Tell me your philosophy on Art NOW!!

[Anonymous No.6336653]

Everyone has a different interpretation of what makes art "art". But if what you don't see as art is not art, then what is it? Can only some things be art, or is everything art? Tell me tell me tell me. This art community intrigues the hell out of me so TELL ME NOW

[Anonymous No.6336754]

Just depends on personal opinion. The safest definition in my opinion is that art is everything that humans create that doesn't serve any material purpose or need. Something that evolutionarily we do not need to survive or even to thrive, but we make it nonetheless just to express ourselves. And some things can be partially artistic but still serve some material purposes. Like, we don't have to live in a house that is anything more than a concrete box with a door. But the artistry is adding windows, siding, carpeting, brickwork, etc. Almost everything we make has some kind of artistic flair to it, almost nothing is 100% efficient. Even rockets that go to space which is probably the best example of something we make to be as efficient as possible, we still feel the need to paint it, polish it, put in little windows for the astronauts, etc. Everything we do has a touch of art in it.

[Anonymous No.6336760]

Life is art.

[Anonymous No.6336966]

Art is art. Not all art is necessarily good. All art means something to the person who made it and to the person who is on the receiving end. Not all art has tons of meaning though. Beauty is meaning as well. Science and survival is nice and all but art is what makes us human.

[Anonymous No.6336972]

art is when you communicate something that can't be done with other means easily, imho

[Anonymous No.6336974]

AI art is art but it's also shit art

[Anonymous No.6336978]

art is when you look at somrthing and you go
>yeah, thats deep bro

[Anonymous No.6336983]

>>6336974
if that were true you wouldn't feel threatened by it

[Anonymous No.6337387]

>>6336983
I don't feel threatened by it, I hate subpar images that aren't even touched up flooding art sites because someone is (you) starved.

[Anonymous No.6337401]

>>6336754
>The safest definition in my opinion is that art is everything that humans create that doesn't serve any material purpose or need
As I grow, I believe that a definition like this steams from a faulty premise. I am not trying to refute your idea, as my own in barely half formed and is more akin to a vibe.
I think that for a number of people, living a life based around being 100% efficient would be a painful and soul sapping experience. Yes, they would have their bodily needs to survive from day to day, but what would really keep them going? What would give them the energy and drive to continue living their life? What would inspire them to continue to live?
I feel that the invisible, internal portion of humans, their thoughts, their perspectives, their views of the world and how it makes them feel, are just as important as the external portions. If a man has a good job, can pay all his bills, can eat well, but is a hollow husk with no fire in him, is he really 'alive'?

As said before, this is a still forming thought in my head, and I'd hardly say it's fleshed out enough to really see prime time, but I felt this thread would be a good place to share it. Especially, as it ties in to my own ideas of the arts.

[Anonymous No.6337470]

>>6337401
I agree, we make art because we obviously have an emotional, mental, spiritual need for it. My point with the rocket ship is that we can't stand being 100% efficient. That's why even the most insane pieces of machinery, we paint them to give a human touch. Same with the mars rovers, there's no use to give them names or a fucking selfie camera (lol) yet we do. And it's a beautiful thing. If we didn't make art we'd cease to be human.

[Anonymous No.6337557]

As long as theres a form of communication, its art. Even an artist expressing how much he loves makima's big ass through artwork.

[Anonymous No.6337603]

>>6337387
>I hate subpar images
lol the standard anti ai bad faith argument, 'it's not that it's ai that i don't like it, it's that it makes bad images that's the reason i don't like it', objectively false, the fact that it makes good images is why you don't like it, your criteria for assessing an image is, was it made by ai? yes, then i shall declare it an ugly picture, you aren't judging based on aesthetic qualities at all

[Anonymous No.6337607]

>>6337470
whats so great about being human though? reject it.

[Anonymous No.6337619]

>>6337607
return to monke?

[Anonymous No.6337670]

>>6337603
Would it be better to say AI is capable of creating good artwork instead of art?

[Anonymous No.6337703]

>>6336653
Art is "right reason in the making of things."
>recta ratio factibilium
The goal of art is to enrich and edify its audience, it does this by the means of aesthetics and beauty.
Two types of art are the servile and the fine arts
servile arts or Artes mechanicae includes stuff like carpentry, stonemasonry, industrial design, architecture, etc
Fine arts is painting, drawing, sculpture etc.

Art is not about "expressing yourself." It's not about stating your case or your personal message.
While art can and regularly does do these things, that is not the substance of art. The true substance of art is in the creation itself, a way in which we (the artist) may reflect the divine.

[Anonymous No.6337704]

>>6337703
I'll also say that there is some overlap in what constitutes servile and fine art

[Anonymous No.6337911]

>>6336653
One definition of art that i heard is "that which provides no survival value, but which gives value to survival"

[Anonymous No.6337913]

>>6336754
>>6336966
>>6337911
Based
>>6337703
Cringe

[Anonymous No.6337918]

>>6336653
I used to care but now im apathetic and have a rick and morty tier opinion on art. Art is just a production. Differentiation of things as Art or Not art is not a real discussion and just something academics discuss to fellate themselves. If someone does stupid shit you disagree with it has nothing to do with the actual truth or reality of your made up categories and more to do with simple power and the fact that humans will do anything and believe anything if its presented to them as truth. "the Emperor has no clothes", but not only is he naked, be he is also a corpse and that corpse was stolen form its grace long ago to be puppeted around by a bunch of children in the bodies of old men who like to play adult by mimicking the complex words the saw in books they hated growing up.

[Anonymous No.6337924]

>>6337703
This is pretty much bang on. It is what created the highest art and the mindset required to reach those standards again.

[Anonymous No.6337927]

>>6336983
>if that were true you wouldn't feel threatened by it
prompt this, poojeet

[Anonymous No.6337935]

>>6337703
This sounds like it means very little if one does not believe in the divine.

[Anonymous No.6337942]

>prescriptive definition
cringe
>descriptive definition
based

[Anonymous No.6337963]

>>6336983
But nobody is feeling threatened by it. It's mostly pajeet headcannon and an idea created by the shills.
Everyone knows that ai-"art" is shit and it looks terrible and it's also completely worthless already.

[Anonymous No.6337966]

I draw what i see so I can better draw what I want to see. Everything else feels like an unnecessary distraction.

[Anonymous No.6338028]

>>6336653
I am platonist
I accept many things as art, it just means most art is very bad and evil. Some people dont like to call this or that art which seems to me like fetishized understanding of art. If its only rhetoric thens its OK just like saying "fast food is not food" or something.

[Anonymous No.6338050]

>>6336653
art is creating what makes you happy. :)

[Anonymous No.6338102]

>>6337927
you guys alway say things like
>it has to convey a message and intent to be art
what does this picture of girl being sucked into the shitter convey?

[Anonymous No.6338106]

>>6338102
The artist captured his feeling of having diarrhoea while having lunch at school

[Anonymous No.6338151]

>>6337963
>But nobody is feeling threatened by it
Go to any video about AI art on YouTube and look at the blackpilled comments

[Anonymous No.6338157]

>>6338151
YouTube comments are an objective and accurate way of polling a certain part of the population.

[Anonymous No.6338159]

>>6336653
Intent and effort, though the second has been thrown in the gutter since the past century.

[Anonymous No.6338167]

>>6336653
Art to me is any physical manifestation of someone's creativity

Practical or impractical, architecture? That's art, a bow adorned with patterns streaking across the limbs and handle? Art, the fully rendered graphite drawing of a cock on the bathroom stall no one wants to erase because it looks good, Strange choice but Art.
I am seeing a lot of discussion on AI art here so here's my take on the table, The images the machine, not even a machine it's a script on the machine following it's instructions and training, the AI makes beautiful works but not Art. And any numbskull who proompts are probably justified to call their prompts as "art" as it is their creativity brought to life but ultimately the work of visualization is left to the machine, who then spits out it's work according to our proompter's orders. The AI did not make Art and the proompter claiming the image as their art is wrong, it's not your work and it's certainly not a work of art, it's just a piece of work.

[Anonymous No.6338171]

>>6338167
>creativity
Define creativity.

[Anonymous No.6338180]

>>6338171
Ah shit hold on then let me rack my head, my fault for using a vague term without definition.

A mental urge to create, it doesn't have to be something new or something that's never existed but if you're brain put 2 and 2 together and starts urging you to bring it to life then you're feeling creative.
Or at least that's my definition without looking it up on Google

[Anonymous No.6338184]

>>6338180
Example:
A human willingly throws paint on a canvas.
Is this art?
Another example:
A human willingly puts three words into an AI art generator.
Is this art?

[Anonymous No.6338194]

>>6338184
>Splatter of paint on a canvas
I guess so, it's annoying to look at and the idea that someone entertained this idea in their head long enough to do it kind of scares me, I hate it but it is what it is

>Pumping words into an AI
The words typed into the bar? Yeah sure I guess since poetry and literature is art (different category but yeah) but it's more of a step to finishing the work rather than a finished piece of art

[Anonymous No.6338197]

>>6338194
Would a fluid paint artwork count as art? Isn't it also about giving up control of the finished piece?

[Anonymous No.6338207]

>>6338197
What the fuck is that, it's like a deep fried meme that's been swirled effect and the goddamn color pallete isn't helping me convince myself otherwise.
Whoever had the urge to create this should be forced to lick whatever paint ran off the canvas

[Anonymous No.6338211]

>>6338207
I agree. This one here is prettier.

[Anonymous No.6338226]

>>6338211
I mean hey at least on this one I can see what they're trying to do or I am confident that whoever made it had a plan in mind and not just dump a bunch bottle on the canvas

Looks like an overview of a saturated forest canopy while you're tripping on balls

Both are Art but I appreciate this one more

[Anonymous No.6338347]

>>6338207
A sunset landscape of mountain ranges and rivers

[Anonymous No.6338371]

>>6337913
retard

[Anonymous No.6339347]

>>6338226
>both are art
Jesus H McFucking Christ

[Anonymous No.6339362]

>>6338197
do the colors keep separate from each other? is this what make the paint special? like oil n water not mixing

[Anonymous No.6341431]

>>6336653
Idk, I really don't care to explain it. All I know is that most people don't care about visual art in particular and that art is something that has more meaning to the artist than the common folk. Anything can be art, not everything is good art and not all art holds value, that's on the viewer to come to whatever conclusion they may come to.

[Anonymous No.6341730]

Art is a meaningless word, just like "good" or "bad".

You have to make comparisons in order to establish whether something has redeeming qualities.

[Anonymous No.6342556]

The perpetual and uniquely human struggle to manifest imaginations, thoughts, and feelings in a way beyond simple dialogue. Many things cannot be expressed in conversation alone, and that is where art comes in. Yes, even cheesy comics, smut, and art done "just for for fun" falls into that as, in the grander scheme, it is a glance into the creator's mind - an opportunity to learn something about them that they would otherwise never think of saying outright, and may not even be self-aware of.

It is shallow interests and desires which result in shallow art; good art, be it in subject matter or execution, is a reflection of true passion either for the craft itself, or for what is being expressed. However, you're right; everyone has their own definition of what makes art what it is, and that in itself is why art...is art...and not so easy to put in a box.

[Anonymous No.6342646]

>>6336653
Art is like silence, once you say its name, it doesnt exist anymore like a dream is only interesting to the party concerned. Once you know its a dream, the experience is all you have left.
Long winded way of saying art is subjective

[Anonymous No.6342657]

Smoke weed and jam tunes and gradually lose my sanity
https://youtube.com/watch?v=f3XcNskAxp0

Just kidding about the sanity part, im on too hard meds to go insane :)

[Anonymous No.6342660]

>>6336653
always has been, always will be

[Anonymous No.6344734]

I define art as a concept in a medium that makes you feel something, even if the feeling is “this is dumb” or “I could make that”.

That you reacted to its existence makes it art, and that is its meaning to you. Looking at a Jackson Pollak piece and thinking “it’s just paint splatters” renders its personal meaning to you of “I believe art is representative, not abstract”, then leads you to a more rich understanding of the art you do like.

[Anonymous No.6347563]

>>6337703
>Art is not about "expressing yourself." It's not about stating your case or your personal message.
art does not need a message
propaganda is not art

[Anonymous No.6347569]

>>6336653
Art is what I shit, look at and feel warm. AI can't do that yet

[Anonymous No.6347570]

jannie trannie is mad at me

[Anonymous No.6347680]

if you really have to ask, it isn't.

[Anonymous No.6347744]

>>6336653
think of the following phrases:

>the art of making a table
>the art of pottery
>the art of composition
>it's an art, not a science

That's basically what art is to me. A skill or endeavor that is not rigidly algorithmic (i.e. science, math, etc) and is in the pursuit of an ideal/perfection. It requires an ideal to work toward and a method of achieving that ideal that improves with practice and self-development.

The toilet in the OP is technically art but it's the art of trickery and manipulation. Usually if I refer to something as "art" without any further context, I mean a visually-oriented skill or work that attempts to represent beauty in some way can be improved with practice.

[Anonymous No.6347755]

>>6337935
Yes. Art requires the existence of objective good and order. Otherwise everything is subjective and humans can determine value and morality based on literally nothing.

>Pooping on a canvas is equally as valuable as the greatest symphonies
>Why? Because I said so.

To disagree with the above requires you to submit to reason and logic that exists beyond human whims. It requires objectivity which itself requires an ultimate truth and order to the universe that cannot be changed based on feelings and opinions. Divinity is how we refer to that ultimate truth.

[Anonymous No.6348881]

Art=results. It's meaningless without an observer. It's kind of like "the customer is always right." If you don't "get it," then I fucked up.
The mind of your observer is unknowable, only his reaction matters.

[Anonymous No.6348890]

>>6336653
We like traditionally beautiful art for the same reason we like healthy looking things and not rotting corpses. It's natural.

Traditional art appears healthy and welcoming.
Weird modern art appears dangerous and unhealthy so we are naturally repulsed by it,
and people who have been conditioned through society to geniunely believe they enjoy modern art and despise traditional art. Those people are mentally ill

[Anonymous No.6348894]

>>6348890
we are naturally drawn to shiny things.
This is natural. It is our instinct towards shiny fruit that tells us it is safe to eat.

Shininess is beautiful, and the same applies to all other aspects of traditionally beautiful art.
Cleanliness is hygenic, beatiful forms either on a figure or even just abstractly reveal health and fertility.
The light brings warmth and growth. We are comfortable in it, we can see.
The night brings out dangerous predators and obstructs are vision to see them

[Anonymous No.6348900]

If you have fun that's all you need
At least, that's what I want to be true but I don't know how to not make the learning process soul sucking

[Anonymous No.6349778]

>>6348890
I think it's slightly more complicated than that. The two things that we're most strongly drawn towards are:

1) truth
2) novelty

Traditional art represents truth while modern art represent novelty. I think it's worth noting we will always come back to truth but novelty continually reinvents itself. Novel art will continually become outdated and replaced by even more novel art until traditional art becomes novel once more (what's old is new).

[Anonymous No.6349787]

>>6348890
>modern art
do you mean modern art as in the art 20th century art movement called modern art or are you using the term in the manner those unfamiliar with the art world use it, to mean contemporary art?

[Anonymous No.6349801]

>>6349778
>Traditional art represents truth
are you quite sure about that? when was the last time you saw a group of winged infants flying around a naked lady on a huge seashell floating across the sea? looks to me like a 19th century fantasy image based on the mythology of ancient rome, about as surreal an image as something salvador dali might come up with

[Anonymous No.6349810]

>>6349801
I don't mean true, I mean truth. That notion that objective beauty and a fundamental nature of humanity exists. Traditional art represents that ideal.

[Anonymous No.6350325]

Art is a language that cannot be fully expressed (as far as we know) without the sum of all it parts through all available senses. Its significance is determined through context as is effectively every facet of reality. It is through art we can feel things or understand that cannot be put into words nor easily conceptualized. I consider it a demonstration of the beyond or a creation of different worlds and realities more rich and intriguing than this one. Effective art consists of a harmony of elements like a beautifully choreographed scene or animation synced to music rather than just the theme by itself.

All this subjectivism/relativism running amok in the 21st century are goofy and absurd deconstructions posing as thought experiments to paint everything with a gray brushed. You're not getting around your art fundamentals with rhetoric. Axioms are axioms.

[Anonymous No.6350359]

Art is a sum of humanity really. It’s special to us but not special between people. It’ll never occur again for the rest of time so it’s good to cherish all of it, no matter how good or bad it might be to you personally. In the next ecosystem when there’s something new instead of art, you might miss it quite a bit.

[Anonymous No.6350526]

>>6336653
Art is anything created to convey feelings, thought or emotions. You could call it a form of communication.
A human creating a sculpture or a drawing, even a shitty or pointless looking one, seeks to convey something words cannot.

A natural landscape or a rock formation can be called beautiful, but it isn't art. An AI piecing together images when prompted like a McDonalds terminal isn't art. A banana stapled to a wall or an upside down urinal aren't art, they're (more or less relevant) statements.

[Anonymous No.6352660]

>>6350526
this

[Anonymous No.6352684]

Art comes from genuine personal intent for self-satisfaction, but I'm sorta muddy about it. If at some point you have to fly by the edge of your pants (Making a paint accident on a real canvas and using it as part of the final piece, not knowing what you're making until you're done, crossing fingers that an AI is gonna cooperate etc) then its not art.
Would also go as far as saying that if you're an artist working at a company who has to create an extremely easily marketable and focus tested character i.e. that new black guy they added to League, it's also not art, but fanart of him is probably still art.

[Anonymous No.6353062]

>>6336653
Everything I don't like is not art. Simple as

[Anonymous No.6353075]

>>6336653
Art is a fake job, a psyop created by like. It should be terminated when camera was invented as it have purpose of record things has been lost. Now with AI, artist should go flip burger and learn to code as they useless now.

[Anonymous No.6353081]

>>6353075
SIR PLEASE DO THE NEEDFUL

[Anonymous No.6353093]

>>6353082
probably shills and this is one of their images on rotation

[Anonymous No.6353342]

>>6336653
anything can be considered art. it's a waste of time to debate what is and isn't art.
instead the focus should be on what is considered *good* art

[Anonymous No.6353364]

>>6336653
FOUR Objective CRITERIA of ART
>contrary to a popular dumbass belief, "objective" doesn't mean "I'm correct."
>it simply means divorcing from your personal preferences. Although these criteria are my view on art, they are not related to my personal beliefs and aren't constructed to only include what I like and exclude what I dislike.

The criteria are not absolute, they are more akin to sliders from 0 to 100.
Scoring low on all 4 results in complete soulless trash.
Scoring high on all 4 is the masterpieces that we cherish

Criterion 1: ART CAPTURES BEAUTY OF THE NATURAL WORLD
>therefore, capturing ugliness is not artistic

Criterion 2: ART IS BORN FROM A UNIQUE, CREATIVE MIND
>therefore, mass-produced, automated (AI) or derivative work is not art

Criterion 3: ART IS MADE VIA SKILLFUL, TRAINED BODY
>therefore, a beginner's shoddy work is less artistic than a master's

Criterion 4: ART IS MADE WITH THE SOLE GOAL OF ACHIEVING GODHOOD THROUGH CREATIVITY
>therefore, art for money or fame or any other reasons than godhood, is not art

[Anonymous No.6353369]

>>6353364
>ACHIEVING GODHOOD THROUGH CREATIVITY
get behind me satan

[Anonymous No.6353396]

>>6336653
It appeals to me personally on a fundamental level.

[Anonymous No.6354034]

>>6353369
It's okay, you won't always be 12 years old

[Anonymous No.6356032]

This thread kills the AI demoralizers.

[Anonymous No.6356884]

>>6336653
Art the result of expressing an idea or experience using a medium, with beauty as a fundamental and ESENTIAL part of the product.
That is, it covers absolutely everything that non retarded people consider art and excludes everything that is obviously not.
>Is an Ikea manual for a cair art?
No, because it was made with a practical intend, and just with that. Even if had pretty images or something, it wouldn't be art because it was not an essential part of the product.
>Is my shitty novel art?
Yes
>Is a rock, nature, and the sky art?
No, it was not made with intention
>Is AI art, art?
No, the AI doesn't create with intention.

[Anonymous No.6357920]

>>6336653
art is an appealing picture thing or story