wdydwyd?

In discussion we have mentioned several different definitions of art. Some of these definitions are very narrow and specific, yet others are very broad and inclusive. Outside of typical examples of art (i.e. Michelangelo, Picasso, Mozart, Beethoven, etc.), to what extent can you consider something as a work of art? Give examples too in your answer.

Views: 18

Replies to This Discussion

The extent to which something can be considered "art" is up to each individual. Anything in our world can be viewed as art if the person viewing it decides that it is. For example, if we examine everything in this world, it would be very hard to argue that something is not art. "Art" can range from building designs, everyday items such as chairs, desks, and lamps, as well as any abstractions that we may view in nature.
I agree. I believe art is very difficult to define because it is subjective. Art can be anything and everything that stirs up emotions in a human being.
Andrew,

I like how you specify that the thing that determines art is the individual looking at it, not the individual who created it. Someone who created the "art" can look at it and feel that it is art, but they can also just look at the object as something they made, and don't think that it is art. However, someone else can view that object and think that it is art, even if the person who made it does not believe it to be so, but it is still art to the viewer. I think that a lot of Tolstoy's article where he tries to narrow down an objective definition is exactly what he says, pointless, because there can be no objective definition. In this vein, sure, all of those quotations are great, but art is not something that can really be condensed into a few words or even a book, by language. It transcends generalized description.
I also agree. The quote I picked basically said that art is form of communion used to unite people through the expression of their feelings to one another. So, art is anything that can convey a feeling or emotion to the viewer. I think that since everyone is affected differently and experiences things differently than everyone else, then it would seem that everything is going to be art to someone. Also, I don't think that the emotion or feeling being conveyed needs to be positive for it to be art. Being able to invoke sadness in someone or getting the viewer to feel the same heartbreak that the artist felt is indeed a form of art in itself.
I agree that art is mostly, upto individual's opinion, but if its value is determined by individuals, how would we acknowledge whether someone's art is masterpiece and the others are not as much good as the former one?

I personally think that what it means by art is that the work with combination of idea, hard work, expression, and "popularity". I meant by popularity means the work of art should be acknowledged and recognized by large number of people (accumulation of individual's flavors) so that it can spread out as "Art".
As the price of product increases as people's demand of the product increases, art is called "Art" because large number of people agreed that its value was high.

RSS

Share with others!


unique visitors






Project History | contact

Latest Activity

Pinyin chen is now a member of wdydwyd?
Oct 25
Harold C. posted photos
Apr 29
Profile Iconcbadrcdra76 cbadrcdra76 and Harold C. joined wdydwyd?
Apr 25

© 2019   Created by Tony Deifell.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service


unique visitors