What is art? This question has been debated by philosophers, artists, and critics since long before there were colleges in which to debate such things. Despite how frequently the question is asked and answered, it doesn’t seem to get any closer to a real answer.
Taste, of course, is at the center of this debate. There are those who will tell you that anything can be art if it is viewed as such. And there are those who will tell you that nothing can be considered art if it does not have a specified intentionality.
Many would argue that the whole discussion is pointless. After all, whether something is or isn’t art really depends on the viewer and their interpretation of the piece in question. While this may be true in some cases, it doesn’t apply to every single piece of art out there. Some works are simply very obviously art while others seem to lack even the possibility of being considered so.
This blog provides a list of questions that should help you determine whether or not something is an example of “art” or a “work of art.” You may find this helpful when attempting to make your own determination about something you might find interesting for whatever reason
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “art” as: “the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.” How do you know if something is a work of art? Is it art if it just seems like it is? What if it’s beautiful but doesn’t express anything?
Art has been around for thousands of years. If it’s something that can be defined and can be broken down into a list of characteristics, why are there so many different definitions? It’s because the definition of art is constantly evolving. Art isn’t one particular thing. It’s a lot of different things that aren’t always part of the same category.
This blog discusses the nature of this term, who makes art and why we should consider them artists. The author also discusses how ‘art’ has become an industry and what that means for the true definition.
There are many people who don’t understand what a work of art is, because it is a very hard thing to define. All works of art are different and that makes it even harder to understand what a work of art is. A work of art can be a painting or drawing, but it can also be a sculpture or even plays or fiction books.
Trying to define what an object is, and whether it qualifies as a work of art, can be really difficult. It’s important to understand what you are seeing in front of you and how to interpret it in terms of the artist’s intentions. For example, some works of art depict gods and goddesses, while others show ordinary people doing ordinary things. The point of view you have and the amount of attention you pay to the details will help you define what that piece is all about.
Art has been around for many years now and although there is no one definition for art, many people agree that art can change the way we see things around us and make us think differently about things that happen in our lives. Artists use different media such as paint or sculpture to express their feelings about life or about people in general.
What makes art “art,” and what makes a work of art “a work of art?”
Can a work of art be something other than an “art piece”? Is it possible to have a work of art that is not an example of an artist’s artistic style, or that is not an example of the artist’s style in any way?
Art critics seem to think so. They use the term “work of art” when they actually mean “art piece.” So do artists. So do members of the general public. But if you think about it, there must be a difference between the two terms, because how can something be both an artwork and a work of art?
The confusion arises because people don’t understand what “a work of art” actually means. It means something with aesthetic content that has been deliberately created by human creativity rather than by nature.
I’d like to suggest that “art” is anything a person (or group of people) thinks is art.
I’m not joking. There are many examples of this, including things you might dismiss as art and things you might never have considered art.
This definition has the advantage of being simple. It also happens to be true. A lot of people agree with it, and they disagree with each other about art all the time!
But what if you think that “art” is something more than just what someone thinks is art? What if there is some kind of objective standard?
There can be, but it’s not based on the word “art.” It’s based on common usage of other words – specifically, the word “work.”
Let me explain.**
A work of art can be an original or a reproduction. It can be a piece of painted, sculpted, or carved work. The definition is all-inclusive and is not relegated to the fine arts alone.
The definition of a work of art is not limited to being created by a professional. Any person who produces an artwork is considered an artist, as well as any organization that creates an art piece. A non-artist could create something with artistic value and merit even if it is not considered traditional art.
By definition, a work of art has aesthetic value and some kind of message that is conveyed through the use of various visual elements such as color and form. Art engages the viewer emotionally and sometimes intellectually. It may be intended to be humorous or satirical or may simply evoke emotions in the viewer. It can convey political messages or advocate for social change, as well as be more purely aesthetic.*
Works of art are sometimes created using mixed media that incorporates more than one type of material such as fabric, metal, wood and paint on canvas. The materials used are often selected based on their meaning to the artist.*
There’s no real end or beginning to defining what a work of art is; it’s always evolving with time and culture.”
Once upon a time, when I was young and naive, I thought that good writing meant writing that would be good in any era. Writing that didn’t depend on the slang or cultural attitudes of the day. I thought that if a piece of writing were clearly and well written, it was good for all time.
Tastes change, though, and art often looks very different after several decades have passed. I’ve come to appreciate the shifts in style, even though I still like the old styles too.
What sort of things can make an art piece look dated? Not just the clothes or cars or technology. Some art that doesn’t look dated is set in a particular time and place — think of a movie set in the Depression, or a play set in ancient Rome — but there are lots of pieces that are not so fixed.
I’m thinking here of poems by ee cummings or Walt Whitman (or even Shakespeare) or songs by The Beatles. These pieces don’t seem to rely on any particular setting; they could be set in any era and they wouldn’t seem out of place.
There is a lot to like about these pieces and yet — they do seem very different from some other kinds of art.* They don’t invite us to
