art is everywhere!

Well Zeni, perhaps you should look at yourself in the mirror before throwing cheap shots. Besides, I never called you any names on my previous post, and here you are once again calling me a 'small man' and a 'jackass'.

Well, your last post really prooved that you're the right person to define "reason" and "intelligence", so let it be it.

Hey hey hey! Please calm down 2 of you!:(

What is Art,right?

Art is any human creation which contains an idea other than it's utilitarian purpose.Beauty doesn't imply itself as a 'value' for Art,but the meaning of what people consider 'beauty' to be from their own eyes,with of course containing an 'idea' behind it from the author of the creation.So "meaning" is to be the consideration of "Art".The purpose of Art lies purely in its ability to portray a concept.

Sooo...Zeni's probably right after all.

Ooh! Neat-o! *thows art supplies away in a jealous rage*

"Art, by it's very essence, cannot be defined"

"Art" can be defined quite easily. After all, it can be studied and written about, so why can't it be defined? What causes debate is whether or not something matches that definition.

In an earlier post, I gave a definition of what "art" is and what it should do. To me, this does not match that definition very well.

Nice sig Zeni

I said it - everybody has got different point of views. It may be art for some, and fore some it may be not. So is it really smart to think that your oppinion is the correct one, Zeni?

Gerli

Feel free to disagree with me, I really don't mind. The problem is that, short of Flashy, few have offered an opinion as to why this is art. I enjoy an intelligent debate, so please, discuss.

I think this guy does have a talent and his work does entertain, but, as stated earlier, it does not become "art."

Don't mean to interrupt, but isn't Da Vinci's sketches, which are drawings of his inventions, and preliminary ideas for paintings,considered to be art? I guess they are.

To each their own opinion. :D

I think people are becoming confused with the modern take on art, which tends to disappear up it's own constipated arse, and what art really is in it's basic form. Which, in these terms, are pavement drawings. Whether it has 'beauty in form' or not is too personal to be judged by any one person. Zeni may be right about art as it is in it's highest form, but without the basics, there is no art.

Give a six year old a paintbrush and a wall, and the end result is art.
Don't believe me? Visit the 'Tate Modern' - somebody has repeated this process a thousand times.

wow,-that`s really cool!!!

My friend at camp once drew a (50'?) dragon on the side walk. It was really, really cool.... ...that is really good!

Zeni, I believe art can be defined in many ways. I am myself in an art school at the moment, but at times even my teachers seem to be confused by their own definations, and some of them say against each other.
When my teachers all gathered to have a class on esthetic philosophy, that brought up a lot of discussion, from me and three of my friends in particular. In the end we got the answer that their defination of art, is everything "God didn't create". Almost anything made by human hands CAN be considered art. Some protested and said that if so, we can find art in nature as well. This, the teachers said, was not the defination we were to use at school, but to the private person, nature can be art. In order to teach us anything at all, they have taken the widest subject and transformed it to something more narrow. All in all, almost anything can be art to a person. Under the right circumstances, with the right person watching, it can have the deepest meanings. OR, it can be art exactly because this is something that has NO meaning. Art is now mostly about creating something new, with a deep meaning, with an artistic side to it. Earlier, on the other hand, art was talent and beauty. The closer you could get to the photography with only some paint and brushes, the greater art it was. And those chalk drawings have amazing talent behind them, and they are considered beauty. You are right, this would not become famous if it wasn't drawn on a sidewalk in chalk, but I think Flashy already explained quite well that it's exactly the circumstances which make it art. And already there I think that the chalk paintings have been defended, at least they have for me. I think the defination of art can vary and SHOULD vary from person to person, exactly to create discussion and for each person to make up their own mind. Is not that what art is about, at least to very many?

Did everybody notice how a few of us have just embarked on a discussion expressing different thoughts and arguments in a mature, sensible fashion? Without resorting to namecalling, hysteria, foul language and threats of sour vengeance and dire retribution?


This cannot be allowed to continue.

LOL!!