What is "Art"

[Deleted member 560282]

What I mean with this questions is, what is your definition of "art"?
A lot of people think that things like video games or animation can't be consider art, so I had a little of curiosity and wanted to know what people here thought
Surprise me please

 

[Alexander1970]

For myself,a fine Definition:

Art is to spit into a round Room in the Corner.

 

[FAST6191]

Ever the fun debate, and that is before you get into the collaborative discussion (see "auteur theory", or why a film is made sometimes by thousands of people yet most only care about the director, also one of the things some ponder in the "are computer games art?" discussion).

Art is an effort to stimulate the senses beyond the natural and mundane, evoking emotions and getting people to contemplate events and ideas being the main domains of it*. Whether and to what degree that effort has to succeed in that, or indeed the goals of the artist, however provides the scope for endless debate, and while I excluded the natural and mundane earlier it never the less forms something frequently contrasted or juxtaposed, as well as inspiring art (I might be able to elaborate on lowest energy concentrations, gravity, mechanical strengths of things, evolution, prime numbers and more for why spirals and certain patterns appear in nature but that can matter little, possibly even less if the artists had no clue about that).

*the classic "trivium" in education is grammar (how to write), logic (how to avoid fallacious argument and back things up) and rhetoric (how to take the other two and make them persuasive to people that don't operate on pure grammar and logic in most instances -- humans still very much being seriously governed by the savannah dwelling ape instincts, as well as being very flawed biological beings https://www.livescience.com/33664-amazing-optical-illusions-work.html ) would also follow that art can be a brutally effective means of this where a thousand pages of text might fall short.

If I was going to go anywhere next it would probably be a discussion of transience and permanence, and how tech might change aspects of that (I can watch a play that happened 50 years ago, or a song, though I can also watch a play written thousands of years ago so that means something in that discussion).

 

[Spring_Spring]

I remember someone once said about music specifically, but it can be applied to all art:

"Music is anything that someone listens to with the intention of listening to music"

Just substitute for other kinds of art, it was just the example I knew :3

 

[The Catboy]

I am art

 

[SG854]

I never cared about this question. I just play what I like and listen to what I like. If it's considered to be art or not I don't care. I just care if I'm getting enjoyment out of it.

If it's not considered art. It's not going to stop me from enjoying it. That label means nothing to me.

 

[Nincompoopdo]

Anything made by man is art, hence artificial.

 

[Seliph]

Art can be literally anything created by someone. If someone calls something art, then it is art. If no one calls the aforementioned something art, then it is not art.

 

[FAST6191]

Art can be literally anything created by someone. If someone calls something art, then it is art. If no one calls the aforementioned something art, then it is not art.

Is not the obvious retort to that "I proclaim anything made or ever to be made by man as art" at which point is not very useful any more?

 

[Seliph]

Is not the obvious retort to that "I proclaim anything made or ever to be made by man as art" at which point is not very useful any more?

No, I think it's still a useful point. If they think everything made or ever to be made by man is art, then to them it is art. Other people may agree or disagree, but as long as at least one person thinks that it is art, then it is art. Hypothetically if someone was able to witness all of time and space at once and see all that humans have created, I would understand if said hypothetical person were to consider it all art in some way.

 

[FAST6191]

No, I think it's still a useful point. If they think everything made or ever to be made by man is art, then to them it is art. Other people may agree or disagree, but as long as at least one person thinks that it is art, then it is art. Hypothetically if someone was able to witness all of time and space at once and see all that humans have created, I would understand if said hypothetical person were to consider it all art in some way.

So you presumably just invented art criticism/snobbery there despite ostensibly seeking to get away from it.

What capacity does the person have to have as far as self actualisation? Babies, something in the serious mental defect realm?
Does it have to be a person --plenty of animals have some serious brainpower and do things not immediately conducive to their survival? Can even be taught and not be instinct if that is a distinction that matters (though instinct vs conscious will is a fuzzy notion when it comes to art with any number of "no formal training or exposure" examples in history).

Can a blind man appreciate a sculpture never touched?

Does art have to be witnessed? I am pretty sure I could make an algorithm to produce an art, or maybe just a detailed description of a hypothetical piece but the art is not and has never been extant (two sculptures, I am doing a simple overlay merge of the two to make something never created before).

 

[CMDreamer]

Art can be literally anything created by someone. If someone calls something art, then it is art. If no one calls the aforementioned something art, then it is not art.

Art needs not to be called art to be so. It needs not a label, a "like" (social networks), a brand or a price.

Art is something/someone that makes you look twice while producing a reaction on you, even if it is a negative one. Not all art have to be nice, or pleaseant.

Its like the everlasting question about what's good or bad, about what is true or a lie.

Art lies in between, that's why it produces a reaction on you and makes you feel something you hadn't felt before.

 

[Lacius]

The answer's obvious:

Spoiler

 

[x65943]

Art can be anything. What makes it art is that it was shared with other people. Typically there has to be some creative energy put into the object or experience. So a mountain would not be art, but a photograph of it would be considered art.

You don't necessarily have to share art for it to be art - but it has not reached its truest form until you do.

Of course there are those who would say even the hills are art made by god.

 

[Mama Dizzys]

It’s a bit difficult

In the broadest sense, literally anything can be considered art

 

[Ricken]

Art is simply expression of thought or emotion through visuals; the word equivalent is poetry. You can apply that to whatever you see fit.

 

[Julie_Pilgrim]

deez nuts

 

[shaunj66]

Anything made by man is art, hence artificial.

I agree with this. I find any kind of creative expression to be art.

 

[emigre]

Hentai is art.

 

[The Real Jdbye]

What I mean with this questions is, what is your definition of "art"?
A lot of people think that things like video games or animation can't be consider art, so I had a little of curiosity and wanted to know what people here thought
Surprise me please

Video games are obviously art. There are real artists making the graphics and music for those games. The story is written by real writers. Video games are nothing but a hodgepodge of all sorts of different art forms. You could even call it the ultimate form of art because no other type of art combines so many different aspects of it and often to a masterful degree.
The same is also largely true for animation, just not to the same degree.