Art

  • Thread starter Thread starter brycehecht
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

brycehecht

Guest
I have to write an essay on the topic “When is art no longer considered art?” This is just a basic idea. I can take the topic of art, in some relation to this question, and twist it to whatever I want to write about. Any ideas? I want to write something from a religious perspective.
 
The main thing here is defining art, which will obviously you will find many answers. Some will say everything is art… others have a specific definition that gives it the purpose of depicting reality (I think Aristotle believed that, don’t remember) but that also excludes surrealism or Impressionism which is considered by most to be legitimate art. For religious purposes you would probably want to stick with the idea of beauty and art’s ability to lift our minds to the transcendent. Marc Barnes has written some insightful pieces on art, or beauty in general: patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2013/08/man-as-art.html
patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/category/beauty/page/2
 
Art, for me, is transformative.

If it moves my mind to another place and time, I call it art.
If it moves my spirit to things of another realm, like heaven, I call it art.
If it moves my emotions to a new experience, I call it art.
If it moves my heart and mind to something beautiful, I call it art.
If it springs forth from the gifts that God has given me, I call it art.

Some feel that even hideous representations are art. But for me, that is different. There is a difference between what is disordered and what is illuminating.
For me, art illuminates my life.

Art, of course, can be something totally different to someone who does not view life through a lens of faith. I tend to view the world through that lens.
I am sure you will get many opposing opinions. It’s a fascinating topic.

Peace.
 
I think we need to make a distinction between art and what I’d call “useful art”. Art itself is nothing special, except in that it’s something only humans (and I suppose God) can make. It’s possible to create something that is art, but is not good or useful. Any picture we make is technically art, (one can make the argument that all fiction, or even all human expression, is a kind of art) but I think good art must communicate something. It must illuminate some aspect of humanity or our world.

For instance, if I use Empther’s examples- the first picture is certainly useful art, at least within the child’s family. Though made by someone who is just learning, it communicates the artist’s feelings about her family. It’s that communication that makes it art- it’s not the fact that what it represents is accurate. It wouldn’t be better to substitute it with a photograph, because the artist couldn’t use it to communicate her feelings. She chose to represent her family outside in a grassy field, with a giant sun. I would guess that she likes them.

The science fiction drawing doesn’t tell us as much, in terms of what the author is trying to communicate. I would say that by itself, it’s clearly art- but maybe not useful art. But with context, it could be. Suppose it were part of a story in which the giant towering tank-things were used to represent a person’s feelings about life. Maybe the skytanks are unstable, such that you can never actually be certain which way they’re going to lean. They’re easily knocked over. But maybe if you do knock them over, they’ll still cause a ton of damage to people under them. Maybe our trials in life are like that- we’re not sure what’s going to happen, and we’re not sure whether it’s worth forcing destructive things to end, given how much we could hurt ourselves in the process.

If the picture were connected to an idea like that, then it would clearly be in the realm of useful art. It would communicate something applicable to real life, even if the scene itself was not real.

I don’t know if any of that’s useful to you- my thoughts about art are kind of complex. I’m not stingy with the label, but I don’t think something is necessarily good or useful to us just because it meets the minimum requirements for art. Art can be amazing, or transformative, or powerful, or beautiful, or true. But I don’t think it has to be, partly because different people are moved by different things. There’s no foolproof formula for creating useful art. It has to do more with emotions and ideas than with following a set of rules, though people have made a lot of rules about it (and many of them are useful).

If I had to work with that prompt, I guess I’d say art is not art (useful art) when it ceases to describe our experiences. It doesn’t have to be strictly accurate to do that, it just needs to contain something that we can relate to, and communicate human emotions through a given medium.

I’m not sure how to tie that into religion, though. Sorry.
 
brycehecht said:
I have to write an essay on the topic “When is art no longer considered art?” This is just a basic idea. I can take the topic of art, in some relation to this question, and twist it to whatever I want to write about. Any ideas? I want to write something from a religious perspective.
Click to expand...
Art can be anything as long as it meets the following criteria:
  1. It was called art by an art critic.
  2. It was sold and/or exhibited at an art gallery or by a fine art dealer.
What is not art is anything that does not meet the approval of an art critic, art gallery owner or fine art dealer.

You could take a bag of trash from an alley, paint orange dots on it, and as long as it is exhibited and approved, at the very least, by an art instructor, then, and only then, is it art.

What is not art? Anything meant for sexual arousal, anything that degrades the human person, anything occult or satanic, or that attacks the dignity and person of Jesus Christ, true God and true man, and the Blessed Virgin Mary, both of which have been done. I cannot provide links since I would be banned. Anything that degrades the dignity of the human person in any way. Depictions of extreme, graphic violence with no other purpose.

Meaningless, senseless, marks, scribbles, symbols or anything that has no meaning whatsoever to the average viewer. Art is a communications medium. When it fails to communicate anything, it has failed.

Then there is commercial art - art made for money and that is subject to changes by the client. Doing such art is considered prostitution in fine art circles.

Regarding the arts from a Catholic standpoint, some quotes from an old post:

"2. The Church recognizes that these media, if properly utilized, can be of great service to mankind, since they greatly contribute to men’s entertainment and instruction as well as to the spread and support of the Kingdom of God. The Church recognizes, too, that men can employ these media contrary to the plan of the Creator and to their own loss. Indeed, the Church experiences maternal grief at the harm all too often done to society by their evil use.

"6. The second question deals with the relationship between the rights, as they are called, of art and the norms of morality. Since the mounting controversies in this area frequently take their rise from false teachings about ethics and esthetics, the Council proclaims that all must hold to the absolute primacy of the objective moral order, that is, this order by itself surpasses and fittingly coordinates all other spheres of human affairs-the arts not excepted-even though they be endowed with notable dignity. For man who is endowed by God with the gift of reason and summoned to pursue a lofty destiny, is alone affected by the moral order in his entire being. And likewise, if man resolutely and faithfully upholds this order, he will be brought to the attainment of complete perfection and happiness.

“7. Finally, the narration, description or portrayal of moral evil, even through the media of social communication, can indeed serve to bring about a deeper knowledge and study of humanity and, with the aid of appropriately heightened dramatic effects, can reveal and glorify the grand dimensions of truth and goodness. Nevertheless, such presentations ought always to be subject to moral restraint, lest they work to the harm rather than the benefit of souls, particularly when there is question of treating matters which deserve reverent handling or which, given the baneful effect of original sin in men, could quite readily arouse base desires in them.”

Source: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19631204_inter-mirifica_en.html

Peace,
Ed
 
Having had my work exhibited in
five art galleries,
two museums,
a solo show …
along with another upcoming exhibit soon
in a third museum that may be life-changing
and selling my work
online (internationally)
at art shows,
craft fairs,
and gift shops …
I still hesitate to get involved in this debate
because some here would say various of my works
are either art or not art
depending on their definitions.
Anyways, based on the latest opportunity I’ve been given,
today I offered up my Communion at Sunday Mass
to thank God for it.
He’s the one who inspires my art
and inspired me to become an artist.

~~ the phoenix
 
empther said:
Art is art when it tells the truth about something.

This child’s drawing tells a lot of truth about human beings:

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.607989201088745112&pid=15.1

Art is not art when it doesn’t tell the truth. For example, consider this science fiction picture:

https://sp3.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.607999388750840159&pid=15.1

That’s not real. It’s not the truth. Some people call it art if they like it. Well maybe but it’s not the truth.
Click to expand...
You pose an interesting test for “art.” By your standard, lots of works currently in world-class museums – idealized portraits which add hair, lose weight, smooth skin; landscapes which over-dramatize a sunset, exaggerate the height of a waterfall, add features not found in nature, enhance the color of a flower; still-life compositions by one of the Dutch masters which existed only in his imagination; the imaginative works of people like Dürer and Hieronymus Bosch; even works of Michelangelo and DaVinci that are products of their imagination – none of these would qualify as “art?”
 
Not to mention children’s “art”.

Which is certainly artful.
 
You pose an interesting test for “art.” By your standard, lots of works currently in world-class museums – idealized portraits which add hair, lose weight, smooth skin; landscapes which over-dramatize a sunset, exaggerate the height of a waterfall, add features not found in nature, enhance the color of a flower; still-life compositions by one of the Dutch masters which existed only in his imagination; the imaginative works of people like Dürer and Hieronymus Bosch; even works of Michelangelo and DaVinci that are products of their imagination – none of these would qualify as “art?”
Click to expand...
You’re being too literal.
Suppose DaVinci’s “Mona Lisa” was not a painting of a real woman but an idealized product of his imagination. It still shows what he believed is a representation of a good woman.
And apparently a lot of people agree with him.

That’s art.
For some people, that child’s drawing I showed above says more about human beings than the Mona Lisa. In some ways that’s true. Then the child’s drawing is a better work of art than the Mona Lisa, although it’s not as skillfully drawn.
Putting monetary values aside,
which picture would you rather have on your living room wall? :eek:
 
empther said:
You’re being too literal.
Suppose DaVinci’s “Mona Lisa” was not a painting of a real woman but an idealized product of his imagination. It still shows what he believed is a representation of a good woman.
And apparently a lot of people agree with him.

That’s art.
For some people, that child’s drawing I showed above says more about human beings than the Mona Lisa. In some ways that’s true. Then the child’s drawing is a better work of art than the Mona Lisa, although it’s not as skillfully drawn.
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t think that’s necessarily a judgement we can make. The value of art is subjective, and is based on what a particular work of art communicates to a particular person. I never did understand the appeal of the Mona Lisa, though I understand that many people get a lot out of it.

But on the other hand, I also get very little out of the child’s drawing. I don’t think it’s valueless, but it’s not of much value to me.
Putting monetary values aside,
which picture would you rather have on your living room wall? :eek:
Click to expand...
The picture of the SF skytanks. 😛

Given that my computer wallpaper is a picture of a fictional spaceship right now, I don’t think I’m even being that silly. I wouldn’t want the Mona Lisa OR the child’s drawing on my wall, unless I personally knew the child.
40.png
edwest2:
Art is a communications medium. When it fails to communicate anything, it has failed.
Click to expand...
Speaking seriously, I think I could get behind this statement. I don’t think the thing it communicates necessarily has to be true, but a work of art that doesn’t communicate anything, not even a feeling, is not a successful work of art. It’s still technically art, but it’s not good art. It has not achieved its goal.
 
Someone else decides. I’ve worked with artists and have seen a lot of original art and some of it is bad to very bad. I mean people can do what they want but there are standards.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Someone else decides. I’ve worked with artists and have seen a lot of original art and some of it is bad to very bad. I mean people can do what they want but there are standards.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
My personal opinion:

Art is a human expression. If someone says it is art, it is art.

That includes the sci-fi pic above, and the kid’s drawing, and the Mona Lisa, and Marcel Duchamp’s “ready-mades”, and graffiti, etc.

Now whether or not it is **good **art is another kettle of dead sharks entirely.
 
John_Lazarus said:
My personal opinion:

Art is a human expression. If someone says it is art, it is art.

That includes the sci-fi pic above, and the kid’s drawing, and the Mona Lisa, and Marcel Duchamp’s “ready-mades”, and graffiti, etc.

Now whether or not it is **good **art is another kettle of dead sharks entirely.
Click to expand...
But is a kettle full of dead sharks also work of art? These are the questions we must ask ourselves. :hmmm:
 
Why must art be representational only to qualify as ‘art’? Or is that just a conservative idea?

We have had cameras for more than 150 years if we want realism.

My favorite art is post immpresentestational. like Van Gogh, but I also like more modern art like Picasso and Chagall.
 
andrewstx said:
Why must art be representational only to qualify as ‘art’? Or is that just a conservative idea?

We have had cameras for more than 150 years if we want realism.

My favorite art is post immpresentestational. like Van Gogh, but I also like more modern art like Picasso and Chagall.
Click to expand...
I might not be understanding how you’re using “representational” here (and this might just be directed at empther, I don’t know). I think art has to communicate something to be successful art. That something doesn’t have to be a purely accurate representation of the world, though- and it arguably shouldn’t be, since human experience and perception is inevitably a bit different than objective reality.

I keep thinking of interior design, oddly. How one decorates a room doesn’t necessarily represent anything about the world, but I think it can still be successful art, because successful interior design communicates a feeling or atmosphere to the person inside the room. It shouldn’t leave one feeling nothing, even if the feeling is slight.

Another thing I was thinking of was CAF avatars. They’re not all “realistic”, and some of them might not communicate much, but I’m sure many of us chose them because we wanted to send a certain message, or have people think of us a certain way. My avatar is a togepi because I’m young and don’t know very much, so I don’t want people to take what I say overly seriously. 😛 Hardly high art, and hardly realistic, but it does communicate something about me to the community.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top