What would you consider not to be art?

S

sum_gurl

New member
Art is everywhere and all around us right? then what is not art?
alright ronnie, I have another question for you then. Here is a scenario:

A great violinist played at a concert hall and million sof people attended n payed large sums of money to attend. When the same musciian went to play at a sub way, he was not recognized and everyone merely went about their own ways. Sure one can argue that at the subway everyone is rushing and they are busy, but assuming the are not, would he still be considered an artist? I nyour explanation, i am assuming you'd say no. But clearly he is.
Art is NOT subjective. I think you meant to say individual but not subjective. Why? well you can have me go on and on about this philosophical discussion...lol
 
I don't think art is everywhere. It really depends on what each individual person sees; after all, it is rather subjective: what one person considers art, another may consider to be trash. Really, I think art is anything that was created expression a certain intent, and emotion of the artist, which may be intended to invoke certain emotions in the audience.
 
That actually isn't correct. Art isn't everywhere and all around us. Beauty may be, but because something is beautiful it doesn't mean it's art.

Art is produced by artists. What makes an artist, though? That would be distinguishment in their community and knowledgeability in their field.

This is why if plumber Joe goes out and paints a red dot on a canvas, it is not art....there is no implied meaning to the piece, and Joe does not possess any knowledge of the field. He is not an artist, and it is not art.

If a distinguished artist goes out and paints the same dot, it is considered art. It doesn't mean it's good art, but it is art at that point. Distinguishment as an artist can come from family members (Granny can be an artist without a degree in it, or exhibited work, so long as she is viewed as an artist by her family and friends. Therefore she makes art), or it can come by receiving formal training.


As much as I love sunsets, they are not art.

Update:
It would still be art because he is established. He possesses training
And the distinguishment in his field as I noted earlier as requirements.
now, because nobody pays him any mind does not negate the fact that its
Still art, as someone ignoring the dot on canvas created by an established artist is still art regardless
 
I would consider art that is made for no other reason than to gain attention for the artist and be 'provocative' to not be real art. Like Andres Serrano's 'Piss Christ'. It was just to make people mad and get attention/make money. It doesn't offend me, I just think it is childish and gross.

I think if you have to rely on tactics like that, then your work fails to meet the criteria to even be art in my book.
 
Back
Top