The Meaning Of 42

[Stratadrake]

I'm mildly surprised that we don't have this sort of topic already. Maybe we do, but I couldn't find it (and I searched, too).

Throughout the ages, there has always been "art". You know, stuff like paintings and sculpture. All the stuff that's hundreds and even thousands of years old and displayed in art museums, that is considered "art".

But with the more modern arrival of tihngs like abstract and dada, where a series of splashes on canvas can sell for millions, one kinda starts to think: Just what IS art, anyway?

So far, it seems that art is a lot like porn: You can't really define it, but you know it when you see it.

But . . . there's gotta be a meaning in there somewhere. Just what is it?

Give some thought to it. What is the criteria you use that you can look at one thing and say "that's definitely [i]art[/i]", or look at another thing and dismiss it as otherwise?

What does it take for something to qualify as "art"? Is it possible to draw a line in the proverbial sand and say "everything on this side is ART. Everything on that side is not" ? If so, what exactly is that line separating art from the rest?

With all this said, let's kick open the discussion and see what comes out.
_________________
Strata here: [url=http://www.nanowrimo.org/eng/user/242293]Nanowrimo[/url] - [url=www.fanart-central.net/user-Stratadrake.php]FAC[/url] - [url=http://stratadrake.deviantart.com]dA[/url] - [url=www.furaffinity.net/user/Stratadrake/]FA[/url]
[size=9]Disclaimer: Posts may contain URLs. Click [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife]at your own risk.[/url][/size]

[Lexar]

There is a difference between art now, and what used to be art.

For example, portrait painters from the middle ages painted portraits for a living, not for the art. It was a profession that was more like that of a photographer for events.
It's not untill the beginning of the previous century that you start to get artists, in the sense that they make art for, the art of it.

I'd say people can always tell art from other things because it is a reflection of human thoughts, an expression of some sort. That's why the scream or van goghs sunflowers are so beautifull, they give an insight in the human mind. For example, fanart of inuyasha, isn't really art to me, but more a sort of reproduction skill, just like most singers today are entertainers instead of artists.

[cstdenis]

The only differnace between art and porn is a government grant.
_________________
You will obey or molten silver will be poured into your ears.

[fallenangel]

Anything that has a purpose of expression can qualify as art. Whether it's [i]good[/i] art or not is up to the individual looking at it. I don't like the whole canvas of solid color or a seemingly random pile of junk that is a "sculpture", but to some people it has a purpose. Though whether or not it sells for millions relies on how well the creator can BS some frilly description for it.

I see no problem with fanart being art. Sure, it's not your original subject, but neither is drawing a picture using a model. It's what the person does with the subject that makes it art or not.
_________________
"I care about people as much as I care about lawn furniture" - Dexter/Michael C. Hall

[isami]

Hmm. Artistic Porn? XD

I agree with fallen. Art is something with the purpose of expression through some sort of medium, be it visual, musical, or verbal (writing). Not all things that have expression can be concidered art, but they tend to have some sort of artistic value and such.

Art is also extremely subjective. What one person thinks is artisically brilliant, another will say is a bunch of unthought chaotic mish-mash. It happens.

One man's trash is another man's treasure, so they say.

Fanart (fanfiction, all sorts of fandom, actually), in a way, is the ulitimae art. I mean, when you think about it, the purpose of it all is to express what YOU personally feel or think about whoever and whomever.

damn, do I sound pretensious enough? Haha, damn NY art school is eating my brain.

[Lexar]

Fanart can't be the ultimate artform, because it is basically making art out of the creations and expressions of other people.

Art needs meaning and although it depends, it also needs a certain originality. If it's an endless reproduction, it becomes generic. That was also the idea duchamps and warhol were working on. Tinkering with the originality of art. warhol's minute made art is world famous now, juts as he wanted, and duchamps' anti-art, well, it's weird. But the fact remains that most forms of art need originality, or it becomes very difficult to tell art from mass production.

Fanart lacks in originality, even if there is a lot of skill involved.

[isami]

I get what you're saying, but I think a lot of times it's how you portray what you're trying to show rather than what it is you're showing. Can you concider a still life or portrait original? not really, you're copying something that's already there, but the way you do it is what counts.

Originality can only go so far. There's a point when nothing seems original anymore. It's hard to come up with things that artists back in the day haven't already.

Some things do get old, like people who just splash paint onto a canvas. Anybody with half a brain can do that, and only the first person to commercialize and revolutionize a style like that will get any sort of credit. Then there are things that never get old. You can pick out what those are.

Anyway, maybe i just have an abnormally large fondess for fanart. *shrugs*

[VR_Jay]

[quote]Can you concider a still life or portrait original? not really, you're copying something that's already there, but the way you do it is what counts.[/quote]

In that case, [i]nothing[/i] is original. Of course art is, as you put it, "copying something that is already there." Art is a reflection of life. Even abstract art is trying to capture fealing and emotion.

[quote]Some things do get old, like people who just splash paint onto a canvas. Anybody with half a brain can do that, and only the first person to commercialize and revolutionize a style like that will get any sort of credit.[/quote]

That would be Pollack, and his paintings were anything but random. All of his works have perfect composition of color and line. As random as some of them may seem, a great amout of thought went into each of his peices. If you have ever watched the man paint, you would know that he was a creative genius.

[quote]Originality can only go so far. There's a point when nothing seems original anymore. It's hard to come up with things that artists back in the day haven't already.[/quote]

Actually, new styles and movements are developing all the time.

I do not see fanart as art, becuase what it is is a regurgitation of someone else's material. Notice: I am not saying it is bad. Many great artists practice by recreating works by other people. It's great for improving and conditioning your skills. What you should strive for is your own original works and characters, not a recreation of someone else's.
_________________
[img]http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y47/VR_Jay/Anti_Commecial_Banners_by_Nevar530.jpg[/img] [img]http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y47/VR_Jay/th_myvsweetkiss1xc.gif[/img]

[color=black]"Your toast is burnt and no amount of scraping will remove the black stuff!" ~ Caboose, Red vs. Blue[/color]