3 ms·

IMO it is only Art if you feel something immediately. If you have to read some description to get the meaning, it is only pretentious and not Art for me.

• Broken_Hippo 8y ago
  Just curious: Why does art need to make anyone feel anything? Do you feel something if you see a landscape, portrait, or still life? Do you think they are still art? In a similar thread, if you stare at something abstract, if it draws you in to gaze on it because it is a cool design even if it brings forth no feeling, does it make it art or not? Do you understand hidden meanings from 200 years ago that would have been obvious to viewers at the time? Do you still consider it art even if you have to read about the meanings built into the art? (Art is full of pretentious bullshit, and I'm of the opinion that assigning meaning or requiring a meaning of art is, of itself, pretentious.)
  • js8 8y ago
    I think art should make feel at least someone something in order to be considered as art. That is not the same as having a meaning, though. For example, Mandelbrot set makes me feel "it is wonderful", but it doesn't need to have any meaning (technically, it is a solution to some equation, so it has meaning, but you don't have to know the meaning in order to feel that something).
    • Intermernet 8y ago
      The problem with art is that it could be a stated goal of the art form to minimise "feeling" and still be considered valid. In this case, if you feel something, the art form has failed. Art is tricksome. It is what it is justified as being, but it's also just what it is. I've found it easier over the years to just say that I like / dislike something, but my opinion isn't worth anything, and can happily be different to yours.
• kurthr 8y ago
  If you read about it before you see it, will that destroy all art? How will you know? What about our societal social context and the art that came before it, or the artists creative arc? I guess I know it when I see it.