Comments on: The Question: What is Art? http://blog.sokay.net/2007/02/25/what-is-art/ flash game development discussion Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:52:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Christopher J. Rock http://blog.sokay.net/2007/02/25/what-is-art/comment-page-1/#comment-206 Christopher J. Rock Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:17:21 +0000 http://www.sokay.net/blog/?p=3#comment-206 why define art? I figure I'll be saying "art" quite a bit and I'd like if others knew what I meant when I said it, especially because I tend to mean something different than others do when they use they same word. Whether or not anyone would agree with me after reading this post, I would like others to understand my beliefs and assumptions and use that understanding to better communicate the ways that they agree or disagree with me. The problem I find with the word as it is usually defined or used is that it only reflects the speaker's taste. Throughout history we have artists claiming art they hate isn't art and people that hate art claiming that art they love isn't art. It's just being used as a compliment or insult and getting loosely described with faulty correlations like "art teaches us about ourselves" or "art is a reflection of reality." Some art teaches some people about themselves. Some art reflects reality. But does "art" teach anything or reflect anything? Who says it always must or must not? The whole correlation is bogus and this same argument can be applied to any number of other definitions. On an unrelated note, whenever I look back at this post, there's one spot that I question the most: "Art can be more accurately refered to as a quality of tangible objects." This makes me wonder, can art be intagible? Can thoughts be art? Is thinking an art? Part of me says yes, but it's a tricky question to answer with confidence. What might this mean? What would be the logical consequences? why define art? I figure I’ll be saying “art” quite a bit and I’d like if others knew what I meant when I said it, especially because I tend to mean something different than others do when they use they same word. Whether or not anyone would agree with me after reading this post, I would like others to understand my beliefs and assumptions and use that understanding to better communicate the ways that they agree or disagree with me.
The problem I find with the word as it is usually defined or used is that it only reflects the speaker’s taste. Throughout history we have artists claiming art they hate isn’t art and people that hate art claiming that art they love isn’t art. It’s just being used as a compliment or insult and getting loosely described with faulty correlations like “art teaches us about ourselves” or “art is a reflection of reality.” Some art teaches some people about themselves. Some art reflects reality. But does “art” teach anything or reflect anything? Who says it always must or must not? The whole correlation is bogus and this same argument can be applied to any number of other definitions.

On an unrelated note, whenever I look back at this post, there’s one spot that I question the most: “Art can be more accurately refered to as a quality of tangible objects.”

This makes me wonder, can art be intagible? Can thoughts be art? Is thinking an art?

Part of me says yes, but it’s a tricky question to answer with confidence. What might this mean? What would be the logical consequences?

]]> By: shant http://blog.sokay.net/2007/02/25/what-is-art/comment-page-1/#comment-205 shant Fri, 13 Apr 2007 06:47:04 +0000 http://www.sokay.net/blog/?p=3#comment-205 good words. why are you trying to define art? art history can explain the relationship people have had with art and lots have worked a breaking it down for the others. i like how Goethe wrote about the role of the "poet" in society. i like mary shelly's words on the poet/artist too. i like them because someone has spent as much time or, probably, way more thinking about your question. history. phooey. everyone gets to define it on their own. some don't bother. But where else can you see things so distinctly human. you spoke of language as a tool. I like idioms, they're totally unnecessary but they're playful and thought provoking. the works of jeffrey vallence just the same, check him out. it's a way to remind us that we're human, man. to feel and think. and that changes all the time, but don't hold it against the past. Picasso set precidents in a game called art within a community that has gained world recognition. he saw stuff and fucked it up. not to say inovation is required to make art. now I'm all backwards fuck you. make stuff about your world. and make it jovial. because it like it jovial. good words. why are you trying to define art? art history can explain the relationship people have had with art and lots have worked a breaking it down for the others. i like how Goethe wrote about the role of the “poet” in society. i like mary shelly’s words on the poet/artist too. i like them because someone has spent as much time or, probably, way more thinking about your question. history. phooey.
everyone gets to define it on their own. some don’t bother.
But where else can you see things so distinctly human. you spoke of language as a tool. I like idioms, they’re totally unnecessary but they’re playful and thought provoking. the works of jeffrey vallence just the same, check him out. it’s a way to remind us that we’re human, man. to feel and think. and that changes all the time, but don’t hold it against the past. Picasso set precidents in a game called art within a community that has gained world recognition. he saw stuff and fucked it up. not to say inovation is required to make art. now I’m all backwards fuck you.
make stuff about your world. and make it jovial. because it like it jovial.

]]>