Darkness Forums > What is art?

Darkness Forums > Carpe Noctem: Darkness Forums > Arts & Entertainment

Sponsor: Find Love in the Dark | Vampire Origins and Secrets | Gothic Babe of the Week | Dark Gothic and Horror Links | Exploitation Films and B-Movies

-B-

Oct 7 2004, 10:40 PM

What is art to you? There is no "right" or "wrong" answer to this question as art is different things to different people.

For me, art is a way of expressing myself. It allows me an outlet to the creative side of me without which I would have been placed in an institution long ago.

I know that's a bit simplistic, but I'm just trying to get the conversation started.

Vore

Oct 7 2004, 10:43 PM

Mind if I put our PM conversations in here...they were interesting to me...I think others might feel the same...it is a 'point of view' subject if ever there was one.

-B-

Oct 7 2004, 11:00 PM

Sure, go ahead. It was those same PM's that inspied this thread. And you're right, it's definatly a point of view subject. Should be some interesting answers.

Vore

Oct 8 2004, 08:41 AM

heh...ok...in no particular order...here's what me and -B- were talking about...to be honest I can't see either view as having exclusive 'truth' so it's a pretty good thing to think about.

QUOTE

Art is a form of expression...if it needs explaining through another form of expression then it is no longer a form of expression in and of itself and so is rendered pointless.

So you want me to write instead of use pictures? What sort of a gallery is it?

The one thing my art teachers drove into our heads is that you have to be able to talk about your work. People will always ask questions, reguardless of what that work is or how self explanatory it may be. Some will see it and ask you to explain it, so you need to use words sometimes along with the pictures. An artist who uses their talent to make a living has to do this all the time.

I do not use art to make money...Your teacher taught you how to make money not art...we already know what art is.

Leonardo De Vinci did not explain his art...the same goes for all artists worth their salt....it is the denegration of art to explain it...it is impossible to say 'This is what it is' when art is a living changing thing...not a defenition that is stuck in stone like words.

Artists speak through the medium of art itself...if they were to write books they would be writers...if they were to talk about meanings they would be poets or performers...

Art does not belong to the artist...true art belongs to the person looking upon it.

Vore

Oct 8 2004, 08:43 AM

Continued:

QUOTE

As I mentioned above...how then do you explain 'found art'? Just because an artist says 'this is art' does not make it so....it is a newly created lie to put something in a gallery and in proclaiming it art it magicaly becomes such.

The artistic experience comes from the viewer...the artist merely assembles an abstraction....Jackson Pollock, And Warhol both made use of this loophole to mock the art society by defining things as art such as paint splatters and cereal packets...The thing we take to be true is that whatever the artist says is art must be.

Art is dieing today because people like Tracy Emin are continueing to pile up any old tat in galleries and proclaiming it art....What has not been pointed out is that the artists opinion isn't important...if it is not 'art' to an audience then it is not art...and the more audience it reaches the more successful it is...Modern art is rubbish because it has nothing to say...and the reason it has nothing to say is because the artists have grown used to talking about their 'conceptual art' instead of including all their high brow concepts in the experience of looking and appreciating the art itself.

As such I cannot say what the things I produce are...they are not art just because I say so.

I believe you have to have someone to actually produce a piece of work for the audience to decide for themselves if it's art or not. Be it found art or not. I remember an artist who gave a talk to my class, can't remember his name right now, and his medium was found objects. He literaly went to junk yards or trash heaps and found his material to work with.

As for the artist that have work in galleries. That was what my teachers were training us for while in college. I realized something about that part of the art world. Most of them are so full of bunk it goes beyond description. I had forgotten this until I purchased a copy of Art in America a few months ago. But, they are able to talk about it in interviews and gallery openings. This is the actual key to thier success.

Vore

Oct 8 2004, 08:57 AM

One thing I do believe about art is that it does not die when the artist does...for as long as there is an audience the art is alive and changes with the opinions of the viewer.

For an artist to say : "This is what it means" destroys the creative process of looking at the art and bringing your own meaning to it...and in so doing the art is no longer a seperate 'entity' from the artist.

Art is a very personal experience to both artist and viewer....with art like 'Sunflowers' by Van Gogh...this personal experience is removed because too much explenation is given with the art...and in the case of Van Gogh the assumptions created by this information outside of the art itself are deeply flawed.

Many assume Van Gogh to be displaying the onset of madness in his brushstrokes in this painting but his so called 'madness' was not so clean cut...he had fits of a syndrome that made him deppressed etc...but during these fits he did not paint at all. He only painted during happier, calmer periods of his life.

To look at art and to assume a great many things about the mind of the artist is (I think) incorrect....when you look at art and read character traits from it you (should be) creating ones unique to yourself. The sad truth is with famous works like 'Sunflowers' and the 'Mona Lisa' nobody really sees them anymore...all they see is the massive amounts of preconception and analysis that makes such works so familier.

(In philosophy talk I suppose they have become unshifting axioms..but I won't go there)

Cris la Dark

Dec 6 2004, 02:00 AM

im a work in progress.. i love to draw and paint, and love digital art, love photography
ill talk about dorian greys preface... art is useless... it doesnt work for anything... u cant use it as a chair! or can u? ... that was XIX century i guess, now art can be anything... any doddle can be worth thousands of dollars.. its that art?

anything that is beautiful for someone is art...

abigale

Dec 24 2004, 05:12 PM

Art is preseption. An artist takes something, and creates an atmosphere, interpretation and ideal around a single image. Even photography can be manipulated to enhance an emotion. Very good artists can convey almost lucid thoughts through images, though the audience my not be aware of it.

Here is something I've done. It's whatever you think too, like Cris la Dark said, if it's good maybe it will sell. (The picture isn't for sale though.)

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.