Even though I use this definition to get my students to think about art, I don't think that I am talking down to them by offering this formula.
You're right about some people never 'getting it', but I think there are many people (even in this club of ours) who get very defensive, agitated, nervous or evasive when they try to discuss art, even their own, with another person.
"Art, unlike beauty, love, hate, etc. starts as a concept, but becomes a thing."
..."wow that chick is hot....I'm gonna go and get her number"....concept? Lots of "things" start out as a concept before giving them form. That does not automatically classify them as art....or does it?
I believe the process of creation often times grabs us and is in control. Without a conscious effort on our part to sit down and plan or next masterpiece. It comes to us without putting forth an effort to create. It has happened to me several times. As if the idea...or concept is given to me.
I don't react negatively to discussions of this kind, quite the contrary actually. But I did notice you seem to only point out the negative....that has me wondering. In a club this big, any statement describing anything can be found I bet....proving what? I did not see any negative reactions on this thread.
I just think it is highly questionable, that something so remarkable and complex. Something capable of taking you to millions of possible places....and you have somehow quantified it all in three small sentences. Quantum Art?....I think not.
Establishing definitions is useful for any discussion, especially those about subjects that tend to be highly subjective, emotionally charged and are connected to an extensive history. I think that ultimately it can be helpful.
They don't all fit the first criteria.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but why is the idea of a definition for art so unacceptable? I expected people on this site to be resistant, but I'd really like you to think of examples of art that will not work with this definition. I think this would be illuminating and may make me realize why I shouldn't use it.
seems like the resistance to defining art is not so new,.,.
now THIS is an interesting point.......
R - Rules
T - Terminated
" ART " ( All Rules Terminated )...that s my Definition
Art is the orgasm of the soul.
Some have trouble with that, thats fine, but I think it fits just about all the tests that can be administered to it.
Every true artist here also knows whether or not they just created crap or a true birth of what they consider themselves to be a product of their inner being.
By the way Dan with all do respect, (and although I can come across as arrogant and unyeilding), I think it is commendable of you and brave to pose such a question and it should be encouraged by all who posted here to continue this discussion and others like it no matter how uncomfortable it makes everyone feel. So Honestly,kudos to you for the post and also for sticking to your guns in light of the responses. that takes backbone and perseverence. tony.
You sanctimonious pig.
This is nothing. You should try sitting through one of my lectures.
" 3. The work must be presented to an audience. "
The first definition of "audience" via Webster is 1: The act or state of hearing 2 a: a formal hearing or interview b: an opportunity of being heard
If this is your intended meaning when you use the word "audience" then it stands to reason that the Artist as the observant hearer of thier own artwork qualifies as the only beholder necessary to meet the criteria of No. 3. Were that the case, anyone, including the Artist alone, satisfies criteria No. 3, and no plurality of spectators would be required.
If however, your intended meaning of the word "audience" was more along the lines of 3 a: a group of hearers or spectators
...then I wonder if an Artist characterized as having multiple personalities might not satisfy criteria No. 3 as well.
....and still if the Artist as the observant spectator of their own artwork (who certainly qualifies as a distinct personality from the Artist as the creator of said artwork)does not satisfy criteria No. 3, on what basis would the dissatisfaction be ?
Were it merely a lack of numbers of viewers then it might lead one to suspect that if a work is created by "someone who is intending to create a work of art", and subsequently beheld by any one spectator, then it does not qualify as a "work of art".
.... this could lead one to think that a "work of art" deserves that title only in the event that it is simultaneously viewed by two or more people.
-and then require the criteria: No. 1...."by someone who is intending to create a work of art."
...sounds to me like circular reasoning.
That is to say, the question asked here is the definition of "work of art"
-How then can it be proven by someone who intends to create that which is yet undefined.
My simple question to the author concerning the criteria is this:
Reguarding No. 1, what do you mean by the phrase "work of art" ?
A - All R - Rules
Back to Category
Reply
