3 ms·
I define art as something that evokes an emotion or feeling. I’ve seen people wax poetic about the ”meaning” of an imagine only to find out that the image was c
by LatencyKills 10mo ago
I define art as something that evokes an emotion or feeling. I’ve seen people wax poetic about the ”meaning” of an imagine only to find out that the image was created synthetically.
Were those “feelings” not authentic?
- neonnoodle 10mo agoIf I see a cloud in the shape of my childhood dog and start to cry, is the cloud art?
- rtldg 10mo agoYes. The Earth and its formations are art. I disagree that art requires consciousness and intent, but those admittedly do improve its value [to me]. (For reference, I value AI content/art poorly and avoid it)
- only-one1701 10mo agoEverything is art, fantastic. I see nothing wrong with this definition.
- card_zero 10mo agoWe have at least established that very boring pieces, such as Andy Warhol's Empire, Kazimir Malevich's White on White, and John Cage's As Slow As Possible, are not art.
- only-one1701 10mo agoBad code is still code. A painting of code is not code.
- card_zero 10mo agoI think you're saying bad art is still art, but I'm unsure what to do with the second sentence. I'm toying with "an encoding of art is not art", which might mean that art has to be available to an audience.
- only-one1701 10mo agoIs a car crash art?
- black_13 10mo ago[dead]
- RHSeeger 10mo agoA drawing/painting of a car crash certainly can be https://www.etsy.com/listing/4329570102/crash-impact-car-canvas-art-dramatic https://www.etsy.com/listing/4329570102/crash-impact-car-can... As can a photo of one (sorry, I don't have a good example of that). And, both a camera and AI are an example of "using a tool to create an image of something". Both involve a creator to determine what picture is created; but the tool is central/crucial to the creation.
- card_zero 10mo agoWhen I was about 12 a car crashed in my quiet street (somebody tried to drive it through a concrete fence), so the next day I sat in the street and did an ink drawing of the wreckage with a mapping pen nib. That was excellent art. Then I stole one of the gigantic suspension springs and took it home to use as a stool, which by some silly definitions was also an act of art. But this all evades the original question about whether the actual car crash is art for evoking feelings, or whether art in fact must involve pictures, or human communication, or what. It's one of the impossible definitions, along with "intelligence" and "freedom". I'm a fan of "I know it when I see it".
- only-one1701 10mo agoI would never argue that a painting of a car crash couldn’t be art. It’s funny your bringing up that a camera is a tool for creating art; I also hold photographic art in lower esteem than other kinds of visual art (though I still think some kind of photography can be art). At a certain point, we need to be realistic about the amount of effort involved in artistic creation. Here’s a thought experiment: someone puts two paintings in a photocopier and makes a single sheet of paper with both paintings. Did that person create art? They certainly had the vision to put those two specific paintings together, and they used a tool to create that vision in reality!
- zelphirkalt 10mo agoI don't think it is about the feelings or emotions evoked in the observer. At least not in that generality. It only is, if there is an intention in the creating process of the art, that aims at evoking the emotions or feelings. Otherwise going by the more general definition, many everyday objects become art. Home becomes art. The way to the office becomes art, even if it completely sucks.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- greekrich92 10mo agoIf someone lies and convinces you that a loved one has died and you cry, were those feelings authentic? Art that provokes emotion in a cheap or manipulative way is often, if not always, bad art.