What is Art?
DZ_jared
Posts: 1,316
"I'll take subjective definitions for 1000 Alex."
I recently had a conversation with a friend that made me ask the question "What is art?" The definition of what art is has changed over the centuries. I think Tolstoy's definition transcends cultural, political, or temporal views on what is and isn't art. "In order correctly to define art, it is necessary, first of all, to cease to consider it as a means to pleasure and to consider it as one of the conditions of human life. Viewing it in this way we cannot fail to observe that art is one of the means of intercourse between man and man.
Every work of art causes the receiver to enter into a certain kind of relationship both with him who produced, or is producing, the art, and with all those who, simultaneously, previously, or subsequently, receive the same artistic impression."
What is art to you? What do you do to make your renders art?
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Always an interesting question. I think the old: "I may not know art, but I know what I like." actually answers it best. Who is the best artist: Norman Rockwell, Picasso, Andy Warhol, Robert Maplethorp? Me, I make mediocre renders. I'm improving, but I don't think I'd ever be considered an artist.
mmm DAZ_people do not read the forum much! :lol:
moderators, show 'im the hidden and locked threads on the subject! !!
(it is often a heated debate)
I say this every time the subject arises.
Art is a Verb, not a noun!
Art is a creative process. It is a thing to do, not a thing like a render or a sculpture.
Once the Art is done, all that's left are the by-products like the stuff we can see here.
So if anybody ever asks if a render (or sculpture, or computer program, or painting, drawing, etc.) is Art - the only answer is No. It's just Artist Droppings.
I think he is a plumber or a handyman... he seems to always have that problem with his pants that plumbers always do... or are we talking about the creative concept?
I stopped caring.
It is useless to argue about it.
Art should be anything that is a creative expression of you inner vision or something like that... but long ago too many annoying people decided they would be the judges of what was worthy of the title, so long as it brought them money or fame.
So now Art is just a plumber... he actually is very terrible at it too.
What do I do to make my renders art?... Nothing... My renders are terrible.
Yet if I were slightly crazier and could bamboozle a gallery owner into accepting them at some snobby SOHO gallery, I'd print them out and messily glue them to broken pieces of plywood with doll heads nailed to them and give them poignant names like "Tar on my soul" or something like that... then they could be art.
Nope... right now my renders are just cheesy promos.
I would agree with that, except if you read the definition I gave above...
Nope.
Sorry.
I do NOT have ANY desire to "Do" the plumber!
Or the Handyman.
...
And don't get me started on the droppings.
Thats pretty funny Sockratease... and pretty accurate (I only read the OP when I first responded). I think your first post is very quotable.
Anything designed with the specific intent to create an emotional reaction.
Rawn
What RawArt said :D
And I want to post this video, this man inspired me to do art since my elementary life. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLO7tCdBVrA
A fraud perpetrated on the gullible.
A pretty flower that smells bad.
A crystalized manifestation of ego.
Play without purpose.
Work without purpose.
An incessant source of unresolvable discussion.
Well, I wouldn't consider insulting someone art. Although some insults are pretty artistic.
I have to agree with Sockratease - art is the process, not the result.
(That, or Art is the host of "Kids Say the Darndest Things"...)
I'm with Rawn - an item or group of items arranged to make an impression on an observer.
It depends on what kind of art you are talking about? Personally I have very high bar in what I consider Art with a capital A; so I divide art into 3 types, low, mid and high. Low art is anything that is suppose to provoke a person, for example, Any pictures whose main focus is the genitals rather than the beauty of the whole person immediately gets puts into this category, also, any art that is suppose to inspire hate, anger and contempt. The majority of art is in the mid section which is also consumer, commercial, illustration. Some of my favorite artists are in this category, Yoshitika Amano, Frazetta, Alan Lee and John Howe, Mucha. High Art is reserve for art that transends the soul. All sacred art is High Art, but also the works of Leonardo, Michelangelo, Gaudi, Rembrandt, Durher, Van Gogh, even Klimt.
Art from a technical point of view is also very important, how perfect is the technic used? Is the composition sublime? Has the artist mastered light and shadow?
I was fortunate to visit Windsor Castle when we were stationed in Lakenheath and was able to look at some Leonardo di Vinci's sketches up close. Looking at copies and prints don't do these simple sketches justice. Such small, simple drawings hold power in them, you couldn't help but stare and study them, it felt as if the artist only sketch them a few moments ago not hundreds of years. That is why for now, I cannot place 3D art in the high category, no matter how good, the medium used, i.e. computer, forever separates the artist from the observer.
Anyway, these musing are only my fair opinion.
Nuh-Uh!
That's Logic!
But Aristotle considered Logic to be Art, and who am I to argue with him.
He's dead.
So maybe you're right.
Nevermind.
I think art is creating something that is meant to be enjoyed, represent, enhance or display something. It can use anything as medium.
I believe that art is anything that elicits a feeling; whether its a comfort or a sense of familiarity... even base emotions, like happiness or sadness. It is what ultimately moves a viewer, what pulls them in and makes them a part of that image.... so much, that it will stay with them forever.
But that's just what it is to me. The truth is, art can be anything to anyone.
ART is an anagram of RAT. So is TAR.
ART is everything. Art is nothing.
Talking about ART is like painting a word. Except less productive.
What is ART? Leave this question for the critics to discuss. It's what they do.
To me Art is something created that has no practical functionality or the functionality is secondary ....its true goal is reflection of life with all its beauty and pain. The quality of "Art" is in the eye of the beholder and the age and mindset of the artist. Some of the best art is held up with magnets on a refrigerator door.
I find this categorization disturbing, as using the terms low, mid, and high seems to imply something about these categories that is very different. Sorting by the objective or genre has nothing to do with either quality or effectiveness. Just because art is focused on the body or has the purpose of eliciting negative emotions does not mean it is not well done, beautiful, or worthy of praise. And just because it is intended to transcend the soul does not mean it is beautiful, well done, or effective.
... baby don't hurt me. Don't hurt me, no more.
The categories are there to help classify the purpose of the art being made. Technical skills non withstanding. Provoking a person is completely different than invoking spiritual transcendence, which I believe is the true purpose of Art. And yes, you are right the skill of the artist is paramount.
Art, true Art, art that last forever is a marriage between the artist, his medium, his subject and his audience.
The majority of art we consume today, no matter how good it may be will not last. The audience will change, taste and ideals will change, pop culture will change. societies will rise and fall. Our art will be seen like novelty much like how we see art of the Victorian age, mimic and seen with affection for a bygone era. But Art, true art that mimic beauty, True Beauty, is something that each generation will love for all time. You cannot put Michelangelo's David in the same category as what you see in today's art scene. Sure there are nudes that are nice and beautiful out there, but is it a masterpiece? No.
I love and appreciate all kinds of art, but I'm not going to lie to myself and say that everything is Art with a capital A.
...Active Release Techniques: a patented, state of the art soft tissue system/movement based massage technique that treats problems with muscles, tendons, ligaments, fascia and nerves. Headaches, back pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, shin splints, shoulder pain, sciatica, plantar fasciitis, knee problems, and tennis elbow are just a few of the many conditions that can be resolved quickly and permanently with ART. These conditions all have one important thing in common: they are often a result of overused muscles.
I don't think eliciting a negative emotion is the same thing as provoking a person, necessarily. There are paintings depicting Saint Sebastian which could be said to elicit negative emotions.
And comparing the art of Michelangelo to what we see today is misleading. Of course it is better than 99.9999% of what you can see today, just as it was better than 99.9999% of the art he could have seen when he was alive. Just because I probably haven't seen it doesn't mean there isn't a single artist alive today whose works will be revered as masterpieces centuries from now. Just as James McNeill Whistler is more than just a novelty of the Victorian Age.
And there are many people today who consider much of the work of the Old Masters little better than pornography, just as much as they revile Robert Mapplethorpe. Just as there are people who find a velvet Jesus spiritually transcendent.
I'm not saying everything is Art with a capital A, but I don't think sorting by genre is the best way to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Greetings,
I skirt the whole debate by specifically claiming to do illustration, not art. I illustrate the images that dance in my febrile mind, getting them out into a form that other people could see. I tried to learn to draw, for just that reason, but I have fine motor coordination issues that make anything beyond rudimentary sketches unrecognizable. DAZ Studio has given me the closest to that ability that I've ever had...
On the other hand, if I had a box that I could 'imagine at', and it would show the picture that I'm thinking, I wouldn't spend thousands on 3D content. ;)
And remember that there is no genre immune to Sturgeon's Law, so using the worst excesses of a class of work to deride the entire is ultimately fruitless.
-- Morgan
Everything I do is art... the problem is convincing everybody else that I'm right!
:lol: :lol: :lol:
For me.. art is something that touches you, the beholder or the artist, one way or another be it emotionally/mentally/even physically (some erotic art can have that reaction ;P). but just as people are different and each one is an individual... art is in a sense individual as something that touches me, might not touch you and so on.
So I think that art is simply individual and all people have their own feel of what art is. I for one, actually isn't that fond of most of the work from the old Masters, why? because their art don't "speak" to me, it doesn´t make me feel and it doesn't touch me in any sense (with a few exceptions)
So, all in all.. Art just like Beauty, is solely in the eyes of the Beholder
Have to admit I had missed part of Jareds question *grins* so did a little edit here ;P
How do I make my renders art? I don't.. atleast not in the sense that I assume they are art. I use my creating as an outlet for what is inside me or in response for something that I've heard or seen somewhere (or just to challenge myself with certain themes/contests etc). Sometimes it is darker "themes" other times it is nice, cute, loving, erotic etc.. all depends on what I at the moment when I started created the render, actually feel.. and the result also dependso n how much of myself and my current emotions/feelings/etc I pour into what I am creating..
am I making art? I wouldn't say I am, but I would say that I am creating something that has a meaning to me.. if others like it, than I am just happy for that :)
Art is simply the "expression of self" nothing more complicated than that.
Historically, that is a modern invention. Art use to mean an expression of the world around us.
Yeah but surely how we perseeve the world around us is about the self, what one see in the world another might not.
LOL
Best.. answer.. yet!