What is art, Debate on what makes art. Options

[Josh]

My friends were talking about art and someone mentioned how he thinks "everything is art; there is just good and bad art". Some of my friends immediately flew off on a tangent about how he was stupid before explaining that they thinks art needs to fulfill certain intellectual and/or emotional requirements to be considered art.

I personally think that not everything can be considered art. I was wondering how you guy/gals define art. I personally define art as: any intellectually and/or emotionally stimulating, preferably both, and at least creative (or: original as close as original can get.) To be good art if should fulfill these areas and excel.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that by "everything" he meant everything that is crafted, created, manipulated, ect. (by the means of machinery, humans, ect.)

[Mokona]

I agree with you, however I believe that art does not necessarily need to be creative or original. It has to be one or the other to be art, but creativity and originality do not make art good. It needs to stimulate the viewer somehow. And while not everything is art, most things are (humans, The Lion King, the Mona Lisa, etc.). Things such as a paperclip or a dresser are not art in my book, however other people might say they are. It all depends on the beholder I guess.

[An]

Hmm. Art is such a vague concept. Most things are considered art to some and junk to other, so I don't think we can ever agree on one single definition. For me tho, art is anything that created to express some ideas and invoke emotions.

[PlagueXRoamer]

Oh great. Nice job reminding me of the stupid essay I had to do a few weeks back regarding 'what is art'. And no I do not feel like telling you what I wrote.

What I can say that Art is chosen by the eye of the beholder. An open mind finds a whole world of designs, while a hermit spits in everything's face.

[Chamomile]

In the eye of The Beholder? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Haha, I kid.

In my opinion, art doesn't need to be original. For example (this is a really bad example, but it's all I could think of at 1 am) : If I showed you an original Rembrandt, you would undoubtedly agree that it is a work of art. However, if I showed you three replicas of the exact same painting afterwards, would you still think of them as art? Maybe not, but someone who hasn't seen the original before would surely call any of the three replicas art.

As for emotional stimulation, I know I don't feel the same gut-wrenching fear that the screamer in Van Gogh's "The Scream" feels, but I call it art anyways. And mental stimulation is the same thing, if you're talking about art that makes someone think. I've actually gotten headaches looking at some of Picasso's and Worhol's works.

As eloquently stated by Roamer and not taken too seriously by me, art and beauty all depends on who's appreciating it, or, "is in the eye of the beholder". Some people call Worhol's Campbell Soup can painting art, others call it the result of an artist on hallucinogens.

[zetacross]

One man's meat another's poison.
Art is similar.
You can judge it by your own means, give your own opinions.
There is no such thing as good or bad art, what makes it good or bad is your own side of view.
Or in most cases, you judge it by the view of most people.
In addition not only the creations of man is art, the creations of nature is also art.
The bueaty of nature is an unwritble in words, as it is far from reach of man.

[destin]

i always thought that art was something that people do to express themselves and what they are feeling?

[zetacross]

i always thought that art was something that people do to express themselves and what they are feeling?

True,
but what i mean is art does not depend on the media or form it takes.
It mostly depends on the viewers more than creaters,
as yuu cannot controll what they see, hear, smell, taste, touch and think.

[macfluffers]

I've always considered art to be something made with creative thought and energy. Therefore, all architecture and design is art, to a degree. I've thought of art being in two main camps: weak art and strong art. Strong art is what most of us mean when we say "art": paintings, movies, literature, etc. Weak art is art that is primarily meant for something practical, such as furniture. It's all "art", but some of it is more artistic in nature.

As for what makes art good, I would say good craftsmanship for all types of art, and originality, creativity, and stimulation for strong art.