Something was brought up earlier in the forums.

someone said that art is only produced by humans.

I'm just curious to know your opinions. Please, refrain from telling me that it's the DEFINITION of art because you read it in websters. I want to hear your personal opinions.

mine? I personally think can be created by anything. Humans didn't create the sky, but sometimes the color and texture of the clouds look so neato they remind me of icecream in the big buckets at Marble Slab. OR, looking inside of a petri dish full of germs looks pretty awesome at times. Humans did not create nature, and yet, many artist still recreate something that's already there and call it their own (still lifes, landscapes, photography, etc.)

What do you think?

If you want to be general, I think anything you call art, is art.
Then good art comes down to something that is called art that you like. Or perhaps makes you think. I suppose it could be good art because you don't like it, or it bothers you.

I think art is a deliberate attempt on the part of the artist to produce a visual or audible representation that causes interest in the mind of the beholder, positive or negative, that evokes a reaction that causes direct or indirect emotional stimulation to it's audience by taking whatever physical action necessary (paint, dance, music, writing, etc.) to create whatever it is that is intended to stir the senses. I believe that, in general, the amount of skill the artist possesses and uses to accomplish this directly impacts the success or failure to do so.

Kasha: I think the universe is just one great big canvas and God made the clouds look like ice cream when they do, and He is the *bestest* artist, ever.

oh, and if I ever do get a monkey, I'm going to teach it to dust, not to paint. :)

There is also the art of conversation, the art of manipulation, the art of science, the art of dying, the art of living, the art of loving, the art of deception, the art of comedy, the art of acting.
Now you guys see how many other forms of art you can come up with.

I can't come up with a better description than yours of what art is, or a better list than you have there... but I know the most complicated and difficult to compose into a "working" piece of art would be the *art of loving*, ... if someone could 'pull that off' it would have to be the most beautiful of them all.

...there's Art Carney..Art Linkletter...um....nm...

sunset.

We just had this topic in school ^^
My definition:
Art is something which causes the viewer/s to react in a certain way (can be complex or not) which is intended by the artist who created the result consciously.
It doesn't matter how the artist made it (involves invested time) nor does it matter what medium the result uses. It can be a sentence, it can be a painting, it can be silence.
What counts is that the artist is in control of the reaction. That's why he need to understand every bit of his artwork and what thoughts others can come up with(if the viewer is something which can think).
As a conclusion, art needs only one conscious mind(! ... body not necessary) and a system which reacts.
If you are aware of how to heal yourself it's art to me(again a shocking example ^^).

But it's not just like "I said >>FU<< to annoy him". There are countless coefficients you have to be aware of.
For example it is important what you said to this person before, how you said that AND what you said before even that(!) or what you generally did before that(just a selection of things you need to be aware of).

Somebody heard of the butterfly effect?
It doesn't matter how small the thing is you did, the world will always react in a chain reaction to it. So that your wink could cause a tornado eventually(it's a stupid example, but you get the point).

Art is an ideal which won't be reached ever. It's equal to be all knowing. If you are all knowing then you'll be to do everything you like, because you know how to do it.

We can only try to reach for it. And humans are willing to do that.


Edit ( wanted to add some other thoughts on this topic):
My definition says that the viewer doesn't need to know of the artist!
It depend on the artist whether he wants to be exposed.
Many seem to like being known by the viewer. They like to earn money with their personality and name.
It isn't that stupid thing, hanging at a wall of a museum, art anymore(I don't know whether it was art anytime), it's getting a art of how to get famous and rich and most of them don't even understand how that works ( they just do and then get it).

Ah I could flame around forever, but I don't want to waste your and my time. Also I would end up with unfinished thoughts (unfinished by means of written down)

Usually what I use as a definition is something that takes a certain amount of skill and/or thought, and is enjoyable by some people. I don't really have a hard definition other than that.

oddly enough, a sunset only looks artistic because we have seen it depicted so times in artists pictures. and you can say that about anything. So i would argue art is not the finished product, but the mastering of the medium an artist chooses to use. Sticking with the example, there are many ways to paint a sunset (realistically, impressionistic, abstract) but it is up to the artist to master the medium, before they can produce any such a style.
and through the ages, there have been many revolutionaries who have re-mastered mediums and given birth to new styles, thus producing the cannon we know of. There you go, all mine own (jumbled) words

@frootcake: So when does somebody master a medium?
Is it for example just to know how to swing the brush on the canvas?
Or do you mean by master, that the artist is able to paint every style he likes to? Use it in every way he likes?
And by knowing every style he must be aware of how the world around it reacts?

And what is the finished product then, if it isn't art?
Is art then: being able to do everything?
Why do we humans want to know how to draw something when the result has no meaning, but the mastering of its medium?
I feel like art is in your eyes skill.

Art's a form of self expression as it is natural being.

well basically, axil is a better artist than you because he has mastered the applet better.
if you start to include too many contraints on what art has to be like (like the expression of emotion) then it simply boggles the statement.
I was trying to avoid using a definition of what art is, and tried to look around the problem by developing the idea of the artist.
swinging the brush on the canvas is clearly no mastery at all, and personally i do not value the works of artists such as Pollock.

natural being, nice ambiguous phrase

What about the art of fornication? Does that count?

I think art is something that makes you happy to do and makes other people happy to see or hear or touch or whatever.

maybe if my cat painted something. I would like it. it would be sentimental probably. also...there is an elephant who thinks its fun to paint....is that art?...mmmmeeh.. but he likeds it but still its cool....umm but basicaly I agree with my dad.

frootcake:

axil is a better artist than you because he has mastered the applet better.

bzzzzZZZZZTTT (wrong) There are many "artists" who are skilled in the use of whatever tools they choose.. "masterful" with them, even, but the ability to evoke deep feeling and impart emotion is the essential element in creating "moving" art. He possesses that... something that many skilled artists lack. Skill is part of it, but it isn't even the most pertinent ingredient in deeply moving art. That comes from deep within, it cannot be learned or taught, it is part of the artist.... and should be considered a gift from that artist when you view it, because it is... he's sharing something of himself.

In short: You can learn how to wield a paint brush or use a paint program effectively, but either you "got it, or you don't" :)

Yeah...so GIMMIE SOME CANDY!!!!

Would carrot cake with cream cheese icing work if I put candy sprinkles on it? (with a glass of milk, of course)

and then I could eat it all fast and get sprinkles stuck to my face and go over to the neighbors house and ring the door bell and say "trick or treat!" and when they look at me all weird I'd say "hey... I'm crazy candy sprinkle guy! Look at me, I got sprinkles growing out of my damn face! isn't that CRAZY!? GIMMIE SOME CANDY!"

haha... yeah. Well, I should make them as cupcakes, because cupcakes travel better. Those pleated pastel paper cups are kinda cute, anyway. I hope your neighbors have a "sweet" sense of humor.

Yeah? Well my neighbors can take about a half dozen of those cute pleated pastel paper cups and SHOVE EM UP THEIR ASSES!

that would hurt D:>

Okay, then, I'll definitely do the cupcakes, and there must be a videocamera there to capture this event.... You should make sure there aren't any residual sprinkles in the cups...that could be a bit abrasive. Long as you make sure most of them are stuck to your face (glued by the icing, of course) this should work out nicely.

welp.... guess I'll slather some shea butter on my feet an call it a day.

I believe art is only feasible by humans. Art is a visual expression of our thoughts, feelings and emotionals. These qualities are generally regarded as non-exsistant in animals.

Call me crazy, but the last time I checked, animals had thoughts, feelings and emotions.

On another note, I can see where some of you are coming from... Art being a delibrate attempt to provoke a certain emotion.

Do you think some artist don't really give a shit about what they paint and just do it for the hell of it? or is art always mandatory to be meaningful? Do you think it's possible to like such a painting and feel an emotion that wasn't the artist intention? just a few questions...

well i was trying to argue that art doesn't have to have anything meaningful about it. A good artist can paint anything, and emotion doesn't enter the equation. Not everyone will feel the same on viewing a piece of work, it's purely subjective; that is why i see it as wrong to say art and emotion are linked in any direct way. I could give a million examples.

and dba: although your post points out that maybe one person can portray emotion etc better than the next regardless of technical ability, it does not contradict my idea that art comes from mastering the medium. All your comment says to me, is that axil can paint more emotional stuff so That's why he's better. On the contrary, i disagree, it's because he's better with the applet than most.

a personal comment: i completely made this whole ideology up in response to Kasha's question, nobody has yet given suitable evidence against my claim, but i don't want to hog the discussion.

@Kasha:
"Art being a deliberate attempt to provoke a certain emotion." - Kasha
Well provoking a certain emotion is in my eyes just an example.
It can be a person getting healed, or a stone falling, or anything.(like the artwork)

The conscious mind just needs to be aware of the reaction that follows by his doing.

"Do you think it's possible to like such a painting and feel an emotion that wasn't the artist intention?" - Kasha
You can like it or hate it, or react in any way you want. You do not make the work of the artist to art.(you can only make new art)
The viewer can't justice whether what he sees is art or not, because he won't be able to know what the intention of the artist really was.
...Nobody can read the mind of others. And even if the artist tries to explain, he won't be able to do this fully. Words are a restricted way to express yourself.

If you think/react in the way that the artist not intended, then the work will lose its original artistic value.
I do not deny that it can be inspiring and very interesting to discover the unforeseen, but that is experimenting and discovering, not art. :)

@frootcake:
Yeah gimme examples :)
...
So I could paint a face perfectly (looks like photo), and then it's art?
And then someone comes around around shows me a photo of the same thing. So both things look the same.
Now please describe me what the photo is to you, and what is the painting to you.

You might say that the person who painted it is more an artist because it was much more skill included.

But I think by this you make it all so senseless. Why should somebody bother drawing something in a realistic way if he could just take a photo?
You say that the mastering is the satisfaction.
Then why to hell do you show us your work!?!?
The result doesn't matter in your eyes anyway.

"Call me crazy, but the last time I checked, animals had thoughts, feelings and emotions."

That may be, but not to the degree of a human being. I don't think an animal ever sits there pondering what kind of piece he/she wants to create, and comes up with a certain composition using creativity.

lol well, yeah, duh.


Footcake: what you're saying is, if people don't feel what the artist intended them to he fails to a certain degree as an artist? OMG.

so just because you masterd the applets means youre a better artist?? no, there are a lot of things wrong with that. there are a lot of exceptions. Iv seen it in school. I cant use the applets very well at all to be honest I think I make good art.... there are kids in my drawing class now, who know how to use a pencil, but they cant draw as well... blah blah...

@Kasha: For frootcake the people who view it do not matter.

art doesn't have to have anything meaningful about it. A good artist can paint anything, and emotion doesn't enter the equation. Not everyone will feel the same on viewing a piece of work, it's purely subjective; that is why i see it as wrong to say art and emotion are linked in any direct way.

ok simple example, you see food you like, or an animal you don't. You have an emotion response to it. So that would surely make a snickers or a dog, art?

Jessica, i guess i would have to say you are good with the applet if you make good art.

@frootcake: Then everything would be art.
Who made the dog? Or who made you meet it?
You did not mention the creator of the thing which caused the reaction. So I suggest there isn't anyone.
That makes it no art, because there was no conscious mind which created it, being aware of the consequences.

Could you also answer my other questions above, please? They were directed to you, too.

...
One example of real art for me is to make you really understand my definition of art.
You want to know why it is so hard?
- I might have a whole different view on the world than others have here and it is hard to make you start thinking in an other way.
- English is not my mothertongue -> so some statement might make you start thinking in a direction I did not intended.
- Some of you don't read the whole message with full attention. One reason for that is, that you have an other opinion, so that you are thinking more about your own view on this topic than paying attention to my text.
I find myself doing that too. But I really try to read your opinions carefully, because I think that everyone can be wrong always...No matter how confident he/she is about the own opinion.
- There are a lot more thoughts and experience in my mind than I can write down
- Words are a restricted way to express your thoughts

This is just an extract of the coefficients you have to be aware of in my case. And if I happen to succeed I would truly call it art.
Well you can never succeed fully because a human being can't be fully aware of everything, for that he must be all knowing.
It's not like noone can make art, but the more you succeed, the more it is art.

lol, well I meant to direct that comment to you Dr. Snoopy.

because you stated "If you think/react in the way that the artist not intended, then the work will lose its original artistic value."

I just think that's kinda strange because to some artist other peoples reactions aren't wanted, just theirs.

but overall, I understand what you're saying. A piece can have all the qualities of great art, but without a conscious mind, it's not.

I'm asking this because when I was looking at a piece done by a chimp, I truely thought it was originally done by a human. It looked a lot better than art I've seen done by some humans. If you thought the same, but to later find out it was done by a chimp, would you become so fickle enough to change your mind and regard it as merely inspiration now instead of actual art like you did before?

It's just funny how some peoples reactions can be " oh, well... I guess it's not art then, but it looks pretty cool though."

Hmm, I think it's funny how people will start a thread asking people to voice their opinions on a topic, and when they do, the poster responds in a condescending manner; like somehow his/her opinion is superior to theirs.

Oh, you really got me there.


but not really.


I'm actually being respectful to other peoples opinion.

If you're mad what I said to you is only because you stated the obvious, Sherlock.... oh and because you get on my nerves.

@Kasha: "that's kinda strange because to some artist other peoples reactions aren't wanted, just theirs." - Kasha
Good point!
Well as long as those thoughts do not interfere with the original intention (make the artist him/herself feel something certain) the work should stay art.
But I am wondering, why should somebody exhibit something which is originally just made for him/herself?
Maybe you mean like a diary which got published after the death of a person.

The people who read the book then are not the original audience. The artist did not have to make any thoughts about whether someone else would read it. It was a secret.
The intended reaction was achieved. So what happens after that does not matter.

This way you may come up with a question...What if the artist sets him/herself a very simple goal?
For instance hitting a ball against a wall.
Most of you think this is easy and nothing special. But take a baby for example which has not as much experience as we have. This young human being would be rather happy to make it happen.
Or what if the person was handicapped?

Art is relative like everything. If an inexperienced "artist" joins our site, then he/she will awe at our work (this is what I did...I was extremely amazed at what you can do with such drawing applets),
but as this person gains experience he/she starts to see that some stuff is actually easy to create.
...Axil might be the best example.

I see this as a positive message. Everyone can create art, be creative and have fun. It's part of being human.

...
Now to the chimpart :)
The thing is, only the artist him/herself can tell whether what he/she created is actually art.
Well this is at least the case for humans, because we can't read minds or exchange thoughts perfectly. We are communicating with restricted tools like words and gesture.
Maybe some yet not discovered beings with a collective mind are able to judge perfectly if the work of another is art.

Well what the ape made it mostly unconscious, but still you do like it. That is no problem at all.
It doesn't have to be art to excites/inspire you. Just like clouds remind you of icecream.
The thing what the ape made himself is not art, but you can use it to create new art.
For example exhibit it in a museum to make people think about today's "artists" which earn a lot of money for things which look like an ape made it.

@Gigandas: It's not always easy to treat other opinions fair

"Maybe you mean like a diary which got published after the death of a person."

exactly :D
I like the art is relative part

I understand how you feel about the chimp creating inspiration instead of art. I was just pointing out how awkward it must feel for some people to change their mind about it being "art" when they find out it's done by a chimp.

when I found out it was done by a chimp, I thought it was pretty neat and made the piece even more special and unique. When my cousin found out she thought what was once pretty was just pretty dumb, lol.

Yeah it was kind of a weird feeling.
I thought that it's either way not very worthy ^^ ... still it's cute to see what animals are able to do.
But it reminds me of animal drill and circus, where they force them to do all those things, just to earn money.

wow i want to fly can i fly now plz plz plz plz???????????

I think it also depends on the person though. Cause really, I don't find interest in abstract art in the least; by that, I mean your typical abstract piece, not pieces with slight abstractions. So even if a chimp did/didn't paint the piece, I still don't think I'd actually enjoy it either way. That would mean for the few people like me, we wouldn't have to worry about running into that situation of 'changing our minds' about it.