What does art consist of? Music? Literature? Philosophy? Dance? Can movies or even video games be considered art in some cases?

Movies and video games are simplistic forms of art meant to entertain, rarely to educate. They're not as complex. Consider painting; it's complex with its variations of texture, color, shades of color, texture of shades, and so forth. And then you have the types of paintings; impressionism, expressionism, romantic, surreal, realism, constructivism, cubism, pointillism, abstract. And sometimes, there is even a hybrid of each; abstract realism, abstract impressionism, and such.

Movies and video games lack as a medium of art strictly due to the current limitations on special effects. The more advancement in special effects, the more complex a movie or video game can become. The only reason 90 % of movies are inherently simpler than the immortal artforms like dance and art could be due to technological or budget limitations. Most movies, because of the industry apparatus available and costs to produce, create difficulties in enacting a vision, even a simple one. Whereas for art like painting and dance, enacting the vision is easier due to less limitations on "technology", the only apparatus for painting tends to be a canvas and a brush, sometimes mathematical instruments for accuracy. These days, it may be quite a bit more. For dance, it's even simpler. Hence, that leaves more concentration to enact the artist's vision.

Movies and video games are simplistic forms of art meant to entertain, rarely to educate. They're not as complex.
RPGs seem to stimulate the mind in similar ways to a book, does that count as an art?
Consider painting; it's complex with its variations of texture, color, shades of color, texture of shades, and so forth. And then you have the types of paintings; impressionism, expressionism, romantic, surreal, realism, constructivism, cubism, pointillism, abstract. And sometimes, there is even a hybrid of each; abstract realism, abstract impressionism, and such.

Movies and video games lack as a medium of art strictly due to the current limitations on special effects. The more advancement in special effects, the more complex a movie or video game can become. The only reason 90 % of movies are inherently simpler than the immortal artforms like dance and paintings is not strictly because producers of film are dumber than conosseurs of dance and paintings, it might also be because the current limitations on technology are not enough to bring a vision to life. Most movies, because of the industry apparatus available, create further difficulties in enacting a vision, even a simplistic one. Whereas for art like painting and dance, enacting the vision is easier due to less limitations on "technology", the only apparatus for painting tends to be a canvas and a brush, sometimes mathematical instruments for accuracy. These days, it may be quite a bit more. For dance, it's even simpler.

I'm talking about the storylines in movies/games, not visual art. Like how some people(myself included) consider Shakespearean plays to be art.

I just editted my response.

Anyway, I misread. In that case, it is the writers, not the producers.

Do you consider writers to be artists? Do non-performance sports, such as basketball or soccer beome art at some point?

I wrote a thread with the same title a while ago. The final verdict is that pretty much everything that requires skill or practice an art. So yes, basketball is an art. Soccer is an art. Writing is an art. Think about it like this; if something is not an art, it cannot be promoted and have any fans. There are commercials, movies, tv shows, websites, solely dedicated to basketball and soccer. I personally enjoy basketball more than soccer due to it's masculinity. Soccer lacks politics and image, which is why it appeals to an audience beyond Americans.

Okay, wait. I gotta know. How is soccer an art? All sports games require a degree of practice and skill.

On a related note, I'd rather play soccer than watch it. I tried to watch the World Cup and it was boring. Not because I didn't understand what was going on, but there was very little actual play. Everybody stood around while three guys passed the ball to each other for a few minutes before actually trying to move to the goal. I thought that maybe they were trying to set something up, but nope. They just kicked it back and forth like bored children on a playground. Meanwhile, the announcer is going nuts like he's having the greatest orgasm of his life. Whatever for?

Now, I did watch a game between two British teams. Maybe the British teams play differently than the world teams, but those guys were out to murder the ball. As soon as they got in goal range, it started to look like the idea was not to put the ball past the goalie, but to put it through him! Now that was an exciting game to watch! Unfortunately, those games are now only on a pay-per-view channel, so if I want to see a soccer match, I have to watch Brazilians standing around passing the ball to each other. Snore.

Art is Science without the Math and the austere logic.

Art is whatever you want it to be -- regardless of what actually it is to anyone else. ;)

What does art consist of? Music? Literature? Philosophy? Dance? Can movies or even video games be considered art in some cases?art is... "... in the eyes of the beholder".

Film is certainly an artistic medium, as are video games.
Ask any director, cinematographer, actor, or screenwriter.

Some movies and games are not very artistic, but so what? Not all paintings, drawings, and dances are terribly artistic either. As for the ability to enact a vision in film, I suggest you see some short film festivals.

Generally, I think that art is anything designed with a primary purpose of eliciting some (usually positive) emotional response in the audience.

The final verdict is that pretty much everything that requires skill or practice an art.
That's not what is being asked here Oniw is asking what makes an object "art", not what makes an activity an art. Different meanings. Like if someone asked what makes a good bridge hand, they're not seeking advice on how to choose an assistant bridge builder.

I would define art as percievable objects or sensory input which the is created by humans which human instinct/minds finds appealing, or at least, that some humans do. :)

Art is anything created for appreciation of an audience.

Go to school, people; it's good for you.

Art is dead.

Art is creation as a means of expression.

I would also like to know how soccer is an art form.

Art is any creation that makes you gasp, or gaze in wonderment, when you encounter it.

The Killers' new album is art but the fortcoming 'Big 70s Party' isn't; nor is anything by Green Day.

'Casino' and 'American Beauty' are art but anything starring Adam Sandler isn't.

The pyramids are art but the stupid, big metal spire in my town centre is a just a disgraceful waste of my money.

http://www.goodreads.ca/denisyoung/scream.jpg
This is art...

http://www.museumofbadart.org/images/p-pop-portrait-1-lucy.jpg (http://www.museumofbadart.org/)
but this isn't (click it for
more things that aren't).

It's simple really. If you come across something and you think it might be art, just PM me with a photo or a link.

For no pounds I'll tell you whether it's really art or total fucking nonsense.

an expression of one's thoughts or emotions on some form of medium for the purpose of being shared by others

Everything man made including language itself is a creation and has potential as – if not already – a means of expression.

Expression of what? The self? Then my very presence is an "expression". And it is. So what?

http://www.museumofbadart.org/images/p-pop-portrait-1-lucy.jpgbut this isn't

Why not? Art does not have to be aesthetic or beautiful.

Why not? Art does not have to be aesthetic or beautiful.There you go! Art no longer needs to be anything. It's been diluted. It's flat. It's passé. It's dead.

So what?
Precisely. We have to have some standards. Otherwise we'd have to give every c*** who picks up a paintbrush an exhibition. It's just not gonna happen, not while there's still breath in my body.

As dead as God is Dead.

Precisely. We have to have some standards. Otherwise we'd have to give every c*** who picks up a paintbrush an exhibition. It's just not gonna happen, not while there's still breath in my body.

Whose standards? The artist's or the public's?

Why not? Art does not have to be aesthetic or beautiful.
Because it is shit.

Whose standards? The artist's or the public's?
Guess.

So then the artist doesn't really matter much anymore as long as the public will eliminate him/her from the equation.

And what's art without the artist.

Is art possible without fine arts training?? Ridiculous.

So then the artist doesn't really matter much anymore as long as the public will eliminate him/her from the equation.
You guessed wrong. :(

http://www.museumofbadart.org/images/p-pop-portrait-2.jpg
I can't decide about this one.

It's simple really. If you come across something and you think it might be art, just PM me with a photo or a link.

For no pounds I'll tell you whether it's really art or total fucking nonsense.

And now for something completely different... a disembodied goat head with braces eating a radioactive baby!

http://pete.wildit.net.au/images/sciforums/BabyEatingGoat.gif

But is it art?

And what's art without the artist.

Is art possible without fine arts training?? Ridiculous.
Do musicians need fine arts training? No, but they do need practice, which amounts to the same thing. But - obviously - that isn't enough. True art comes from inside, and can't be taught. Imagine practicing guitar for 15 years and then finding out you're Green Day. What a bummer. http://www.sciforums.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

I tried to guess what you would have chosen. I figured, from reading this thread, that "what" is art was nothing more than what the public sees as art. What about art as being the artist? And does the artist then identify himself/herself as an "artist" in order to "create"?

I can't decide about this one.

Well, it made me gasp. :eek:

How about this. It's a casual, very amateur pencil sketch. It's obviously not fine art.
http://pete.wildit.net.au/images/Drawings/Emmy.JPG

But is it art?

Practice has nothing to do with "what". Nor with "art". Stick to the topic.

What about art as being the artist? And does the artist then identify himself/herself as an "artist" in order to "create"?
I think that's the point where most artists lose whatever it was that made them special in the first place - the point where they start to believe their own publicity. The true artists never fall into this trap and create because they need to, not because they ought to.

you need to extend a bit of her left shoulder some.

Practice has nothing to do with "what". Nor with "art". Stick to the topic.
Not all art can be taught by fine arts training. Though I'd guess that my definition of art is broader than yours.

The true artists never fall into this trap and create because they need to, not because they ought to.Cliché—they all proclaim their "need to": goes with the job.

The proof is in the pudding.

Though I'd guess that my definition of art is broader than yours.Oh. The impasse move. Like art in the 21st century. BORE-ing.

Everything man made including language itself is a creation and has potential as – if not already – a means of expression.

Expression of what? The self? Then my very presence is an "expression". And it is. So what?

Art is created when a person deliberately makes tangible an enduring reflection of their inner psyche.

Oh. The impasse move. Like art in the 21st century. BORE-ing.
It is the 21st century. Did creative genius skid to a halt sometime in the mid-19th century? I beg to differ. As I said, my definition of art seems broader than yours. Musicians can produce great art. Film-makers can produce great art. Computer programmers and graphic designers can produce great art. Most of them have never been anywhere near an art school.

Art is created when a person deliberately makes tangible an enduring reflection of their inner psyche.
The problem is, enduring to who? If 100 people think something is 'enduring' does this make it better than something that only 2 people think is 'enduring'? Shall we, as Meanwhile said, let the public decide?

Everything man made including language itself is a creation and has potential as – if not already – a means of expression.

Expression of what? The self? Then my very presence is an "expression". And it is. So what?

Art is created when a person deliberately makes a tangible and enduring reflection the inner psyche through indirect means. Meaning, art is never a straightforward explanation, but a representation of some sort.

art is never a straightforward explanation, but a representation of some sort.
So Constable's landscapes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Constable#Paintings) aren't art? Or are these representations of something else? And, if so, can't all art be considered to be representations of something else?

I find it interesting how these discussions of art always fall along the lines of intent. That is, they focus on the artist creating something.

A quick and simple example to show the fallacy of this viewpoint.

Paleolithic cave art.

What does art consist of? Music? Literature? Philosophy? Dance? Can movies or even video games be considered art in some cases?

I think that video games and movies incorporate art into the process of entertainment. They may not be art in of themselves, but use various art forms to achieve the desired result....entertainment. Why? well because art appeales to our visual and audio senses, as well as our intelect. To me, art is a form of communication. Although sometimes it can be missunderstood or misinterpreted.

So Constable's landscapes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Constable#Paintings) aren't art? Or are these representations of something else? And, if so, can't all art be considered to be representations of something else?

They are the representations his imagination/psyche. That's what I believe all art is, a representation some part of the imaginative or emotional self.

To answer your previous question, I believe a great artist is determined by his ability to move or captivate. If you fail to do so on a large scale, your art will not be seen as "good", but that doesn't change the fact that it IS art as long as the expression emotionally engages someone, even if it is just the creator.

To me, art is a form of communication.
This is why some films can be art in and of themselves but the same doesn't apply to video games (even though some of the graphics can be captivating).
I find it interesting how these discussions of art always fall along the lines of intent. That is, they focus on the artist creating something.

A quick and simple example to show the fallacy of this viewpoint.

Paleolithic cave art.
Never intended for public consumption, I know, but we can't help imbuing even prehistoric art with meaning, and trying to figure out what the artists 'meant' (when, probably, they just wanted to make their caves look nice). Like it or not these, too, are now a dialogue between the (somewhat reticent) artist and the audience. Fallacious like you say, but we seem to have an instinctive need to connect.
They are the representations of his imagination/psyche.
Not really. They're fairly straightforward representations of the scenery around him. Look at them now and many will see them as snapshots of 'an England lost' - but he didn't have the benefit of our hindsight.

Oops

Meanwhile:

"Art is dead."

What an insidious statement! Don't you play any video games!?!? lol

I see art everywhere, man!

What does art consist of? Music? Literature? Philosophy? Dance? Can movies or even video games be considered art in some cases?
At this point, only God knows. What we know in our records is that nobody knows what fucking art is. Artists are getting crazier. In Britain a painting was drawn by a monkey and shown to unsuspected guests, only for them to say that it was a pleasant drawing with lots of dreams and delicate brush strokes, and that it was worth a lot of money. You be the judge

Thanks, I will. Art is what I say it is. When will you all understand this simple concept?

There you go! Art no longer needs to be anything. It's been diluted. It's flat. It's passé. It's dead.

How about "The Scream." I don't think anyone would deny that it is art, yet it invokes terror and not aesthetic beauty.

The word "art" comes from the Latin "art" or "ars" meaning "skill." Someone can trace this to the Sanskrit.

I wrote a thread with the same title a while ago. The final verdict is that pretty much everything that requires skill or practice an art. So yes, basketball is an art. Soccer is an art. Writing is an art. Think about it like this; if something is not an art, it cannot be promoted and have any fans. There are commercials, movies, tv shows, websites, solely dedicated to basketball and soccer. I personally enjoy basketball more than soccer due to it's masculinity. Soccer lacks politics and image, which is why it appeals to an audience beyond Americans.

i havbe to admit i can only undrestand a thjrird of this post. what is so hard to undferstand?

you know out of the ordinary nanoseconfds agfter first experiiiiereince be it adudible or visual, you cah taste art but this iw ona diffrerent leval to sfor example by davinci or Paganini.

a serwious question is if writing is an art streictly in its stand alone formk seems to me to be more of a base for art or waht canv be considered art.

athleetsde are not artisfts, not by any streitch of the imagination.

OT-

Can my post be easdily read?

can this post be read as easiluy as ohther posts?

i read this posth aftre i wrote iot (after i forgotten what i wrote) andit took me 32 seconds to reads it (not including thae part afrte OT), is 32 seconds average time?

The word "art" comes from the Latin "art" or "ars" meaning "skill." Someone can trace this to the Sanskrit.

is there a latin word for skill?

Arse.

Art is anything created for appreciation of an audience.

Go to school, people; it's good for you.

Art isn't created for an audience. Art, all real art, is an extremely personal and unique process and results in a anyone successfully expressing themselves.
Furthermore, there is no standard way of doing so, and thus no standard of the result ('art'). I think that can apply to sports, in a way. Not to those whose atheletes do it solely for the often inflated salaries (i.e., many American baseball players), but those with a passion for what they do, and hone their skills relentlessly, in order to, again, express themselves- just as a painter hones their skills of a paintbrush, or a writer hones the skills of a pen.

Oniw17, if not knowing the definition of art truly plagues you, try reading Jeanette Winterson's 'Art Objects.' Tough to get through at times, but it's worthwile and the meaning of art slowly unfolds itself.

I subscribe to Wittgenstein's family resemblence analogy. There is no single definition you could give of which applies to all art, yet there is a certain matrix of characteristics of which only one or two need apply to call something art. I don't know what exactly those characteristics are, but it helps to know that there isn't simply ONE definition that is essential for all art to be called art.

Art is to express yourself. You take something within you and make it physical so that others can see (or hear) it. That's art.

Art is to express yourself. You take something within you and make it physical so that others can see (or hear) it. That's art.

So, is a computer "art"?

What does "express" mean?

These are meanings we're trying to uncover.

Okay, wait. I gotta know. How is soccer an art? All sports games require a degree of practice and skill.


I would also like to know how soccer is an art form.
It's stimulates both your mind and body(not watching it of course, but learning and practicing it, like any other sport).
Art is Science without the Math and the austere logic.
Math can't be art? What separates math from music and science?
The Killers' new album is art but the fortcoming 'Big 70s Party' isn't; nor is anything by Green Day.
Why aren't they just bad art?

Everything man made including language itself is a creation and has potential as – if not already – a means of expression. I consider linguistics a form of art.