by Nuala on 10/30/01 at 6:55 PM Art is a physical product that results from a conscious act of the imagination.
Things that do not fit this definition are not art.
Often, we want to characterize physical things that are pleasing--and that do not fit art's definition--as "art." However, they are not art; they are "artistic."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
by joe on 08/15/02 at 6:03 AM
“Art is that which the heart, the head, and the hand do together.” --Ruskin
--------------------------------------------------------------------
by sreekanth varidhireddy on 06/30/02 at 6:57 PM
Art is a form of expression, Where you express your feelings or message in the form of your profficiency. Infact you would be able to express it a million times better than on can expect.
Is all about art...in simple terms
: Art is a physical product that results from a conscious act of the imagination.
: Things that do not fit this definition are not art.
: Often, we want to characterize physical things that are pleasing--and that do not fit art's definition--as "art." However, they are not art; they are "artistic."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
by art lover on 11/01/01 at 11:43 PM
: Art is a physical product that results from a conscious act of the imagination.
: Things that do not fit this definition are not art.
: Often, we want to characterize physical things that are pleasing--and that do not fit art's definition--as "art." However, they are not art; they are "artistic."
Well doesnt every thing man made result from a concious act of imagination? I wouldnt say that every man made objest is "Art". I dont mean to challenge you too much but what isnt Art by that definition? I say Art can be nearly anything but Fine Art is a different thing entirely. I think that Fine Art is deliberate, calm, permanent, clear or lucid, and grand in scale or depth or degree. An exceptional, man made object of superlative quality at the very least.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
by Scatmanmac on 07/18/02 at 1:28 AM
I'm really confused & would dearly love to hear from anyone who can snwer these questions:-
1)Can categories of art ever be closed?
2)Can art include depiction that disgusts & repels?
3)Artists sell their work, does this have any bearing on whether the article is art?
I do hope some of you will think long & hard about these questions, my freedom depends on it....I am looking at a prison sentence for what I believe to be art.
Regards
Scatmanmac
--------------------------------------------------------------------
by olpaint on 01/12/01 at 10:11 AM
Art is the process, not the product
--------------------------------------------------------------------
by Doogle on 07/21/01 at 9:54 AM
Good Question! Is there an art to making bread?, and is this the same as visual art.. Where is the art in repeating the same Ballet movements over and over to a different tune? and calling it by another name!
In this viewpoint dance may be of a high level of craftsmanship. Viewed by some people, this is defined as art, by me as boring.
From a historical POV artwork was nearly always combined with a high level of craft, and prehistory had it as a magical process.
Abstraction seems to have allowed a leap somewhere to value an explained or evidenced 'concept' without distinguishable form, to be valued as art. Perhaps we should be asking deaf people to explain, without the preconceptions associated with critical waffle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
by jeoff taylor on 03/24/01 at 10:45 PM
Art is the process, not the product
Science would surely have you believe this? “The decapitation of MAGIK is trendy”
Writing a word is a process in the alphabet/medium! But it is what you say with the word’s in this case (pre*scription) that would make the word art? Postmodernism is funny… looking at roots instead of a flower.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
by Les Hubert on 03/08/01 at 3:26 AM
: Art is the process, not the product
Hello there,
I once heard that art is art when it "stimulates conception and perception". In other words, one must concieve of something new or a new way of seeing the subject, and then allow others to percieve it.
As for those of us out there who, when they look at a work and have absolutely no clue as to its meaning, you can then state without a doubt that the artist has failed, and or what is created is NOT art.
Just my 2 cents.
Regards,
Les
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick on 02/13/01 at 11:38 AM
: Art is the process, not the product
That's an interesting premise, but not one I agree with. I see art not just as the act of creation, but as a form of communication. As such, it needs to reach others, thus it is a product as well as a process.
I've always been bothered by the phrase "art for art's sake". It seems useless and even selfish - it's for the sake of sharing with others, or it may as well stay in the imagination of the artist. Once art has been made real (by the process), the product must be shown to someone, or the act is wasted.
Even if the product is transient or ephemeral, it needs to be seen (heard, felt, tasted) to impart any meaning. And, to go farther, if you have created something you believe in, why not see to it that it lasts as long as possible? I like the feeling that it's a message in a bottle to the future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
by dave barber on 02/06/01 at 11:05 AM
You wouldn't think so looking at some of the discussions on this site - maybe the laborious scientific approach is enjoyable to some folk?
Why wory about what'll happen to your painting in 200 years time - just get on and enjoy painting now!
Dave
--------------------------------------------------------------------
