Zaneki wrote:

glue-gun wrote:

generosity wrote:

art is worthless

Although I agree, I'm not sure whether that would qualify as a definition. Perhaps it is more of a classification?

Probably more as an opinion :P
While it's true that many visual arts don't serve a specific function other than to entertain, there are also many kinds of art that teach the viewer. For example, Lord of the Flies by William Golding is considered a work of art, because it reminds the reader that despite man's seemingly perfect organization and poise, all of that is lost when the factor of civilization is taken away.

Really, it all depends on what you consider “art” to be– is it just paintings and photographs, or is it creativity in all its forms?

Everything here is an opinion, so it's not necessary to label it as such. It would have to be a classification rather than a definition, though.
And it depends to which philosophies you subscribe; perhaps he's a nihilist, believing that to not even matter in the long run.

honesty wrote:

technoguyx wrote:

People say they like a piece of art when they can easily interpret and identify themselves with the message, having empathy for the transmitter of the message, or when they like the shape, the physical form of the art, regardless of the meaning. A catchy beat, a perfectly written poem or a public speech with lots of “pretty words” and little meaning. Artistic movements such as realism and anti-poetry have been against following the conventions of art - the formulas that make art “beautiful” at a glance - to hide a lack of meaning.

This is incorrect.

Will you explain what is correct?

JAVAProgramming wrote:

honesty wrote:

technoguyx wrote:

People say they like a piece of art when they can easily interpret and identify themselves with the message, having empathy for the transmitter of the message, or when they like the shape, the physical form of the art, regardless of the meaning. A catchy beat, a perfectly written poem or a public speech with lots of “pretty words” and little meaning. Artistic movements such as realism and anti-poetry have been against following the conventions of art - the formulas that make art “beautiful” at a glance - to hide a lack of meaning.

This is incorrect.

Will you explain what is correct?

It's much easier to define what isn't correct when it comes to this question!

And I think technoguy's definition is just unfair from the start, as it allows anything that he does not consider worthwhile to be declassified as art.

But the anti-poetry/realism example, anything claiming to be art, I think, can be taken as art. Realism and anti-poetry are very similar to one another even though though one's visual and one is written They are both trying to reflect life as accurately as possible by showing it how it is, because they see either the frilly love-poems or super depressing things unfair.

My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun;
Coral is far more red than her lips' red;
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damask'd, red and white,
But no such roses see I in her cheeks;
And in some perfumes is there more delight
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know
That music hath a far more pleasing sound;
I grant I never saw a goddess go;
My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground:
And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
As any she belied with false compare.
(Sonnet 130 by Shakespeare)

I don't think it can be argued, if you actually read it, that the poem there is not actually art, and it is an example of anti-poetry. And it very clearly conveys a message.

And of course realism is very similar, conveying its message without resorting to making everything seem nicer/worse than it really is.

edit: veggie shut up

art is any good supermario videogame

honesty wrote:

technoguyx wrote:

People say they like a piece of art when they can easily interpret and identify themselves with the message, having empathy for the transmitter of the message, or when they like the shape, the physical form of the art, regardless of the meaning. A catchy beat, a perfectly written poem or a public speech with lots of “pretty words” and little meaning. Artistic movements such as realism and anti-poetry have been against following the conventions of art - the formulas that make art “beautiful” at a glance - to hide a lack of meaning.

This is incorrect.

opinions

tho I don't really see how realism has a lack of meaning, I'm pretty sure it's just depicting normal life (of poor, working-class people) instead of fancy and romantic things. same with anti-poetry - it goes against normal poem stuff but it still has meaning.

EDIT: All fixed now
I was at an art museum once and a piece of art was a ponytail glued to a slice of Swiss cheese.

cobraguy wrote:

generosity wrote:

art is worthless

I was at an art museum once and a piece of art was a ponytail glued to a slice of Swiss cheese.

I don't see how the quoted statement has to do with yours.

glue-gun wrote:

cobraguy wrote:

generosity wrote:

art is worthless

I was at an art museum once and a piece of art was a ponytail glued to a slice of Swiss cheese.

I don't see how the quoted statement has to do with yours.

Ya, I didn't mean to quote that. I was gonna say something else but forgot, then I forgot to delete the quote.

It generally is “useless” as in it doesn't help our survival (might actually), actually. (that sounds funny)

Art is self-expression.

Sorry - but this does not seem to be anything that you are reading or playing. Please read the posting guidelines.