(January 7, 2015 at 4:50 pm)Alex K Wrote: I think if a truly common definiton were found, we'd be done with the discussion. Maybe one should ask a better question to begin with.

Such as, what gets your emotions?

(January 7, 2015 at 4:52 pm)abaris Wrote:

(January 7, 2015 at 4:50 pm)Alex K Wrote: I think if a truly common definiton were found, we'd be done with the discussion. Maybe one should ask a better question to begin with.

Such as, what gets your emotions?

I don't know. For me enjoyment of art is not just provokation of emotions. I want to fi d something interesting as well, there's got to be a combination of the two.

(January 7, 2015 at 5:02 pm)Alex K Wrote: I don't know. For me enjoyment of art is not just provokation of emotions. I want to fi d something interesting as well, there's got to be a combination of the two.

Emotional combines both for me. I don't get emotional when something doesn't interest me as well.

Edit:



That painting by Pieter Bruegel is actually a good example. It interests me because there's so much detail, but it also grips me emotionally, since I can look at it for quite some time, imagining what life has been like back then and him showing it to me. It's a one way mirror into 16th century Holland.

(January 7, 2015 at 3:49 pm)Faith No More Wrote: If there's one thing I've learned about discussing art, and this thread completely reinforces that notion, the conversation never truly progresses unless a common defintion of art is agreed upon. Of course, agreeing upon a definition of art is just as messy and you'll never reach that next step.

I think discussions like this point up the fact that something so personal as art doesn't submit to one definition.

I like that, and I like discussions like this. It brings me new ways of looking at the only true love I've had.

Art is whatever people create, as long as the creation is the intent. A fancy sandwich is art. I don't have to like it or care about it. It doesn't have to have a specific meaning. It doesn't have to use a certain medium or technique. Those are just things we look for to dismiss works which don't align with our preferences, so that we may pretend that our preferences make us special.

Those 'vapid' paintings above, I think are pretty nice. They are pleasant to look at and are well-constructed. I could imagine myself having a relaxing afternoon drinking in sights like that. I see no reason to minimize what the artist has done just because it's a common subject matter. I prefer quality over uniqueness.

(January 7, 2015 at 7:14 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: A fancy sandwich is art.

Well, if the sole intent is to gobble it down, I would draw the line at that.

(January 7, 2015 at 7:17 pm)abaris Wrote:

(January 7, 2015 at 7:14 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: A fancy sandwich is art.

Well, if the sole intent is to gobble it down, I would draw the line at that.

Fancy sandwich you say?....

(January 7, 2015 at 7:22 pm)Alex K Wrote: Fancy sandwich you say?....

I never said, a sandwich couldn't be art. It's intent that matters. Otherwise the beer sitting before me would be an artistic expression.

(January 7, 2015 at 7:24 pm)abaris Wrote:

(January 7, 2015 at 7:22 pm)Alex K Wrote: Fancy sandwich you say?....

I never said, a sandwich couldn't be art.

Course not! I was just reminded of it and found it amusing that I'd actually seen a sandwich or something like it in a museum

Quote:It's intent that matters. Otherwise the beer sitting before me would be an artistic expression.

Hmmm, yes. It fills me with positive emotion, I find it very interesting... So for a sensible definition of art the intention does seem to matter here.

I photographed this basket by Jane Maestre in a Cambridge gallery window. Is it art? (Hint: yes.)

A color pencil basket by Jane Maestre