Is nature art?

>>2377981
No. Nature is by definition not art. Nature can be beautiful, inspirational, and the focus of art, but art is something that man creates. To call nature "art" disrespects both man and nature.

>>2377981
Only If you make a representation of it (pictures, paintings, music, literature, whatever).

Nope, but nature and art can both be the most beautiful forces on the planet

>>2377981
No. It is inspiration for art however.

>>2377985
So a waterfall is not art, but a photo of a waterfall is art?

Nature is not art because it wasn't created (inb4 God apologists). Art has to be something that was crafted with intent. A picture of nature is art though, because the photographer had to plan the shot, take time to frame it right, take the lighting into consideration, how the colors look, etc etc. Any idiot can go around snapping pictures but that won't make them art. A truly good photograph that stands out and captures the beauty of nature will be art and that takes work to create.

File: grr.png (81KB, 272x250px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 272x250px

>>2377981
Attributing nature to human philosophical constructs is a selfish thing to do. That is like saying "LOL this is the universe trying tell me X."
In short, no, nature was not constructed strictly for human pleasure.