Just something I've been thinking about.. Just tell me what art means to you.



You can just finish the statement:
The definition of art to me is…









My definition of art:
The definition of art to me is the artist's feelings superimposed on something, like a scene of something. By feelings being superimposed, I mean like colours and expressions.

Art is the physical form of imagination.
-Anonymous

ProdigyZeta7 wrote:

Art is the physical form of imagination.
-Anonymous

… What do you think?

Or IS that what you think?

Art is anything meant to show the reader/viewer a part of one's imagination

A way to express one's self.

Art is emotion.

Art is something that captures your imagination and provokes an intentional feeling in you.

Art is creating something different.

Enough said.

art is worthless

generosity wrote:

art is worthless

*gets booed off stage*
inb4 lock

generosity wrote:

art is worthless

Wow there….

I don't think so..

generosity wrote:

art is worthless

um
excuse u

Art is the result of placing one's thoughts or feelings in a coherent, concrete message, to be interpreted by other people regardless of their ability to make such art. Art is communication: the artist formulates a message for a recipient, and transmits it through a channel, which is the physical form of the art, which could be a song, a painting, sculpture, poetry, prose, etc.

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.

(tl;dr see the part in bold. Hopefully this makes sense.)

also generosity is either sarcastic or has some deep meaning behind that post

Guys, a little fact here: art isn't only paintings and pictures or sculptures.

My definition plus explaining:
It can be anything you create; from a Rube Goldberg machine, to a car. It could even be a computer program (or a game), something you sewed (a plush maybe?) or even a fish you raised! Even buildings are considered as art to me.

To me, art is every figment of your imagination you brought into the real world. Art is creation. Art could be destruction. Art could be planning, writing. Art could be in books. Art could be on a person. It could even be your clothes, to somebody.

Art is style.

Art came from your imagination. Imagination is your sole definition of art.

Sorry for so much philosophy back there! ^^; It's just that I can almost literally bring out my heart about this subject. ^^;

Mewly wrote:

It can be anything you create; from a Rube Goldberg machine, to a car. It could even be a computer program (or a game), something you sewed (a plush maybe?) or even a fish you raised! Even buildings are considered as art to me.

Sure, by designing a building (architecture), a computer program or a car you are telling people how you think said building, car, etc. should be, and how it should be used. Not sure whether a pet fish can be considered art, though.

Mewly wrote:

Sorry for so much philosophy back there! ^^; It's just that I can almost literally bring out my heart about this subject. ^^;

I know that feel. :3

technoguyx wrote:

Mewly wrote:

It can be anything you create; from a Rube Goldberg machine, to a car. It could even be a computer program (or a game), something you sewed (a plush maybe?) or even a fish you raised! Even buildings are considered as art to me.

Sure, by designing a building (architecture), a computer program or a car you are telling people how you think said building, car, etc. should be, and how it should be used. Not sure whether a pet fish can be considered art, though.

It could!

Imagine raising a beatiful fish and then representing it as your “masterwork”!

oh I got it now

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?

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?

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.