i'm quite confused on the meaning of this 3-letter word. the dictionary meaning of it for instance will be more confusing than enlightening. in the other forums, it ended with statements like "art is in the eye of the beholder". just to further support the continuing confusion and its wide range of definitions.

pick a primary "factor" of what defines art:

a. is it aesthetic value based on the viewer's perception?
b. is it aesthetic value based on the expert's perception?
c. is it aesthetic value based on the general public's perception?
d. is it its process based on the viewer's perception?
e. is it its process based on the expert's perception?
f. is it its process based on the general public's perception?
g. is it its market value?
h. is it its buyability factor?
i. is it the art critics valuation?
j. is it being accepted in great art galleries?
k. is it its uniqueness of presenting something new (and ofcourse not yet buyable)?

if its beyond this, please help and explain.

i think art is more of an expression of one's ability.. be it in paintings, photographs, martial arts, flower arranging etc.. it doesn't neccessarily have to be pleasing aesthetically or whatever as long as it is an expression of ones ability then it is art. :)

@alistaire.

that was my view before. i thought that the more popular artists has that view also but i was wrong..

i have two questions with that view.

1. will you consider a point and shooter with novice quality work as an "artist" if he considers the expression of his ability as an art? or for some instance, medyo nahihirapan ang digital artists dati na pumasok sa mainstream art.

2. i really thought na eto yung view nang "almost" if not "all" of the respected voices of the local art scene..pero the more you enter their realm the more you would be swayed by another viewpoint. when i enter their galleries dati as a viewer they refer to their work as such. pero since alam din nila na artist din, they now refer to it as "negosyo" with such ideas relating to "cost", "capital", "competition pricing", "events and promotions" and some other insider views!

kaya i opened these thread in amazement of the wide divide between "the marketing sales speech for clients (like what your are saying)" and "the insider colleague talks (relating to business)"

oh my, this is becoming one of those what is love questions... hehe :)

now i'm confused.. :Scared: lets see what the others would say. :)

I can't pick a certain choice above because art overlaps with most of them.

If you take up art theory or art appreciation class, they teach you certain principles and elements a piece should have in order for it to be considered art. Some pieces are probably ugly or tastless for some people but if you consider the presence of some elements, or if you identify which parts are done impeccably despite the distatefulness, it can be still considered art. However, there are also some pieces which may be considered very beutiful or emotional cannot be art.

Pollock or Mondarian's works may not be considered art during their time because some people perceive it to lack subject and meaning but their works are presented in a way that no one has attempted to do in the past, (so in a sense letter K is right.)

According to Adler (from Six Great Ideas, 1981):

"The inherent qualities of an artwork is judged based on an analysis of their sensory porperties (elements of art), the formal properties (the principles of organization), the technical properties (materials and techniques employed) and the expressive properties (how the work evoke feelings, ideas and ideals)."
In short, art should contain aesthetics in order for it to be enjoyed and admired. Its components (form, subject, and content) should have an organic unity as well.

A different approach, which is also true, but more subjective:

"There really is no such things as Art. There are only artists. Once these were men who took coloured earth and roughed out the forms of a bison on the wall of a cave; today some buy their paints, and design for the hoardings; they did and do many other things. These is no harm in calling all these activities art as long as we keep in mind that such a word may mean very different things in different times and places, and as long as we realize that Art which a capital A has no existence. For Art with a capital A has come to be something of a bogey and a fetish."
- Sir Earnestt Gombrich. 1950. From The Story of Art.
Btw, I'm talking about paintings. I'm sure that some of these may be applied to photography as well.

"Its the final frontier of human exploration... It lies within us yet more vast than the entire universe... It cannot be explained nor be defined... Nor does it need explanation or defintion... You can know everything about the world around us yet have no clue on what's inside the human mind." -Timothy Medrano (if anyone else already said this idea, I do not know hehe) :P

for me "YOU CANNOT DEFINE ART"
its maybe all of the above or it could be none of the above..
centuries and centuries ago people try to define art...
but history always prove it wrong, (religion over the state or state over religion propositions) o kahit ano ng kuru kuro?
what a VALUABLE ART for me is maybe just a worthless crap to you...

kung paanong di mo maipaliwanag ang PAGIBIG ganun din ang art....
mahabang diskusyon, maraming paliwanag..pero hindi magpapatalo ang isang tunay na artista....
all i can say is ART COMES WITH CONVICTION....
kailangan ikaw at ang art mo ay maging isa.....hindi para sayo hindi para sakanya, hindi para sa iba,,,ang art mo ay ikaw, ikaw ang art mo...

again... itoy aking opinion lamang...
mabuhay ka.....

for me "YOU CANNOT DEFINE ART"
its maybe all of the above or it could be none of the above..
centuries and centuries ago people try to define art...
but history always prove it wrong, (religion over the state or state over religion propositions) o kahit ano ng kuru kuro?
what a VALUABLE ART for me is maybe just a worthless crap to you...

kung paanong di mo maipaliwanag ang PAGIBIG ganun din ang art....
mahabang diskusyon, maraming paliwanag..pero hindi magpapatalo ang isang tunay na artista....
all i can say is ART COMES WITH CONVICTION....
kailangan ikaw at ang art mo ay maging isa.....hindi para sayo hindi para sakanya, hindi para sa iba,,,ang art mo ay ikaw, ikaw ang art mo...

again... itoy aking opinion lamang...
mabuhay ka.....

well said bro.. art is really a personal expression, if its art to me then what others will say will not matter. no one can really define it.. same with beauty and love. :)

well said bro.. art is really a personal expression, if its art to me then what others will say will not matter. no one can really define it.. same with beauty and love. :)

salamat at mabuhay tayo.....:D

let me act as the devil's advocate:

yes. i believe that pure art should be of that form and factor.. prob is i have yet to meet an artist who has high value works and still speaks like that in front of colleagues..a lot of lesser known and lesser value art works often have that view at the start and sway on the other side once the pocket gets heavy.

its the obvious route of the unknown to have some feel of "purpose". pero for the known people or people with high value works, why do they change the sales pitch when talking to colleagues or insiders?

lets, further dig into the topic "are all 150,000++ works art?"

i'm quite confused about the "money" part disrupting the "expression" part once the money is large enough to move mountains. a lot do artworks on a regular basis (obviously, forcing "expression" inside a time frame).

so does it also mean that doing artworks to fill the demand of the gallery as the main purpose is not an artistic act? doing something repetitively (in a design sense) because it is what is asked and required by clients (and not by the artist's personal sensitivity of expression) is not art?

Art is a force!

To make Art we do things we never thought we are capable of doing. Constantly improving our skills and mastering our craft...for art sake.

i'm quite confused on the meaning of this 3-letter word. the dictionary meaning of it for instance will be more confusing than enlightening. in the other forums, it ended with statements like "art is in the eye of the beholder". just to further support the continuing confusion and its wide range of definitions.

pick a primary "factor" of what defines art:

a. is it aesthetic value based on the viewer's perception?
b. is it aesthetic value based on the expert's perception?
c. is it aesthetic value based on the general public's perception?
d. is it its process based on the viewer's perception?
e. is it its process based on the expert's perception?
f. is it its process based on the general public's perception?
g. is it its market value?
h. is it its buyability factor?
i. is it the art critics valuation?
j. is it being accepted in great art galleries?
k. is it its uniqueness of presenting something new (and ofcourse not yet buyable)?

if its beyond this, please help and explain.

One thing, I believe, that's missing from the choices is timeliness of the art.

Remember when Jackson Pollack came up with his work, they were good because they were original. Then came others with the same style and arguably better than Pollack's, but none of them had the same marketability as the original because it's been done. Most of these "artists" that came after Pollack were seen to be creating nothing more than colorful blob of mess.

Same with Helmut Newton, Avedon, Erwitt, et. al., their work are not as sharp, some cropped horribly, some not exposed properly, etc. etc., but they are considered classic work of arts, and rightly so, because during the time of their creation, it meant something. Personally, I can probably shoot something technically pleasing, sharper, colorful or better B&W nudes than Helmut Newton (yes, I'm pretty cocky that way :Grin: ), but mine will never stood the test of time.

Same thing with Frank Lloyd Wright, I.M. Pei et. al. Some architects today are creating modern, shinier structures of incredible proportion, but most will never get the notoriety of Wright, Pei.

Timing. There's something to be said about them.

@nick. thanks.

i have this problem because i cant get in the circles of some artists but my works are valued by experienced salespeople at 350,000. and people buy it. i just get 180,000 from it.

so if its not accepted by the traditional people since it is new but regular people value it this much, is this really art?

please check: www.accumosaic.com (http://www.accumosaic.com)

to have a feel of what i mean. the last post on page regarding the st. anthony commission. sorry for the bad photos. just learning this photo thing pa lang.

:) Beauty is the the eyes of the beholder. For me an art depends on the person who composed it. It may not be an art to the audience but only the composer can interpret it better.

@nick. thanks.

i have this problem because i cant get in the circles of some artists but my works are valued by experienced salespeople at 350,000. and people buy it. i just get 180,000 from it.

so if its not accepted by the traditional people since it is new but regular people value it this much, is this really art?

please check: www.accumosaic.com (http://www.accumosaic.com)


I saw your blog, and read the entry entitled "who the hell defines art". Your question is related to the question in this tread as to what art it. This is something we take up in my Art Studies classes in UP.

A "canon" usually refers to either a body of works that are considered art, or a system of standards that identifies what works qualify as art. These may be written or unwritten. All the entities you mentioned in the blog entry try to create their own canons, and in many cases lobby for its acceptance by others.You could even add entities like the government, the church, the educational system, and a host of others to your list. I sense that you are frustrated because your works have not yet been "canonized" (sounds like sainthood) by one of these groups.

There are some interesting characteristics of canons that might interest people like you who feel like they are being deliberately excluded. First off, canons are dynamic. No matter how much people try to hold on to traditions, change happens. So what may be considered trash today may suddenly become fashionable tomorrow. For example, history reminds us that it took almost a generation before photography was "accepted" as a visual art form. This is partly because the predominant visual artists at the time, painters and illustrators, felt economically threatened by what they perceived as nothing more than a new technological novelty. But photography eventually took hold, thanks to the pioneering efforts of both conservative and radical photographers, and the visual arts community had to give in. So, people, tastes, fashions, and canons change.

Second, canons are not always based on form. I always tell my students that art does not exist in a vacuum. It has to interact with all the other forces in society and culture. For example, whether we like it or not, one can be called an "artist" for no other reason than hanging out and being "in" with the right people. Others manage be called artists from having figured out a successful marketing strategy. Still others get to be called artists because they died under controversial, mysterious or tragic circumstances. On the other hand, some become revered as artists not necessarily of technical, but conceptual and theoretical contributions. Andy Warhol's Campbells Soup image may have, by itself, not been unusually well crafted. But the whole concept and context of "pop" art that he championed shook the art community to its core. That Warhol lived to see his concept not only take root, but evolve further than his original concept is a testament to the value of his contribution.

Many people have the impression of art as emanating and/or residing only in the individual artist or viewer. But we must remember that art also has a social dimension. I'm not saying artists are hostages to society. But the better we knows the political, economic, spiritual, and whatever other aspects of a society and culture, the better we can negotiate our way through the terrain that is called art.

thanks for the extensive reply

@Robin: For a second there I felt I was in a virtual classroom.
I appreciate the time you spent answering the query. This has so much
depth and substance. Thank you.

I saw your blog, and read the entry entitled "who the hell defines art". Your question is related to the question in this tread as to what art it. This is something we take up in my Art Studies classes in UP.

A "canon" usually refers to either a body of works that are considered art, or a system of standards that identifies what works qualify as art. These may be written or unwritten. All the entities you mentioned in the blog entry try to create their own canons, and in many cases lobby for its acceptance by others.You could even add entities like the government, the church, the educational system, and a host of others to your list. I sense that you are frustrated because your works have not yet been "canonized" (sounds like sainthood) by one of these groups.

There are some interesting characteristics of canons that might interest people like you who feel like they are being deliberately excluded. First off, canons are dynamic. No matter how much people try to hold on to traditions, change happens. So what may be considered trash today may suddenly become fashionable tomorrow. For example, history reminds us that it took almost a generation before photography was "accepted" as a visual art form. This is partly because the predominant visual artists at the time, painters and illustrators, felt economically threatened by what they perceived as nothing more than a new technological novelty. But photography eventually took hold, thanks to the pioneering efforts of both conservative and radical photographers, and the visual arts community had to give in. So, people, tastes, fashions, and canons change.

Second, canons are not always based on form. I always tell my students that art does not exist in a vacuum. It has to interact with all the other forces in society and culture. For example, whether we like it or not, one can be called an "artist" for no other reason than hanging out and being "in" with the right people. Others manage be called artists from having figured out a successful marketing strategy. Still others get to be called artists because they died under controversial, mysterious or tragic circumstances. On the other hand, some become revered as artists not necessarily of technical, but conceptual and theoretical contributions. Andy Warhol's Campbells Soup image may have, by itself, not been unusually well crafted. But the whole concept and context of "pop" art that he championed shook the art community to its core. That Warhol lived to see his concept not only take root, but evolve further than his original concept is a testament to the value of his contribution.

Many people have the impression of art as emanating and/or residing only in the individual artist or viewer. But we must remember that art also has a social dimension. I'm not saying artists are hostages to society. But the better we knows the political, economic, spiritual, and whatever other aspects of a society and culture, the better we can negotiate our way through the terrain that is called art.

I saw your blog, and read the entry entitled "who the hell defines art". Your question is related to the question in this tread as to what art it. This is something we take up in my Art Studies classes in UP.

A "canon" usually refers to either a body of works that are considered art, or a system of standards that identifies what works qualify as art. These may be written or unwritten. All the entities you mentioned in the blog entry try to create their own canons, and in many cases lobby for its acceptance by others.You could even add entities like the government, the church, the educational system, and a host of others to your list. I sense that you are frustrated because your works have not yet been "canonized" (sounds like sainthood) by one of these groups.

There are some interesting characteristics of canons that might interest people like you who feel like they are being deliberately excluded. First off, canons are dynamic. No matter how much people try to hold on to traditions, change happens. So what may be considered trash today may suddenly become fashionable tomorrow. For example, history reminds us that it took almost a generation before photography was "accepted" as a visual art form. This is partly because the predominant visual artists at the time, painters and illustrators, felt economically threatened by what they perceived as nothing more than a new technological novelty. But photography eventually took hold, thanks to the pioneering efforts of both conservative and radical photographers, and the visual arts community had to give in. So, people, tastes, fashions, and canons change.

Second, canons are not always based on form. I always tell my students that art does not exist in a vacuum. It has to interact with all the other forces in society and culture. For example, whether we like it or not, one can be called an "artist" for no other reason than hanging out and being "in" with the right people. Others manage be called artists from having figured out a successful marketing strategy. Still others get to be called artists because they died under controversial, mysterious or tragic circumstances. On the other hand, some become revered as artists not necessarily of technical, but conceptual and theoretical contributions. Andy Warhol's Campbells Soup image may have, by itself, not been unusually well crafted. But the whole concept and context of "pop" art that he championed shook the art community to its core. That Warhol lived to see his concept not only take root, but evolve further than his original concept is a testament to the value of his contribution.

Many people have the impression of art as emanating and/or residing only in the individual artist or viewer. But we must remember that art also has a social dimension. I'm not saying artists are hostages to society. But the better we knows the political, economic, spiritual, and whatever other aspects of a society and culture, the better we can negotiate our way through the terrain that is called art.

Truly an in depth response, as Pia have mentioned it's a virtual classroon in DPP. Thanks for sharing.

Of course we all know that art is the intentional use of some medium to communicate emotions and/or ideas between minds. And, art occurs in at least one level of abstraction removed from reality, a representation of the real thing.
There is no requirement of beauty in art. Indeed, some of the highest quality in art is attained by some of the ugliest things. :)