Originally posted by: return_to_hades
Recently I got into a debate with some people on what art is. I considered singing as an art form, while others did not. 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.
Can art be really defined in mere words?
yes, using other words that are still largely abstract.
Can we gauge art objectively or will it be a matter of subjective taste?
mostly personal subjective taste. but art that is meant to appeal to larger numbers would have to be more objectively viewed thru the prism of what is societally acceptable. personal subjectivity would have to take a backseat.
What is art to you and what do you consider art?
something, anything with aesthetic appeal. even a a person who has the right contours, the right symmetry could be a piece of art.😉
another thing- all the stuff about art having to be something based on creativity or imagination is unnecessary to my mind. you could just go out and paint something in nature, be the first person to do so, and that would have great visual appeal. by the time others get around to it, that might lose appeal. but you did not necessarily go out and paint something outa this world. all that imagination and creativity stuff for artists then is all artsy hype imo.😉
Singers, actors, musicians, dancers - are they artists?
not just by that fact. they are folks with some talent perhaps, but they are not necessarily artists.
Nowadays we use art in a broader perspective like tattoo artist, design artist. How broad can we stretch the definition of art?
"artist" is used loosely these days, much the same as the term "executive" assistant or salesperson. person aint an executive.😉 these people are more folks with a certain talent, creating something that is not necessarily aesthetically appealing, just something that is appealing. for the tattoo character, that's a crude appeal. for the designer, it's usually a commercial sense. neither aesthetic.
What about terms like con artist, escape artist - can art be used to define crime?
nope. unless someone's a sadist or something, these things dont have any aesthetic appeal. more an ugly fascination, same as looking at a cobra or a horror scene.
Is there an art and science to everything, or are some things limited to art and others to more mechanical ways?
in the real world, both are intertwined. there is art/ interpretation everywhere. if we are good artists, we'd know the particular science to use to frame things correctly. For instance, the world's a complex word problem. The art is in formulating the problem correctly. the science is in then using robotic rules or precision-based methodology to carry out the computations. need both. scientists in particular i think lack the big picture mentality. artists on the other hand cant do a thing but look at the big picture.
Udne Ki Aasha
Cricket
