First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Must Something be Beautiful and Beyond Ordinary Significance to be Considered Art?
33369 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Socal
Offline
Posted 2/25/15

nanikore2 wrote:


pandrasb wrote:

Does it have to be beautiful or appealing to the eyes(senses)? Does it have to be something beyond the ordinary?


I think art cannot be ordinary, because that means that it is just normal and has no special quality. Think white noise or static, or a single tone by itself like A, a lone color like red or blue...something plain, void of emotion.

It is the combination of the the ordinary that gives it something special and unique. And the combinations could be endless.

I believe as long as there is emotion and the emotion can be interpreted then it has to potential to be beautiful.

In all it's various forms -- writing, painting, drawing, music composing, culinary arts, scents.


Somebody famous seemed to have went out of his way to make something ordinary and mundane (a 4x8 of a bunch of Campbell soup cans)- Seemingly daring someone to either call it art or not call it art at the same time

(Guess THAT'S art, because you can't escape it once it's done- Ordinary or not, "art" or not)



Maybe he wasn't looking for ordinary art, maybe he was looking for... souper art.
27273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 2/25/15 , edited 2/25/15

pandrasb wrote:


Maybe he wasn't looking for ordinary art, maybe he was looking for... souper art.


Badda-bing badda-boom badda-BANG
14924 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / San Francisco
Offline
Posted 2/25/15
Art depends on the individual. What I may view as art may not be what you think is art.

I've spent a lot of money on original anime artwork from mangaka and other animators. I find those sketches to be art. Some of the stuff in the museums of modern art I do not feel is art, but there are people willing to pay millions for it. So, go figure.
2841 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Houston, Tx
Online
Posted 2/25/15
Art is anything French.

You can never argue with them if slipping a nip is bad or not, just enjoy.
18050 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
U.S.
Offline
Posted 2/26/15
Sometimes I get pissed off when some individuals have more privilege/access to display their stuff in a museum. Like this doodle of an autistic person. I'm like, "I can do that stuff. In fact, I had done the same thing when I was in kindergarten. How come this guy get the museum viewing treatment?"

I would never know.

Save me, Eric Cartman.
Posted 2/26/15 , edited 2/26/15
Depends on the style and type of art, acceptance is dependent on the audience. Usually a work is generally more regarded as art if it uses acquired art techniques such as light sourcing , shading, depth perception, and accurate shapes and contours in drawing still life, etc.. But all of this depends on whether its realism thats the goal or something wholly original, or more abstract and surreal , so those values can't be applicable in all styles' value judgements. For instance a precise reproduction of a landscape or a model's face or body would need to be accurate to the subject of course to be considered "good art", whereas depictions of moods, dreams, or just something originally conceived would require no such consideration but the appreciation of its audience or buyer and that it can convey the feeling or idea effectively. In short, if one or many views it as art, to that party it is such, always subjective, beauty doth lie in the eye of the beholder.
27250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 2/27/15

onibrotonel wrote:

Sometimes I get pissed off when some individuals have more privilege/access to display their stuff in a museum. Like this doodle of an autistic person. I'm like, "I can do that stuff. In fact, I had done the same thing when I was in kindergarten. How come this guy get the museum viewing treatment?"

I would never know.

Save me, Eric Cartman.


I hate that as well.

Art that conveys nothing, that the artist put no ascertainable effort into, that is shallow and ordinary. Sure, it's still self-expression. But a more meaningful expression deserves actually deserves a spot in that gallery.

A 4-year old can splatter paint on a canvas and call it self-expression. The only difference here is the stuff in modern art galleries is being done by 30 year olds who have the skills of 4 year olds, who merely have a larger vocab with which to justify their paint splatters.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.