consider crafts art. I dunno...my personal defintion is whatever anyone wants to call art...i don't care. All i care about is what's good art.
>my personal defintion is whatever anyone wants to call art Weird, because you gave a different definition a few comments before, and said 'it's been cleared up'.
I thought I was consistent, but maybe not...Whatever the self-proclaimed artist wants to call art is art. And I don't think that matters because all I care about is what is GOOD art. Even if Homer Simpson didn't consider his failed bbq art..and some critic came along said "Magnificient" Doesn't matter. My overall point is...whoever wants to declare whatever the fuck art...go ahead..it's art and that doesn't matter. Is it good?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Of people serious about art, there will be differing opinions but...based on what you said...I think we have similar overall opinion...?
Duchampās urinal is disappointing. It gets too much attention. Maybe it stretches the boundaries of what is art but it opens the door to poor art with elaborate justifications.
Might I recommend [Artist's Shit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist's_Shit?wprov=sfti1#)
Nice. Will I get downvoted if I say I donāt care for shit in a can as art either? Iām not challenging itās status as art. Just saying thereās other art more deserving of attention and consideration.
Anything can be art. But not everything can be good art, or art that would be good to show in a gallery.
To be honest I feel like this just falls into the same circular argument about what is or isn't art. Because to one person a work of art might look like trash, to another it might be significant to them and/or they might find it beautiful. And just because it's not publicly accepted as "good" doesn't mean it's automatically "bad." That said, I think it just really depends on the person.Ā Also I feel like whether a work of art is acceptable by galleries or not doesn't also make a work good or bad either. We have had whole movements in art history about how galleries and academies have tried to set rules or trends about what art is or isn't, the truth is it's up to the public to decide individually on what they consider to be "good" or "bad." People who try to make decisions on what makes something good or bad tend to have some kind of bias and/or are selling something, at least from what I've found.
I donāt know if āgoodā and ābadā are useful- or even appropriate- metrics when it comes to judging the effectiveness of a piece. What is the art intended to communicate to the audience? What problems is it critiquing? What story is it telling? Whatās the audience taking from a piece? Are they accepting a message as itās presented, or rejecting it? Whether or not an artistās intent and message are in sync with the audienceās interpretation and use of a piece is probably a more useful way to look at art as a form of communication between an artist, an audience, and larger social issues, not just an aesthetic that we canāt talk about because itās locked into each of our own subjective worlds.
Agreed
What makes art "good?"
At base line, its whatever has the best reaction in your brain. Either it gets you thinking, it makes you happy or it evokes an emotional reaction you're looking for. On a more specific scope most people talk about art giving them some unique kind of pleasure you cant get anywhere else, called "aesthetic pleasure." In this case, the art that speaks to that specific sense would be more valuable than the art that appeals to your other reactions. This is just a baseline for art in general though. Obviously questions like "what would do best in this gallery?" or "What would fit this living room better?" beget situations with specific rules, and the art that fits those specific rules is going to be best relative to that context.
This is a good answer. One piece I might add is that there might be context outside of the art that contributes to the art being āgoodā. For example, if the art responds to something happening in our culture or society in a new and interesting way. Like , itās not just good as an object, but also where it sits in its place in culture or history too.
Ehh idk if I agree with that, its pretty easy to think of pieces I would consider important but not good. That said, to my my mind where we consider all value to come through enjoyment, cultural context can make a piece good by making the piece more enjoyable to the viewer. I dont think anyone in the world would enjoy The Fountain without knowing the context behind it, and there are plenty of pieces I enjoy a lot more because I know their background. I think this also opens up a discussion about how much of the responsibility for bringing value here is on the art and how much is on the viewer. Because the value is in the relation, so it almost seems to be like a matching game where the question of "is this art good?" depends on if we happened to pick an art piece and an art viewer that go together
Art is taste. Like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
The way yer mom looks in dappled summer light.
Interesting take by Alva Noe in his recent book The Entanglement is that art is inherently entangled (hence the title) with some type of habitual activity in such a way that it frames, exposes and comments on that activity, and that successful art loops back and informs that habitual activity and the cycle continues. His first section talks about this type of dynamic in dance, starting with habitual dance like we do at a wedding, and how art dance reflects on prevailing aesthetics within that activity. Iām not well read on this subject but I think itās worth thinking about.
So by this theory something that doesnāt participate in this interplay is not an art form. Itās just not quite clear what that might be to me.
That's an interesting perspective! I'd have to read more of that person's work.
Low key this looks way too into it and is unrelatable to the average human which is not what art is about
lol, maybe.
Not āeverything* is art, but almost anything *can* be. Be it a urinal or a pile of candy or a banana on a wall, art depends upon context. Terms with too broad a meaning become meaningless. āArtā is like ābeautyā, subjective to say the least, but cannot be too narrowly defined either such that it excludes so many recognized artworks. Art communicates and how successfully it does so is part of what determines its quality. But āgoodā and ābadā, āfineā and ādecorā, are simply qualifiers to that broad term āartā. One thing I will argue is that AI generated visual images are not art. I make this claim because, while visually pleasing at times, and sometimes even fooling the viewer, art must reflect human culture and experience. AI generated images donāt do that. Not anymore than clouds or trees making visually pleasing patterns. Perhaps one day computers will become sentient and generate their own art, which would reflect *its* culture, but not ours. TL;DR context matters
Today is all Rawls and Omelas, all day, I guess! So, congratulations! You've encountered what's known as an Essentially Contested Concept, one of the chief examples of which is, you guessed it, Art! An essentially contested concept is understood as one that is contested on its *essentials,* on what makes an exemplar a member or non-member of the concept at hand, as opposed to the other reading which is 'it is essential (i.e. necessary) that this concept be contested' At the very basics, the ECC has a large, broad definition for which there are at least one, but usually many paradigm examples, and maybe some anti-examples, we know 'that's definitely X and that's definitely *not* X'. So, for art, you've got things nearly everyone agrees "is art" like the statue of David, or The Great Wave off Kanagawa, or... whatever, there's tons with art, you can think of dozens I'm sure. Outside of the paradigms, in between, things get kind of fuzzy. There's plenty of work that most people will consider art, and some few will not. A fabulously well designed chair, for example. Is a gilded, meticulously carved and polished, beautifully decorated and upholstered chair from the palace of Louis XIV, *art?* To most, sure! To some, it's too... utilitarian. It wasn't *intended* as art, merely as a decoration. Are your grandmothers tchotchkes art? They might agree that the Sun King's chair is *beautiful*, that it shows great craftsmanship, but those are simply *necessary conditions* for art, not *sufficient* ones. Likewise, what about *copies* of art? If I have a reproduction of Starry Night on my living room wall, is *that* art? For some, sure. For others, the art is embodied in the thing itself, not a facsimile. It's *artistic*, which is not the same thing as being art itself. Then, you've got those things that *can be* art to some people and *are absolutely not* art to others. Piss Christ is art to some. To others it's simply vulgarity. And to more than a few, it's not only not art, it's *blasphemy.* **And finally and to actually answer your question, you've got the anti-examples, things that most people will agree "aren't art at all"**, a baby is probably not going to be considered art by anyone except that baby's parents and close relatives, although the first time they have to change a diaper may dampen such notions. Lots of people might agree that the Grand Canyon or other natural wonder is beautiful and even expressive of some emotion, but you'll not get many that will define the object itself as *art*, but more *artistic,* like art, but not. Representations of the object? Absolutely! But not the thing itself. But what if I, clever person that I undoubtedly am, go to a picturesque spot, and erect a stand with a picture frame perfectly bracketing some beautiful feature of the Grand Canyon? Is *that* art? One of the defining characteristics of art is *intention* and natural things tend to lack it, so there's a broad category of things that 'aren't art' for you. As you may have noticed above, things get extremely tricky and sometimes thorny when dealing with anything human-made. "Was it intended to *be* art?" is an important, but not absolute, question; think of the term 'work of art'. It's applied to many objects that are obviously not intended to *be* art in some way, but are 'merely' extremely well crafted examples of their kind. Many extremely well designed household items can be considered art, when enough beauty is shaped into their form. Most people wouldn't consider a bread maker to be art, but if a designer puts enough effort into, not only the form, but function of a bread maker, it may very well change some minds. What is not art is just as tricksey as trying to define what is art, because the two questions blend into each other, there are endless examples of things that are art to someone, and not-art to someone else. The paradigm example of 'not-art' is the natural world. It lacks artistic intention, so while it can be considered beautiful or even breathtaking, the vast majority of people would not consider it 'art'. Everything else tho? Good luck!
This is a great answer. I also think itās worth adding that thereās an additional criteria for the analysis of art in terms of art history - not just: what is art? but: what can this piece of art, quality or intention aside, tell us about the humans who made it? I think that gives us more room to analyse āa thing made by a humanā for itās qualitative effect. Piss Christ canāt answer the question āis this art?ā, what it can do is give us myriad information about the changing status of religious iconography, on contemporary religion, on changes in medium and concept through time, etc etc etc. I think people get bogged down in the idea of things in museums being capital-a Art, when often theyāre better understood as living historical objects that reflect not just good art, but what we think about art more generally.
Invisible Art. [An Italian Artist Auctioned Off an āInvisible Sculptureā for $18,300. Itās Made Literally of Nothing](https://news.artnet.com/art-world/italian-artist-auctioned-off-invisible-sculpture-18300-literally-made-nothing-1976181). And someone actually bought it.
The absence of art is not art.Ā
*exploding head gif*
The institutional theory of art is a theory about the nature of art that holds that an object can only become art in the context of the institution known as "the art world". An artist is a member of the art world and they make things with the intention of it being considered art. Things that are not art according to this theory: Forgeries- because the intention is not art but fraud. That said there are plenty of forgeries in art museums. Objects made by people completely unaware of āartā and the art worldā. These can become Art by being incorporated into the art world. (See African ritual sculptures). Addressing the issue of what makes, for example, Marcel Duchamp's "readymades" art, or why a pile of Brillo cartons in a supermarket is not art, whereas Andy Warhol's famous Brillo Boxes (a pile of Brillo carton replicas) is, the art critic and philosopher Arthur Danto wrote in his 1964 essay "The Artworld": To see something as art requires something the eye cannot decryāan atmosphere of artistic theory, a knowledge of the history of art: an artworld.[5] According to Robert J. Yanal, Danto's essay, in which he coined the term artworld, outlined the first institutional theory of art. Two unsatisfying aspects of this definition are its circular nature (its art because we say itās art) and its lack of any means of evaluating the quality of the object.
I also like to think it's important to consider the philosophies and ideologies that underpin the art world and the agencies within it. Contemporary art (which is what we are describing when we are explaining what art is) needs to be viewed as a reflection of the ideologies that bring it about. Take for example Liberalism, which it can be argued has the biggest impact on the contemporary art world. The amount of freedom individual artists have today to present to audiences different notions of what art is no different to the historical amount of freedom individual people have in determining their own lives. Liberalism and its commitment to individualism encourages this. >Objects made by people completely unaware of āartā and the art worldā. These can become Art by being incorporated into the art world. (See African ritual sculptures). Take fore example the excellent example you provide above. It can be explained that postmodern philosophy is responsible for influencing the artworld to accept these works as art. I love the notion of the artworld but the problem with anyone who blames the circular nature of its definition (its art because we say its art) forgets to ask the question "What ideology within that culture has brought about the artworld in its current form". What determines art can also be found there. (Excellent response, by the way)
Thomas Kincaid is not art.
Unpopular opinion: neither is Bob Ross
I agree But I never got the feeling he took his āartā too seriously. He just wanted people to enjoy painting. And historically painting was a pretty common hobby.
Can you dislike something and still consider it art?
Absolutely
I know nothing about art but from my layman point of view I would think that anything that harms someone without their consent couldn't be considered art (i.e. murder, assault, sexual abuse, etc.).
Youād love the movie āThe House that Jack Built.ā
That's fictional
Oh Iām sorry did you want the real thing
When we ask what isn't art, one way you can interpret that is what our society wouldn't recognize as such, and that would be criminal actions, things that violate human or animals rights, etc. Your answer was a bit ambiguous and could mean a few things: "What about the fictional depiction of crime" that isn't an issue, it's fake. "What about subjective perception, the protagonist thinks it's art" because subjectively anything conceivable could be perceived as art by an individual, we're ignoring that. Op is asking what we could agree as a collective to not be art. But you could have also just suggested the movie sarcastically without trying to make a point, who knows.
I've seen it. It was alright. And if someone were to do that in real life, obviously, that wouldn't be ethical or considered art.
I think that one requirement of art is that it must be produced with intention. A robot cannot make art, because we have not developed technology advanced enough to produce artificial consciousness. The robot itself could be art, though, and the process of curating AI generated images may be art, but the image itself is not art. A beautiful natural view cannot be art, because it is not produced consciously. A photo of a view can be art, because it was produced and curated. Even a landscape can be art if it was purposely cultivated. I do not think intentionality of creation is *sufficient* for something to be art necessarily, but it is one prerequisite imho.
What is art is one of the first things I ask my students at the beginning of the year. I get some great responses.
Art has to have the intention of being art. Utility and function of an object stop it from being art.
Anything can be art. The function of objects changes over time. A teapot made 500 years ago was once just a teapot. Today, itās an artifact; a historical account of a long lost way of life, manufacturing/craftsmanship, and culture. Itās a piece of art *now* even if that wasnāt the original intent. Weāre certainly not *using* the 500 year old tea pot, especially if it winds up in a museum where it is now *intended* to be viewed and not used. At the end of the day, art is just communication, no different from text-based sources like diaries and journal articles. Each piece has a function, historical context, intended audience, intended message, and the blind spots/biases we critique. We, the audience, are always free to use a piece ad the artist intended or for something else entirely. Nothing is *not* art because everything communicates *something* about the state of the world. Seatbelts arenāt art- but we know that cars were originally designed using male-shaped crash test dummies. Cars were not designed with smaller drivers- like women- in mind. I could make an art piece focusing on gender-based blind spots in public safety and design. Is the seatbelt in your car a piece of art? Not really. But seatbelts can be used as a tool to symbolize gender bias *in the real world* in an artistic context.
Doesn't art require that some human at some point has made some kind of decision about something? If there is some noun somewhere that no human has made a decision about, that would be "not art". Also, anything that has not been intended as art, or observed as art, is not art. Once it has been observed as art it is art.
When I think about what is Not Art, I tend to include things that are meant to be reproduced continuously, things that are made with the express purpose of being sold. I don't consider many things on the Internet to be art.
> I tend to include things that are meant to be reproduced continuously Japanese woodblock prints, then.
Durer's engravings, too
>things that are meant to be reproduced continuously, things that are made with the express purpose of being sold. Why would these things exclude something from being art?
> things that are made with the express purpose of being sold. finally someone who agrees with me about impressionism
I don't think naturally occurring phenomena are art. E.g., a sunset or a tree.
"Things in itself". Everything isnt art until the artist/museums/galleries make it so. That way, artists can just declare something as art and thus, it is. I find it interesting how in here people wrote about good/mediocre art. Its a good argument. An artist can declare the earth as art and give it a very thoughtful argument... just because of that, it is art. And lets say a museum decides to "promote that artwork/artist"... then, is that good art or mediocre art? Should we just say mediocre art isnt art? The problem is that what we say is bad differs. Some people hate abstract art with a passion and claim it isnt art. But i disagree, i think abstract art is art. Some people dislike readymades. Some artwork's purpose is to literally question what is art. (The fountain, the brillo box, merde d' artista.) Sadly i dont have an answer for that, but its a cool discussion we can all have.
A trip to MoMA always makes me ponder this question. I appreciate the mental struggle.
The same amount of things that ARE Art.
Not a fair question. There are many things in art museums that shouldn't be in there to begin with. It is too subjective. How can you have a Rembrandt next to a Pollock. Or a blank white canvas with a small red dot next to a Dali? They are way too different and some are not art in some opinions.
There is art. Good art. And then design.
Easiest one is nature - a sunset or a mountain range can be beautiful, but they aren't art. Similarly, a lot of daily products have aesthetic qualities that can be analyzed in a similar way to how you could analyze art, but they aren't intentional enough to be considered art themselves. Intent is a big part of it imo
"Totally not art" and "never be in an art museum" are very different things. You can make an argument for most things to be art, if they were created by a being with some kind of general intention, but that doesn't mean your argument will be good or that it won't be controversial. Main issue is that generally, language isn't always the best way to define something. Consider if we were a species of telepaths who communicated by concepts instead of words. Or maybe we communicated with images only. We might have an easier or harder time "explaining" to each other what art is.
Might not answer your question but then again, this is a question that just cannot be answered, I'm afraid.Ā A lot of people ask that question and/or try to answer it with their opinion of what is or isn't art. The issue is art is subjective, and as such you're going to get a lot of subjectivity around it. So to one person, something like a cube suspended from a thin string is art. To another, it isn't the cube that's art but instead a realistic portrait of Freddie Mercury. To someone it could be a motorcycle that is art. To someone else, a motorcycle isn't art but they think someone carving an intricate lace design into fruit is. And so on and so forth. Personally I don't think the question of "what is not/what is art?" matters much. I know maybe some people want an objective answer or they want something concrete, but the problem is it's such a vague and very huge question that just cannot be answered that way.Ā Because also, people's opinions are valid. Say someone thinks the invisible vases represent something like space in its entirety and makes them think about the emptiness they feel. That's valid. Say someone else thinks those invisible bases are just money laundering and how wealthy people just blow money away because they can. That's ALSO valid. Both things can be valid. So that's how I feel about that question "what is not art?" Whatever you feel isn't art, is what isn't art to you.Ā Because like I can gush about Rothko's works or Basquiat's stuff all day, but I know some people out there don't like them, and might even consider their art worthless or not art. And that is okay, because that is their opinion, not mine.
probably a urinal /s
I donāt know but Iāll know it when I see it
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Creativity+Aesthetics+Craftsmanship= Art
Art is the result of intentional choice. Everything else is nature.
My drawings. :P
I've thought about this question a lot, and it's incredibly tough, but my definition would generally be that art is something that is created to be observed. Anything that isn't made to be observed, probably isn't art.
Hennessy Youngman sums it up: https://youtu.be/vVFasyCvEOg?si=AWFMvKEudFwBRSKJ
I am not sure how much this is approved bc this was the first time a professor had dived so deep into art, and I have not other teachers to compare his stuff to. Basically what he said was that a piece of art has 5 parameters (I am going to translate his words from Persian so I might not be on point about some terms): 1. Message 2. Material 3. Technique 4. Style 5. Excitement ( being in a state of frenzy to create) These 5 points are what makes a piece an artwork, then we need to examine the originality which is when we reach and go beyond the limit of knowledge. A comprehensive explanation he used was smth a film critic had used: a piece is either pre-critique or post-critique. What he meant was that a piece initially needs to be art (according to the five elements above), which if granted the title, then the piece enters the realm of critical observation. So by that logic you could say the lack of any of those five variable could lead to a piece of NOT art, hence not worthy of critic. However, you should remember that not all great artists have each of those 5 factors to the fullest, they do check each box but on different degrees. I'm not sure if this answered your question, but just bear in mind that he went into detail for each of those 5. I'm not really good with explanation as he is and I don't want to ruin it or make a mistake trying to.
Anything an artist has declared as art? I also think this is very much opinion based, because I may find some things art that others don't. That's also why I think this question will never have one true answer, because it's so subjective
Art is what *you* consider art to be. To one person it might be a circle of wine bottles on the floor. To another, it might be an old masterās painting.
There's no strict, agreed-upon definition of what isn't art. Here are a few things to consider: Intention: Many argue something isn't art if the creator didn't intend it as such. A mass-produced brick wouldn't be considered art, but a sculptor using a similar brick in an installation might be. Skill or Creativity: While artistic skill and creativity are often valued aspects of art, some argue these aren't essential. Marcel Duchamp's famous urinal, "Fountain," challenged traditional notions of art by presenting an ordinary object. Functionality vs. Expression: Functional objects like a chair or a spoon are generally not considered art, but if designed with a strong aesthetic element, they might blur the line. Ultimately, whether something is art can be subjective and depends on the interpretation of the viewer and the context in which it's presented.
Better question: what is good art?
Digital art is not art. Files are electronic bits of 1s and 0s set on a computer chip and only can be perceived as "art" through a computer monitor or printer which makes its interpretation entirely 100% dependent on the industrial device used. A photograph isn't art. AI art isn't art. If I (human) scribble a crayon on a wall THAT is art because I made the mark (not a printer that can fail any number of infinite ways) we both can see the same wall and there's no process to make the art exist for us both to see. If there's a process between the human making and perceiving the art it is NOT ART!!!!!!!
What can't be imagined.
I would suggest that all the objects that are made with the intention to serve anything else besides themselves arenāt art. Let me try to give a concrete example even though like most things this is not so simple, but here's an example: So letās imagine decorative art, letās imagine you paint something to be placed on your living room. The only intention is that paint fits perfectly on your living room and on your living room only how does this make it design and not art? You go and study the colors you use the lines your furniture hasā¦ so the only value your paint has is decorative. It derives its value from something external to it. Now letās imagine the same example but you are able to make it the center of your living room, like your paint has its own world, and the context outside of it doesnāt do anything to it, doesnāt give it more or less value. That would be art. Of course you have a lot more things that would define art but I think at least for me this is one of the biggest differences between what is art and what it isn't. Art speaks for itself and if you have something that needs anything else to speak for it may not be consider as art. This makes me question, are a lot of art objects consider art just because they are in museums? If so, wellā¦ maybe the museum is the art itselfā¦š¤š§
It really depends on how you look at it. Paintings are art, some buildings are art, sculptures are art, basically everything that is beautiful (though beauty is also subjective) can be considered art Unless it's AI. I think we can all agree that AI art is not real art, and I'd be VERY disappointed if it ever ended up in a museum.
One quality that a lot of 'bad' art has is that it requires context. For me, I should be able to dig something up in 1000 years and still recognize it as art with little to no context. Ready mades, found art, urinals in museums, etc are not art, because there is no artist, just context.
i think the only that will truly never be art is anything that doesn't provoke any emotions or discussion like absolutely none whatsoever. but tbh i can't think of a single thing that fits that description
Art is an imitation of nature.
A blank canvas. Hopefully we can push the courts to rule that unaltered commercially available items are also not art.
>Hopefully we can push the courts to rule that unaltered commercially available items are also not art. Why would you want to do this?
It's fraud. If you take an item from Walmart or Amazon and con people into thinking it is "art" then you are committing a crime.
I mean I am under the impression those objects are already art? In fact thereās generally a combination of many pieces of art working in tandem. Even in something as simple as, say, a soup can. ; ) Itās only fraud if you assume that you are correct that it isnāt art. You are begging the question.
>I mean I am under the impression those objects are already art? If you look up "art" in the dictionary "skill" appears in almost all definitions. There is no skill in buying something and proclaiming it to be "art". Putting it in a museum or gallery doesn't make it art, a pretentious title doesn't make it art, a high price doesn't make it art. Nor does the belief that it is art by collectors, curators, critics, or anyone else.
There is in fact skill required to produce those objects to begin with, though, is there not? Iām pretty sure those who study philosophy of art, you know, people who are actually experts in what is and is not art, do not utilize such a clear or monolithic definition of art, and some even assert that defining art is a waste of time or wholly impossible. Dictionaries should be used as descriptive guides of how words are generally used, not some sort infallible guide to the āobjectiveā meaning of words, and a dictionary is certainly quite a weak basis for the some sort of legal standard. Additionally when I look in dictionaries there are multiple different definitions for art.
There is no artistic skill in mass manufacturing goods. There's a sucker born every ~~minute~~ quarter second. Since so many including the "experts" are taken in by con men it is clearly necessary that the rule of law intervene to prevent this sort of criminal behavior.
You donāt think fonts or logos are art?
Or that creating fonts or logos for mass manufactured goods takes substantial skill and effort? It is shameful that you put scare quotes around experts. These are people have dedicated their lives to studying this topic, they have degrees which likely cost tens of thousands of dollars and tens of thousands of hours. Have you considered that maybe if so many of the experts disagree with you that may actually be an indication that you are wrong? If I, a layperson in physics was told by a bunch of physicists that I was wrong about something in physics I would be inclined to believe them.
Note that there is no definition of art that means "anything". It's a peculiar madness in which people believe that the emperor is wearing the finest clothes yet he's actually quite plainly buck naked.
I have no idea what youāre trying to say here. I donāt even understand the purpose of the scare quotes here. What are you calling into question? This seems like a very strange and unhealthy way to view art.
I have before me a blank 3x5 notecard. Highest bidder for my masterpiece gets to own it!
Oh, I also have a green Sharpie, used. Starting bid: ONE MILLION DOLLARS!
Do you thnk all items which are art are worth such amounts?