8 Mar 2007

the great art debate

...so I have been thinking about art heaps, and the definition of art and how loosely the tern is used. I should be studying education (which is what I am actually doing currently at uni, but it is soooo boring!).
Is there a real definition of art? or is it dependent on the user as to what art is? i would say advertising is art, yet others say a car is art.

So, according to Wiki, "The term art is most widely used to describe a particular type of production generated by human beings." So then, both the car and advertising in th previous example would be art.
And again from Wiki, "The denotation art implies some degree of aesthetic value, regardless of any practical value of the art in question." So, the eye of the beholder does come into the picture, some see aesthetic value in cars, others advertising.

As Wiki is doing great in this discussion, "Art is that which is made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind and or spirit.".
But, "Something is not considered 'art' when it stimulates only the senses, or only the mind, or when it has a different primary purpose than doing so."

So this is exactly what I am thinking! Calling a car art may show that the caller appreciates the car on a deeper level than we might, but the primary purpose of the car, to drive rather than be an art piece, would include it into the category of not being art.

Enough from Wiki for now.

For me - art appreciates in value. Yet I have been calling some of my hand painted pieces art. They may appreciate in value, but the fact that the sewing will fall apart before the paint does means it cannot keep appreciating in value like the great works of Cezanne or Matisse.

Therefore, I think the only true (in my opinion) wearable pieces of art are those that are on display or have been worn once (which equates to an exhibition), like works by Versace etc. Therefore I am either going to stop calling my painted tees are (because that has to be pure ego LOL) or I am going to paint pieces worthy of being hung on a wall.

Hope you have enjoyed my ramblings.... more to come.

3 comments:

Unknown said...

Ooh, no Tanya art doesn't have to be permanent! Some of the best art is fleeting.

Think of an improvised piece of music, or an art installation that is set up, viewed and dismantled within a week.

I like your discussion on art, it is a perennial question that I have pondered a lot.

Here are a few of my own criteria for what constitutes art:

* Creativity must be involved (so, a perfect imitation of a Cezanne painting is not really art in my mind)

* There must be intentionality (so, a spider's web is not art, because the spider didn't intend it to be)

* There must be a purpose beyond the purely practical, like you have mentioned.

Basically, of course, you can't define it because it is different to everyone.

But all things considered, I DEFINITELY think your clothing items are art!

Unknown said...

oh whoops, that was 'Beanie' posting, should have changed the name.

Tanya said...

I'm glad I saw your comments before I added a new post.

I was thinking about it ttoday and about these Buddhist monks I saw a while back who make sand mandalas. They spend hours making them and at the end, sweep them away.

So yes, art doesn't have to be permanent. And I like your example about improvised music or installations.

"There must be intentionality (so, a spider's web is not art, because the spider didn't intend it to be)"

Great point, this is what I was trying to get to at the end.

thanks for contributing, I was just feeling a little intellectually bored LOL, great to know there are other ponderers out there!

www.flickr.com