What is art?

Definitely not naruto.

Or any other anime.

>>1571797
But anon, what is art?

>>1571797
Everything you determine to be art is art

>>1571872
That only counts for intelligent people like me

s___k

Baby don't hurt me

>>1571797
Human expression manifested into something.

It's shit.

>>1571911
Thanks for the insight anon

Subjective

>>1571797
eks pre shun

Something that evokes emotion.

>>1571797
Anything you want it to be. But not that. And no... Not that either.

>>1571797

Art is the simplified representation of the world captured through human perception.

art is its institutions maybe? a response? there's no real easy way to answer that question. all answers so far have been incorrect

File: 097096587065980958.jpg (1006KB, 2151x3000px) Image search: [Google]

1006KB, 2151x3000px

>>1571797
Art is something that blossoms for an instant before withering away. Art is beauty that last for just a moment. To me, the essence of art is... AN EXPLOSION!

>>1573573
The only correct answer itt

>>1571821
>>1571854
>>1571872
>>1571882
>>1571885
>>1571898
>>1571911
>>1572234
>>1572940
>>1573484
>>1573507
>>1573537
Wrong

>>1571797
things I like, c.f. things I don't like are not art

>>1573913
This guy knows.

"Wrong" is the correct answer. Art is Wrong.

a miserable pile of ideas

>>1571797
An explosion.

>>1571797
Any craft or human work that represents something. Whenever it is weebish shit or not that picture is technically art.

File: 80850980980844.jpg (79KB, 531x461px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 531x461px

>>1571797
So Deidra is basically Al-Qaeda

>>1571797
As Icy put it, art is "the best things"... art is what is pleasurable and the best of something.

Anime definitely isn't and never will be. Hope I narrowed it down for you.

File: IMG_3531.jpg (250KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1024x768px

>it's a /his/ doesn't know anything about art thread

Leave this talk to the big boys back at /ic/

>>1573573
>>1573828
>>1571797
>>>/a/

File: Smug_Lain_4.png (494KB, 1242x1080px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 1242x1080px

>>1577757
You can't spell art without /a/

>>1571797
Art is something that serves no practical purpose but for one reason or another has meaning to the viewer or the artist themselves. What that meaning is however is different from person to person. Sometimes there is a meaning that becomes attached to it and that becomes the default meaning for that piece, but that does not mean that that one meaning is the final say.

>tilde; art is subjective

art is beautyful
is the thing you claim to be art not beatyful? then it is not art
art takes skill to make
could a three year old make it?
then it is not art

art shows the beauty of whatever it displays

>>1579035
See, pleb opinions like this is why /his/ shouldn't talk about art.

>>1579079
then what is your definition, oh patrician

File: 55.14_SL1.jpg (126KB, 1118x1536px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1118x1536px

>>1579079
>>1579100
do you know how much skill it takes to make marble look like cloth

Art is anything anyone produces with the intent of producing art

>>1579100
>>1579123
Something along the lines of this anon's >>1577998 post.

Art doesn't need to be beautiful, art doesn't need to be skillful, art doesn't need to be meaningful.

People confuse defining "art" as "good art."

Just because something is shit, doesn't mean it isn't art. It's art, it isn't good art, but it's art.

A child's doodle is art the same way a Rembrandt portrait is art. Now there are massive gaps between the skill of those two, but they're both art.

There are valid arguments to be made on what is "good art," but to say something isn't art because you don't like it just shows that you don't really understand art.

>>1573913
false

File: 1465687283788.jpg (58KB, 526x533px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 526x533px

Anything that tries to present the abstract through concrete (material) means.

By abstract, I mean ideas, emotions, beauty, etc.

>>1579190
so portraits aren't art

>>1579181
you do realise that the guy who wrote his name on a urinal, the guy who cause the hell of modern "art" hated all art and seeked to destroy it

cucks didn't get the joke and "artist" without skill perpetuate this meme to further earn money

>>1579204
*an urinal, not a native speaker and on my phone

>>1579204
duchamp only caused neo-dada and that sort of shit in the 50s. that's rather late when it comes to modern art

there is some duchampian influence in surrealism but for the most part no he didn't cause modernism

File: T07573_10.jpg (93KB, 1536x1343px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1536x1343px

>>1579204
A piece with a statement critiquing art would make it art.

Does it make it good art?

That's entirely up to you.

>>1579135
I'm right, pls reply to me

>>1579225
intent doesn't matter

>>1579181
>>1579204
there is literaly a piece of art called "merda d’artista" "artist's" shit
and it is just that he shit in a can and sealed it
i cannot take something like that seriously

and a kid's drawing isn't art
just like a tick figure isn't art
just as elephant "art" isn't art
just as this post isn't art

otherwise you would have to accept that i just created art if i would stated that i have created art

>>1579228
proof there is shit in the can?

>>1579204
>>1579228
Do you have bad digestion or something? Toilets trigger you?

>>1579231
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist's_Shit

" The work consists of 90 tin cans, each filled with 30 grams (1.1 oz) of faeces"

open one up

>>1579228
And I'd argue that all of that is art.

You're still having trouble differentiating "art" from "good art."

>>1579228
art isn't created by stating you have created art. i have not created a diamond by stating i have created a diamond. art has a 'form' that answers to what is accepted by the art world, based on a long and complicated history of 'art making' in the west

>>1579239
no, i just don't like pretensious fools

>>1579228
> you would have to accept that i just created art if i would stated that i have created art
And the problem with that is?

>>1579246
One of Manzoni's friends, the artist Agostino Bonalumi, claimed that the tins are full not of faeces but plaster;[6] in contrast, Manzoni's girlfriend Nanda Vigo, who helped him produce the cans, claimed the contents really were faeces.[citation needed] Vigo's assertion is disputed by Manzoni's brother and sister.[citation needed] An art dealer from the Gallery Blu in Milan claims to have detected a fecal odor emanating from a can.[7] The cans are steel, and thus cannot be x-rayed or scanned to determine the contents, and opening a can would cause it to lose its value; thus, the true contents of Artist's Shit are unknown

>>1579255
then don't come off sounding pretentious

>>1579259
oh yeah, a can of shit loses its value

>>1579274
>shit

[citation needed]

btw
tracy emin stated "it is art because i say so" when asked about this piece of "art"
http://huckcdn.lwlies.com/admin/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/o-MY-BED-facebook.jpg

now compare that to the same idea, an artist's bed, from eugen delacroix

http://fr.muzeo.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_moyenne_def/public/oeuvres/peinture/classique/un_lit_deefait13122.jpg?itok=r-ykSW2M

>>1576460
Yes but he's white so it's acceptable

>>1579256
then everything is art and nothing is art
if everything is art, then it holds no value, if nothing is art, then art does not exist

but it holds value and does exist
its value is to show beatuy

>>1579228
>otherwise you would have to accept that i just created art if i would stated that i have created art
Welcome to post-modernism

>>1579286
> If it painted than it is a real art!
> If this is a thing that exist it isn't!
I fail to see your logic here beyond, maybe the one that first bed technically wasn't created by person, but more like result of collective effort.

>>1579309
no it was creteated by one person

and my logic is that the second one is beatiful and took skill to make, yet it shows the same image as the first one: an artist's unmade bed becuase of his ideas and tumultuos life

that means: you can created the same thought in a beatiful skillfull way

modern art is made by idiots without skill quod erat demonstrandum

>>1579303
'beauty' does not precede the art, it is beautiful because it is found in the art. so the things you think aren't art can still be art because they are still beautiful in a certain context

>>1579330
technical skill doesn't matter

>>1579330
also i already posted a statue, a real existing thing, which i considered art
>>1579123

>>1579342
meant fo
r>>1579309

File: Francisco_de_Goya,_Saturno_devorando_a_su_hijo_(1819-1823).jpg (546KB, 1616x2889px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 1616x2889px

>>1579303
>if everything is art, then it holds no value

But art doesn't hold any value. Art is the relationship between the viewer and the subject. It is up to the viewer to add meaning.

>its value is to show beatuy
But there are many pieces out there that show filth, hate, violence and all other negatives aspects/emotions. The craftsmanship is there. Is it not art just because it isn't pretty or nice?
Are you saying that art should only be happy or that it should only never show negative emotions?

>>1579341
yes it does
brb shitting in cans selling each for 100k

no, it does not directly matter, but creating something beautiful without skill is very hard

show me something man made which is beatuiful,but took no skill to make

i am not even being rhetorical, please show me

File: Adriaen_van_Utrecht-_Vanitas_-_Still_Life_with_Bouquet_and_Skull.jpg (114KB, 1098x857px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1098x857px

>>1579303
> if everything is art, then it holds no value
This is right, art holds no value by itself. It is for a person to decide if they value so called art or not. Some could say that it is a beautiful painting, but the other that it just shows piles of random items.

>>1579355
>It is up to the viewer to add meaning.

not that anon but the viewer does not create the entirety of the meaning. the viewer does not view the art because he or she thinks it isn't valuable

>>1579355
art shows even the beatuy in hate hate and filth
art should show negative emotions
what's was the name of the guy who draws really disturbing art? i'll post some of his work if i find it

>>1579356
photography makes it very easy

i'm not arguing for beauty in art

>>1579330
> muh skill
Who the fuck cares? End result is only thing that matters here. If I wrote book while being raped by niggers with my blood, it wouldn't be better book, than what I could write in my normal way. Even if being rape writer is considerably harder to do and requires more skill from you.

>>1579358
>It is for a person to decide if they value so called art or not.

this can only really be true due to the contemporary art world where the market is king. in the past vanitas paintings had (and still do have) a very real meaning and it was painted for a specific purpose that others understood

baby don't hurt me
don't hurt me
no more

>>1579371
a photo is not man made
it shows nature by clicking a button
a painting of nature is man made

>>1579366
see here you use 'beauty' to mean whatever you want. so in what way is tracy emin's work not beautiful? because you also have a bed?

>>1579382
>photography isn't an artform

>>1579374
that would be correct if a book was art

>>1579356
> brb shitting in cans selling each for 100k
You couldn't sold even one because you lack the necessary skill. It is like saying brb composing a symphony selling music for billions.

>>1579382
being man made had nothing to do with my argument

paintings of nature were some of the lowest forms of art

File: 52f9d28d162c4a2c9599024b150a5ab8.jpg (76KB, 658x656px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 658x656px

>>1579376
> it was painted for a specific purpose that others understood

>>1579382
A photo is made by man, who do you think transports the camera and sets up the framing, lighting, aperture, etc? Or do paintings not count as manmade because a machine mixed the paint and made the paintbrush and canvas?

>>1579398
yes so was this. what is your point? does suprematism not show the beauty of simplicity? pure painterly feeling?

>>1579123
i made an interactive cloth simulation with opengl, using the formula for elasticity and normal lightning, does it compare

File: 001fc4fb-f8bd-488c-87df-7c45d6228660.jpg (643KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

643KB, 2000x1000px

>>1579392
> Literature isn't art
Guess, Shakespeare was literal nobody, if you say so.

>>1579406
Paint simple square is arguably even easier than shitting in cans.

>>1579413
so? ease has nothing to do with art if in the end 'beauty' is achieved

File: 1415482390786.jpg (243KB, 874x1189px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 874x1189px

>>1579355
i think this was one of his works
>>1579366

>>1579434
that's really poorly painted though

>>1579394
i don't even know anymore if this is bait
i sure hope so

File: The Ugly Duchess.jpg (36KB, 311x450px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 311x450px

>>1579417
> muh 'beauty'
You know that there are paintings of ugly things, right?

>>1579444
i think it's just the resolution
there was another one of a bunch of figures sitting around campfires
each group of people on their own plateau

>>1579450
that's why it's in quotes dummy

>muh skill
>muh painting

I don't know why people have this discussion over and over. The minute they try to dismiss art with the, awfully pedestrian I might add, claim that "it is not art" they're tacitally recognizing the piece in question as art.

Because someone might pass through a gallery, see a ready-made and go all "this shit is not art!", but they don't go through their lives calling urinals in public bathrooms "not art" to random people that pass by. That's stupid.
They understand that the piece has an artistic intent to it, even though they don't understand that intent.
It's more of a contextual, symbolic thing. Having this discussion is like being confused about whether the fire extinguishers at an art gallery are part of the exposition or not. Obviously they are not, and you know this already, unless you're a special kind of stupid which would make you unfit to have this discussion in the first place.

So anything you think might be art is probably art.

>>1579446
How this is a bait? Do you think a random person could shit in cans and sold it for huge price? Like do you really think that is possible for you to do? How can you deny skill if random person couldn't do that shit? Like random person couldn't write a symphony or create marble statue.

>>1579454
no it's the bad shading, lack of dynamism and depth

it's not shocking to me that people who talk about 'skill' and 'beauty' can't recognise it in paintings

>>1579464
> this post is an art
Kekmate, m8

>>1579488
This post is a art

>>1579471
you don't need a skill you only need a reputation of being "deep" and an "artist"

>>1579210
"A urinal" is right kek

>>1579507
And how exactly you can have reputation like that without any skill? Seems like common excuse for people in denial.

>>1579480
i do not know what you are talking about
it does take skill and it does show beatuy

go listen to any modern "music" and i am not talking about pop/rock here
and then listen to something like stabat mater and tell me which is better and which took skill to compose

most modern music that is played by an orchestra just sounds like you let some three year olds have fun for an hour

>>1579507
I think it takes at the very least a strong stomach to shit in cans.
I mean, think about what it entails shitting in a can, closing it, storing it, transporting it and then selling it.
Like seriosuly think about it.

>>1579517
you get the reputation by sucking dick (not literally)
go and show me one of his works that took skill, the one that earned him his reputation

>>1579545
>networking isn't a skill

File: niccolo_machiavelli_statue-2.jpg (580KB, 1600x1226px) Image search: [Google]

580KB, 1600x1226px

>>1579545
>>1579551
Forgot pic

>>1579551
alright you are baiting
that one actually made me laugh

Art is art by its framing devices, whether literal or literary. The frame, the gallery, the museum, the display, the pedestal. The texts, the title, the theory, the criticism, the history. The patron too is extremely relevant to the production and reception of art.

There is no other satisfactory answer that accounts for all art practice, from the guilds, to the academies, to the markets, museums and galleries. Skill varies, beauty varies, purpose varies, but the frame is constant.

>>1579533
Modern music sounds perfectly fine. It seems that pretentious people just blinded by reputations of a great names that are spoon feed to them. How do I know that? They doesn't know any good authors except ones that were known and famous enough.

>>1579533
>it does take skill and it does show beatuy

it doesn't matter if it took skill or not, it's not a very good painting. there is no beauty in how flat the image is. there is no intellectual aspect to this work. it does nothing to please anyone but plebs in being the 'twisted fucking psychopath' of internet art

>>1579558
you probably get you opinions from the cuck weekly

"you have to listen to reatarts if want to define something, or else they'll get pised"

>>1579568
Not sure you're replying to the right person.

>>1579562
it was mearly an example
for your interesst, i play piano for 12 years
i konw what i'm talking about in terms of music

>>1579565
ah and the one namecalling has the better argument

>>1579584
because it's easier to put in google translate?

>>1579565
> It doesn't please anyone (except that group of people)!
Because real art should be for literally everyone, right?

>>1579590
that's the exact opposite of my argument. images like the one posted 'appeal to everyone' since that is what plebs like in art. they just like to look at things

>>1579588
what?

>>1579593
i'm saying you don't understand the argument which is why you don't think it's as good

what is your argument? muh beauty? then you post a bad artwork which you think is good because someone did something you couldn't do, regardless if they were any good. i can't imagine being so easily impressed by garbage

>>1579581
> i know what i'm talking about in terms of music
Well, professional deformation is real thing and if you can filter less skillful music from a such that requires more skills it doesn't mean that exactly this filter is the only one that was should use as basis to evaluate an art.

>>1579581
why do you think 12 years of piano gives you insight into music and your 0 years of art history gives you insight into art?

will you ever get tired of facing your own hypocrisy?

>>1579591
>beatuy is not universal
go look at your urinal for 2 hours and think about the meaning of me being pissed at your foolishnes

and yes i like to look at things
but you should be able to give the painting i posted some meaning

some ideas: being a person is mask,
he does not like his own skin,
memento mori,
et cetera

>>1579591
What so bad about just looking at things? This is a basis of any visual medium.

>>1579616
the urinal wasn't meant to be 'beautiful' -- part of duchamp's art was moving art away from optical experience and more towards an intellectual one. the whole 19th century was full of optical 'aesthetic' art that was painted to please the masses but it was devoid of any artistic merit even if it took 'skill' and looked 'beautiful'

>some ideas: being a person is mask,
>he does not like his own skin,
>memento mori,
>et cetera

wow that's so deep man how did you get that by looking at the painting? that must have taken some thinking

>>1579617
so now you support art for everyone?

>>1579643
Some art is for everyone, some isn't.

>>1579649
*claps*

>>1579601
yes i get your argument
you say it isn't beatiful and try to disprove me by pointing out that fact
>>1579607
i disagree
if it sounds like a bunch of kids destroying instruments it may as well be some kids destroying instruments
the fact that it was created by a professional does not change its sound

i like most things barock and even artists like neil young or iron maiden

if it sounds good it is beatiful
and most of the time that takes skill
and even for your run of the mill 4 chord pop shit you need at least some skill

>>1579568
cuck cuk reatart cuck cuck nigger cuk cuckold cuck?

>>1579636
ah and the one of the big dude eating the small one is deeper?
being deeper is not a criterium for better art

i also formulatied those thoughts in 5 seconds,
now you go deeper

>>1579666
Let me fondle your prostate

>>1579668
kek

>>1579661
you're saying a poorly-executed painting is beautiful. a painting like that is a urinal compared to the old masters

>>1579666
>ah and the one of the big dude eating the small one is deeper?

no i don't really like goya

>being deeper is not a criterium for better art

being 'deeper' is not what i mean by being intellectual

>>1579672
so we agree on the urinal part
if i knew a lot more of art i might share your opinion of the piece i posted

but if you are the one who posted "big dude eat small dude" then i think you are being hypocritical

>>1579678
i will say this for goya though at least it is based on greco-roman myth

>>1579678
then what was it you meant

>>1579683
no we don't agree i'm just using your own standards against you

AN EXPLOSION

>>1579685
actual planning going into the painting like a close study of nature, composition, and again better shading to give depth and dynamism, but even a more interesting subject wouldn't hurt. but of course the subject wouldn't matter if the execution was there. this is someone trying to paint and failing

>>1579686
then i do not get your argument

you insult the urinal as a comparison ´but don't really mean it and you only do that to insult the piece i posted in comparison to the 'old masters'?

>>1579697
i don't insult the urinal i'm using your own standards against you i.e. if you don't like the urinal you shouldn't like the skinless painting

>>1579693
are you
>>1579686
?

>>1579702
do you like the urinal?

>>1579703
yes

>>1579707
i recognise it as an important work in the history of modernism

>>1579614
>music is not art

>>1579735
that was not the question

hitlers rise to power was an important step to killing millions in war

>>1579735
>>1579742
don't stop now
i am actually having a lot of fun here arguing

>>1579736
nice equivocation

>>1579742
i don't like or dislike it

>>1579736
>being knowledgeable in one field means your knowledgeable in all fields

It was pretty mediocre urinary, not high tier for sure.

>>1579753
you think music, painting and sculpting are different thigs
yet they are all considered art and that concept of beauty apllies to all
which is why i compare the two

you are apathetic about a urinal with name on it that calls itself art, but say the piece i posted is of poor quality compared to the old master, although i have no conecpt of the difference between the two, since i stand by my statement that beauty is what matters in art?

do speak german by any chance?
this is quite hard doing it not in my mither tongue

>>1579758
>being strong doesn't help with sprinting
>being good at math doesn't help you with physics
>play an accoutic guitar doesn't help you playing an electrical one
>know about the human nature doesn't make philisophy easier

>>1579788
also it's 4 am here
good night, lads

>>1571797
kek, already know how this discussion will go

>le morons insisting realism is the only art
>le other morons claiming their childhood anime is art too

stay pleb

>>1579773
they are different things with different rules of how to create beauty, and each with limitations on what they can achieve. see the paragone argument between sculpture and painting -- it was a debate over which was the better art form

besides, beauty is constructed. the idea of what is beautiful changes every age. once it was a pure representation of nature, then it was divine beauty, then it was a combination of both, etc. and now in our image-saturated age the mundane is beautiful, such as a bed, because it is real.

you yourself have used the word 'beauty' even to refer to ugliness. does the same logic not apply? your concept of beauty is unique to you, and the things you don't think are beautiful and thus not art could still be found beautiful by someone else, and thus art. or found not beautiful but still be art. or be beautiful and not art, because it lacks the fundamentals of what is considered 'art' as separate from a craft.

i am apathetic about the urinal, but i am using it as an opportunity to demonstrate how your idea of art is baseless. you claim art is about skill and quality but you enjoy a work that is devoid of both, only because you enjoy the concept behind it. but then you don't like conceptual art

>>1579807
and that is where we disagree and why we won't agree
you think it is devoid of beauty and skill i don't
does that mean that beauty is realativ and my argument is therefore meaningless?
no
the question asked was " what is art"
if the concept of art itself changes over time
then art would be not definable
yet we know exactly what all the epochs before this had in common
beauty
if i would present a piece of art from any random epoch (exept today's) to people from another random epoch, they would agree to like it

art is not defined by the elite
art is universal and if you show someone the urinal who is not in the secret circlejerk club, they would find it disgusting

we know exacly what is beatiful in architecture:
the golden ratio and fibonacci
compare central venice with central new york and you tell me which one is more appealing to the eye

also last post since i need to sleep

>>1579843
it does make your argument meaningless because something doesn't change its status as art depending on who considers it beautiful. something beautiful isn't necessarily art.

art is definable because we can say that it changes over time. there is something constant about it. but that constant is not beauty, because the urinal is still considered art because it is a direct referent to the art world. portraits are a form of art, but they are not necessarily beautiful. mannerism has a purpose outside of depicting beauty but it is still art.

>if i would present a piece of art from any random epoch (exept today's) to people from another random epoch, they would agree to like it

not true. a baroque artist would not like a mannerist work. a renaissance artist would not like a byzantine work. a neoclassical artist would not like a rococo work. a realist artist would not like an academic work.

>art is not defined by the elite
art doesn't pay for itself

>>1579885
> art doesn't pay for itself
Well, people are willing to pay for shitting cans.

>>1579885
He did state "not in the circlejerk club"

>>1579914
not the ordinary person

>>1579926
i know but what are you referring to?

>>1580025
To the artists from different times

>>1580025
>not the ordinary person
Exactly
the ordinary person sees no value in shit
A thought that i can understand

>>1580097
that came after

and 'people' didn't really see art (outside the church) until the 18th century because everything else was for private circlejerking elites. but still, introduce some catholic art to the protestants, i'm sure they'll agree it's beautiful

>>1580106
so yes art is defined by the elite

>>1572241
>>1573573
>>1576354
>>1579692
167 posts, 34 posters, and only 4 people actually answered correctly

File: Guernica.jpg (104KB, 900x394px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 900x394px

>>1571797
This is the Highest Form of Art
Nothing comes close

>>1580121
Anon, we are not talking about the reality
We are talking about an ideal

Should the jews be killed?
"Well, hitler is killing them"
Or
"No"

>>1580229
no, we're talking about the reality

'what is art'

it's only appropriate to define it in a way that encompasses all art production rather than just saying "such and such is real art because i say it is and anyone who disagrees is a part of some circlejerking club" especially when what you call 'real art' is negated by art production even in periods other than our own

besides most of what people think as 'real art' is just 19th century works about battles because it looks the most realistic to how we have been trained to look at images i.e. as a photograph. it's completely bogus and has nothing to do with how paintings were produced for the four centuries prior

>>1580153
ANIMAY AM I RIGHT

>>1580153
>It's an anon realises how easy it is to troll a 4chan board thread

>Everyone itt arguing that art is subjective
Post-Modernism cancer everyone. No shock as to why we will never achieve the same displays of beauty and complexity as our ancestors

Art is anything you can get away with