Defining Art - Page 2

oh wow mythili! great post there.. i just read.

Originally posted by: mythili_Kiran

ART is something which involves imagination ,creativity and which may not have a fixed or standard rules.For me everything is ART.

BINGO!! 👏👏👏

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

There is a school of thought that defines art only from a creation aspect. A person is an artist when they are creating something like sketching, painting, sculpture or composing. Singers, musicians, actors are not artists but presenting someone else work of art. There is another school of thought which goes towards a more popular definition of art, anything that requires talent, training and skill is considered an art form.
I disagree with this definition. There are very few original artists and the rest have just acquired skills and talent.
Can art be really defined in mere words? No .. Only by expressions and feelings.
Can we gauge art objectively or will it be a matter of subjective taste? It sets a standard when more people begin to develop taste for it.
What is art to you and what do you consider art? Imagination coming alive.
Singers, actors, musicians, dancers - are they artists? Very few are. The rest are performers.
Nowadays we use art in a broader perspective like tattoo artist, design artist. How broad can we stretch the definition of art? While everything cannot be art, we haven't seen every form of art there is.
What about terms like con artist, escape artist - can art be used to define crime? No..Art cannot be negative.
Is there an art and science to everything, or are some things limited to art and others to more mechanical ways? Sunrise and sunsets can be explained scientificaly but the enjoyment one gets from watching it every single day is pure art. 😊

Originally posted by: lighthouse

Well said LH, especially the point about sunset... Science cant be an art.. Its slave of reason... so scientists have no freedom whatsoever whereas art has no bounds.....😊

Originally posted by: lighthouse

[Is there an art and science to everything, or are some things limited to art and others to more mechanical ways? Sunrise and sunsets can be explained scientificaly but the enjoyment one gets from watching it every single day is pure art. 😊

LH Good example ...I think you believe as I that art is associated with stimulation of our pleasure sense. well, to know or explore about natural phenomanon is itself a strong stimulant it may fall under science however it evokes the same strong pleausre sense .If I take your point .. I will have to accept that to listen music is an art but to explain it through scales and notes is science and not fall under arts that means all of the trained singers or music directors are out of art category .

What I feel that both are intermingled and are not separable.

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

[Well said LH, especially the point about sunset... Science cant be an art.. Its slave of reason... so scientists have no freedom whatsoever whereas art has no bounds.....😊

Then art shouldn't be the slave of our moral standards...because then it is becoming a slave of reason 😊

Originally posted by: Morning_Dew

Then art shouldn't be the slave of our moral standards...because then it is becoming a slave of reason 😊

Of course not where do you see art being slave of moral standards.... Nobody stops them like reason does to Science....😊 - one reason why you find KS architecture in several parts of india.. and moral flag bearers havent vandalized it yet...says a lot ...

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

Of course not where do you see art being slave of moral standards.... Nobody stops them like reason does to Science....😊 - one reason why you find KS architecture in several parts of india.. and moral flag bearers havent vandalized it yet...says a lot ...

Brilliant point..👏 . I always wondered about KS being sacred..😊

-

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

[Of course not where do you see art being slave of moral standards.... Nobody stops them like reason does to Science....😊 - one reason why you find KS architecture in several parts of india.. and moral flag bearers havent vandalized it yet...says a lot ...

Sorry became really busy with some other stuff and forget to edit it 😊

Ok .. first forgive my ignorance but dont' have any idea what KS stand for 😕..

What I percieved from your post .. you are refering some ancient architechtur .. especially built before muslim-era.

Well the problem is that the moral values which at present we conservatives follow are heavily influenced with monotheistics even among them *that* particular act is not totally prohibited. Yes it is regulated .. so one thing whatever exhibited there in ancient architecture was nothing against human nature or especially against social norms of that particular time period ... the question is why it survived ..well India is an ancient country and majority of Indians are following one of the most ancient religion, parts some of its mythologies don't even match the current moral values still they are accepted so I m not surprised .

What I observe that acceptability of forms of art has been changed over the period of time with the transformation of society in terms of social norms and values.

Career and life of Oscar wild was ruined because of his deviated attitude according to the moral valuesof society at that time .. Nobody would care if he wrote or does whatever he like these days.

However creativity in crimes is still not acceptable form of art. As you agree with Lighty saying art cannot be negative.. so on which standard we decide what is positive and what is negative. Eventually the negative , postive or good, evil is decided on the basis of social norms or current moral values.

I find it really difficult to separate science with arts.. cause if imagination and creativity is not the part of science we would've stuck somewhere in stone age .

Infact I find science being a great vehicle to expand our horizon of imagination .. after all everything which is created by man as an artist is already a copy of pre existed natural element 😊.

Originally posted by: Morning_Dew

LH Good example ...I think you believe as I that art is associated with stimulation of our pleasure sense. well, to know or explore about natural phenomanon is itself a strong stimulant it may fall under science however it evokes the same strong pleausre sense .If I take your point .. I will have to accept that to listen music is an art but to explain it through scales and notes is science and not fall under arts that means all of the trained singers or music directors are out of art category .

What I feel that both are intermingled and are not separable.

Dewey , everyone sees art differently it is boundless hence cannot be explained and accepted with reason.

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

Of course not where do you see art being slave of moral standards.... Nobody stops them like reason does to Science....😊 - one reason why you find KS architecture in several parts of india.. and moral flag bearers havent vandalized it yet...says a lot ...

Is that so 😉 why do same moral flag bearers limit today's artist full freedom of expression? Architectural structure saved on the name of preserving cultural hertiage, moral part is ignored. (this sentence me 😆😆)