Wednesday, October 18, 2006

What is art???

hey all, i was thinkin about this durring TOK today. i was thinkin about what art really is and concidering what adrean was saying about how one progresses through art and in doing this, becomes more aware of the different "correct" methods of creating art. in the most respectful way possible, i completely dissagree with the statement that there is a correct way of creating art for certain forms of art. i personaly think that art is completely what the creator makes of it. I think that a four year olds art is the most pure form of art ever concievable simply because it is un-tainted by the conformities of society. a four year old has no guidlines, and therefor can completely and totaly honestly express their emotions, which in my oppinion is what art's pourpose is. Can there be art without emotion? I personaly dont think there can be, because i think that art is emotion. i also believe in two forms of art: art that is there simply for the emotional dovelopment or satisfaction of the creator, and art that is created to actively draw out emotions in the audience. without emotion, art is not only not art, it is completely pointless. what do you guys think, now that i have stated my oppinion? do you agree?

7 comments:

Vvyynn said...

Oh boy, nothing I like better than talking about art. I'm going to branch out here so we don't all agree. Why? Because everyone agreeing is boring, that's why World Peace probably won't happen for a long, long time.

Anyhoo, I say that art is not created by the individual, but by critics. This is what the dadaists capitilized off of. They gave the world toilets and called them art, and the critics said "You're genius", and the dadaists laughed. Yes, one can make art for oneself, however this will not be art. What makes art, all forms of art wether it be Theatre or Dance or Music, is critics.

Well, this'll be fun. Post.

devin said...

Art cannot be defined, seeing as it is some sort of relative, vague ideal that is present in everything, so I think we should stop trying to define it and move on to bigger and better things, like the meaning of life, or why red was assigned the action of "stop", when in fact red is a very passionate, "go" sort of color.

Vvyynn said...

Well, maybe you're supposed to stop with passion.

Also, simply because this is what you associate with red, doesn't mean it is red. For me, red is associated with blood and heat.

But yes, Art is defined by critics and not by the individual.

devin said...

Yes, Evan, you prove my point. Thank you.

devin said...

I should probably back that up...
You say we have to define words to know "what the hell we're talking about". Art, as we are talking about it, is not a word so much as an idea. What art is varies between every single person on the planet - no two people will entirely agree on its meaning. Therefore, isn't it more useful for us to define it for ourselves and work off that definition, rather than arguing pointlessly over an infinitely debatable topic? That's why you completely disagreed with me, not because I have a "contempt for language", but because at least I was not talking about defining a word, but a subjective idea.
And you proved my point because despite that long rant about old dead philosophers and their sayings and thoughts on "Art", you say yourself that no one has been able to come to a sufficient conclusion. If, over the course of the last 2000 years, we still haven't managed it, lets spend our time doing something else more worthwhile.

Vvyynn said...

So...are we not going to post on my claim that art is defined by critics? I thought that was rather bold of me. Please. You're all going to let me get away with that? I'm about to go Raskolnikov on all of you.

devin said...

okay vvvvyynnnnii - art isn't defined by critics, so much as it is popularized by critics. They define the place certain things that are artistic have in our mindsets, in our culture, but they don't define "Art" itself. The critics place labels on art, like "good", "great", and "wtf", that define that object socially, creating an image of it in the cultural mindset. Personally, since I know nothing about painting, I can get much more out of a landscape painting done by some random dude no one knows about (thanks to critics) than I can from the Mona Lisa. This, for me anyway, proves that what art critics have to say doesn't actually define art for me, just the object they're criticizing.