NuMedia Millie
I'm not hot with you, I'm hot with idea that the difference between something that is only pretty and something that is art are and can be the same depending on the person. I'm saying that, ideally, there should be general consensus because that is why we have things that are art so we can distinguish from the things that are just nice photographs and drawings.
Da Vinci and Michelangelo made history books because they drew attention to the need to perfect foundation skills. Before that it wasn't a thing, that in order to begin working towards becoming an artist, you didn't need the skills, just someone to buy you gold leaf and some board.
Yes art that is in fact art will speak differently to each person but where the confusion lies is what is art and what is something that is just nice to look at. It is fine and wonderful if it is just nice to look at and it will speak to people but not beyond the fact that it is nice and that is still okay. If it "speaks" and simply says "I'm really freaking good looking" and you go "hell yea, good job bro" that doesn't necessarily make it art.
It's easy to assert things are art. I can preach that my strong beliefs on this topic are fact and you can continue to say it's all opinion. In the end if someone comes up to me and says I make great art and I say no, I just paint, I make paintings, not art, then what?
I'm sorry to say, but art is what it is. The combination of Elements, Principles of
art. It really is just that simple. I never said it had to be good art, but it can still be
considered art. I never said it had to be, but that it can be
considered art. Now, if you don't think something is art that is fine, but if someone else does, what are you going to tell them? No it's not? Just because you say it's not, their opinion isn't going to change. Even more so if it does have the elements and principles of
art.
Quote:
The lines between the two are not so fine, art and things that are nice to look at. The gap is communication more than what is just the surface. An artist will know how to communicate an idea or ask a question through an image or an object. It's skill you learn over time, you learn how to ask these questions and assert your claims and ideas in an interesting and compelling way and though that picture of that daisy is really really pretty, it has nothing to offer other than that. And so it is not art. It's just a picture of a really nice daisy. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Now someone being called an artist is a more picky subject, because being an artist means being about to convey a feeling or emotion using the elements and principles in a skilled manner along with being skilled in the said media that they are using. Some people might think that the title of artist is this unattainable that only a few can reach. However, these days it's changed. So many people can be considered artist because they can
convey a feeling or emotion using the elements and principles in a skilled manner along with being skilled in the said media that they are using. Now if they chose call themselves an artist, that's up to them.
Quote:
I'm just asking that people respect the terms because if they don't and anything anyone feels like can be art, then why do I sit here thinking about modern feminist theory and try to tell people that the extreme sects of judaism have caused me personal harm? There is really very little snobbery in it because we just need to let things be what they are. The picture of the daisy is a photograph. It's really pretty. End. Tracey Emin makes work about personal connections in her life through beautiful installations and objects. The potential to be art is there. It has since gone undisputed that she makes art and not tapestries that are tapestries, etc.
It would be so nice for the definitions to be loose. But they aren't, I won't believe that. The viewer does not make something art. The person who made it makes it art and just because they say so doesn't make it so.
If someone thinks that something is art, then to them it is. No matter what you say, to them it's still going to be art. End of story. Do you know how many things that end up in galleries I think aren't art? Yet how did they end up in said gallery? Because someone else thought it was. In a painter doesn't consider their work to be art. That's fine, but if someone else does. Then to that person. it's art. I'm not saying that if one person says it's art then everyone else has to think so as well, or that said painter has to call it art. I'm saying that to that one person, it's art.
In the end, a piece that can be called art is something that has the elements and principles of
art. That is what art is, and it's up to an individual to decide it they want to call it art or just a pretty picture. As I said in my last post, when people usually call something art; It's because it speaks to them at a level that, something else that they just think is pretty, doesn't. What I mean by that, is that it conveys and emotion or question that maybe someone else doesn't see.
I could go on and on about, but really it just feels like I'm repeating myself. So I'm going to back away and call a 'agree to disagree' on this one. Because I think the argument lies in how we look at art, which we share different opinions on, that neither of us have any plans on changing anytime soon.
smile
