This was a question posed by one of my university lecturers some years ago. She left a group of us to ponder this for thirty minutes before returning to see what we had come up with. I've got my own ideas, more of which later (assuming that anyone enters into the discussion), but I'd be interested in the thoughts of others before I say any more.
I think art is anything created by human hands. I have some Christmas ornaments that are hand carved from 200 year wood from an old building that was being dismantled. To me, they are a true form of art. Painting, poetry, writing, photography, beautiful buildings,anything created by us.
I was hoping for more takers... One of the reasons I posed the question was the 2015 Turner Prize (the biggest in art in the UK) being awarded to a collective called Assemble. They are involved in all sort of projects with local communities and are perhaps more architects than artists. I think that this is fine. After all, there are many fine buildings around the world that could reasonably described as works of art. A philistine of my acquaintance described art as "something that's of no use to anybody." I could spend hours destroying that particular idea, but there is limited time and space. I did, though, suggest that buildings, furniture and many other artifacts that I would construe as artwork, were indeed very useful. Furthermore, how could music, literature and various other art forms be "of no use"? I suspect that my philistine colleague was thinking more in terms of paintings and sculptures, but these can help us to understand history among other things, surely a perfectly "useful" thing?
It's not a black and white definition so I would personally describe Art as an outward expression of an inner impression. Any medium can be used to fulfill that expression. Some say Realism is not art but if you look at the subject they chose you will find that it's not just any subject. It may have reflections, saturation of colors, darks and shadows expressing mood, etc. Realism artists don't pick just any subject and the choice in itself is an artistic first step. What's not art is painting like your teacher who taught you to paint. You can learn technique but then you have to throw yourself into the mix. It's not art when you pick a subject that is not interesting to you, that doesn't move you. It's not art if you're afraid and intimidated to create. It's not art if you have lack of confidence…i.e. "I can't draw"…anyone can draw. Anyone can paint. An artist must open himself up and expose his inner self and be bold, be confident. Put it out there and tell it like you feel it, like you believe it. Communicate visually is all that is required. Edit: My "What art is not" comment is comparing art to the highest level, like Monet and VanGogh; the pieces you find in famous museums and galleries. Student Art can be art and other art that has not been juried can be art and often more enjoyable because it's new and fresh.
I guess each of us would have a different take on what art is, for me it would be anything that moves me, whether it be piece of music a painting or a pile of bricks.
Lara, I am going to an evening art class with my daughter on Dec. 28 for fun. We will all paint the same picture and I already know what it will be. When I'm done I'll hang it on a wall in my house. To me that will be Art. I think Art is impossible to define....it's so different for everyone.
Thinking about your philistine colleague Tom, pretty much everything I create in life has a practical value, none of which do I consider to be works of art. If I did create something with no immediate practical value I guess I would consider it to be a work of art (or a waste of time ) albeit of poor quality, which kind of supports that idea
Really, I should say my philistine ex-colleague. Now, the delicious irony here is that I used him as the basis for the antihero of my novel. Whether my novel constitutes art, I won't dare to presume, but I found it amusing.
Art to me is a the way an expression of thought or feeling is demonstrated outwardly. Art can be paintings, music even words, a statue. What I may find to be beautiful may not be the save to another person.
Art was also the first means of communication. The cavemen drew on the walls of caves before they had words.
Yes, that is definitely art Chrissy. When I gave my definition above I was speaking of Art in comparison to a higher level like VanGogh and Monet…you know, the ones you see in big city galleries, art history books, coffee table books, museums, and magazines. But there are more levels of art, like student art for one, that are also definitely Art and often more enjoyable because it's new and fresh.
I like Andy Warhol's answer: Art is what you can get away with. 20 Artists Define What "Art Is..." (SLIDESHOW)
Andy Warhol's Pop Art was a phenomena that was at just the right time in history when many were ready and craving "Just do your own thing" stuff. I liked his pop art but he did a lot of tasteless "stuff" too that I wouldn't call art. It was shown in my Introduction to Art 101 class as a college sophomore at VCU. It was really inappropriate stuff to show an 19 yr old.