My idealistic definition of art is as follows:
Experimental forms of communication of non-trivial ideas.
Anyone has a better one?
>>877069
>Experimental
Right of the bat, we run into bullshit. Most art is not new, nearly all of it is based on previous methods
>Communication
So art has to have a message? It has to be clear?
>Non-trivial
Defining this is even more complicated than the word art
Artis a diverse range ofhuman activitiesin creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts –artworks, expressing the author's imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power.
Art is that which does not occur naturally. See: artifice.
>>877769
that is only descriptive
>>877590
>Most art is not new, nearly all of it is based on previous methods
Yeah but my point is that the methods are experimental in nature.
>So art has to have a message?
Yes, but ""artsits"" make meaningless stuff, and let people decide which gives the illusion that there was one to begin with.
> >Non-trivial
It's only there to make a difference between what message needs or doesn't need art to be communicated. Not really artistic to dance in order to ask someone for the time.
>>877069
youre more or less accurate, except other than ideas art can communicate, convey or evoke other forms of experience , like emotions, perceptions, ''states of being'' etc...
Will James Pollock be hated by the painting community once this abstract post modernism fad wears off?
>>877069
That's a nice one, OP. The painting I mean.
>>877069
"Art is essentially affirmation, blessing, deification of existence [...] there is no such thing as pessimistic art" — Nietzsche
"The purpose of art is to give pleasure, full stop — and this applies even to the tragedy, the most extreme seemingly 'pessimistic' artform" — Alex Kierkegaard
It doesn't get more precise than this.
>>877069
So creating an exact forgery of a painting isn't art?
>>879594
>Will Pablo Picasso be hated by the painting community once this Cubism fad wears off?
>>880085
the painting no, the performance maybe
“The sense of beauty puts a brake upon destruction, by representing its object as irreplaceable. When the world looks back at me with my eyes, as it does in aesthetic experience, it is also addressing me in another way. Something is being revealed to me, and I am being made to stand still and absorb it. It is of course nonsense to suggest that there are naiads in the trees and dryads in the groves. What is revealed to me in the experience of beauty is a fundamental truth about being - the truth that being is a gift, and receiving it is a task. This is a truth of theology that demands exposition as such.”
― Roger Scruton
Pic related, probably my favourite Churchill painting
>>877069
Art is some dope shit you do because it's dope. It's dope because it's dope. It doesn't have to do anything but be dope.
>>877069
>Dada
The only way to define something is by looking at its opposite.
I believe that Art is Technology to capture the past. This can be compared to Technology which I believe is Art to progress toward the future.
>>879960
I like it
I like that guy's paint splatters even though he was a bourgeois shill. Art that is meant to represent something other than art first is cancer though. When the concept comes before the actual art it's time to fuck off.
>>880104
he is hated tho
art is the expression of ideas and/or "ability" through ANY medium, for better or for worse
>>881886
why ability?
>>877069
>idealism of art
bringing back a dead meme are we?
>>882046
theres probably a reason it's in quotations
