Having recently discussed the idea of art vs. nature in my Humanities class, I was wondering what are your views on art.

What exactly is art? How do you define it? How does art differ from nature?

Its all down to toe nails:rolleyes:

Art is Giggs Rox!! signature

:p :p :p

lol Lionel Ritchie

Originally posted by Fotbalguy
Having recently discussed the idea of art vs. nature in my Humanities class, I was wondering what are your views on art.

What exactly is art? How do you define it? How does art differ from nature?

art is definately not the 'modern art' paintings that you see in art galleries that consist of a few random blobs of colour on a random background, and look like a 5 year old has painted them, and yet those responsible for them make a fortune.

Originally posted by j_pinn
art is definately not the 'modern art' paintings that you see in art galleries that consist of a few random blobs of colour on a random background, and look like a 5 year old has painted them, and yet those responsible for them make a fortune.

True, a lot of modern minimalists, pop artists, etc of recent times aren't as technically skilled as the masters of the past, but I can respect their innovation. Some modern art is actually quite good, you just have to use more imagination to decipher it's meaning.

I also think opinions on what good art is relevant to the time period, like I'm sure painters from the Italian renaissance would have thought guys like Van Gogh and Gaugin "sucked".

Art is whatever you perceive something to be.

a single brush stroke can stir up emotions , a single cord can change a persons mood , a single graceful move can brighten a persons life - such is the power of art.

The greatest artists whos works have inspired me are Rembrandt , Anton Gutknecht , Frits Willis , Andrew Loomis , and the great Boris Vallejo...

Boris in my mind is the best there ever was or ever will be.

Art is a way of expressing feelings on paper by painting or drawing etc etc

Has anyone seen paintings by Salvador Dáli? That stuff is amazing! :)

And also, i like the expressionistic piantings like the oens by Monét, i've seen this painting of some ocean waves hitting some rocks and it's really a weird painting. One moment you're amazed by the blue colors of the painting, imagining yourself floating in the ocean, but as soon as you notice the darker tones of the painting, it's like you're filled with some fear of what's lurking beneath those waves.....or that you might be caught by them and smashed against the rocks.....(:/) :S

Like IceBlu said, art it whatever you want it to be, and that is the beauty of it.

Although I'd say that some modern art that is brought to our attention isn't very artistic (to someone else it could be), like the room where the light turns on and off, or that recreation of an unkempt bedroom (wtf is that all about), or a burnt matchstick.

I would say that most prominent art is now more to do with causing controversy than emotion, inspiration and perspective, which I find a shame really. I also don't like the fact that critics (in any artistic category be it music, literature, 'art', or otherwise) have to be even more controvertial. Like the football referee that wants to 'be' the game rather than referee the game.

I love Monet's work too. The way he painted water was amazing.

I like art with depth and provokes thought (not controversy :) ), but sometimes you just have to appreciate someone's skill.

Originally posted by monkee


I like art with depth and provokes thought (not controversy :) ), but sometimes you just have to appreciate someone's skill.

To me that sounds like a huge contradiction....any form of free expression such as art, music, or film, are always going to spark some controversy because you can never please everyone. I think if anything SHOULD be controversial it should be art because it's one of the few ways people can actually express their most inner feelings, and if that makes some people angry, then so be it.

Some of the most respected artists of today were hugely controversial in their day. Guys like Dali, Mondrian, and even Picasso were subjects of serious debate back then, and not always for the 'right' reasons. I remember even reading a quote from Adolf Hitler talking about surrealists that went something like "anyone who paints a sky pink and grass blue should be sterilized.." :o

I understand what you are saying about the work of Dali, Picasso and even Van Gogh being controversial but I believe they were trying to achieve something with their artwork. I can't help but get the feeling that some of todays most famous artwork (half a cow, or whatever) is little more than controversy for controversy's sake and not art's sake.

Maybe I didn't explain clear enough. :) I don't feel that art should not cause controversy. I do feel that art should not be solely about causing controversy, it should not be about publicity. If controversy, or publicity follows then that is how it is. But if a piece of artworks main goal is about that, how is it art? Unless that is what they are trying to say, I suppose. But again I am contradicting myself. However producing art to cause controversy has been done a million times before and it's lost it's artistic value to me. Which proves the point that art is what you make of it.

well, if you go to http://www.soccergaming.tv/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57924&perpage=15&pagenumber=2 and scroll to the last post, you can see what art is NOT. :crazyboy:

Originally posted by rhizome17
well, if you go to http://www.soccergaming.tv/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57924&perpage=15&pagenumber=2 and scroll to the last post, you can see what art is NOT. :crazyboy:

oh dear.. :confused:

Art is simply expressing yourself. Your feelings, your views and who you are. :)