what is art... to you?

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by Locket, Jan 11, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Locket

    Locket Well-Known Member

    i think it's something that takes skill... you have to have talent and patience with it.
    but it's something that we create, that the artist automatically feels attached to because he/she created it - and we do that to express ourselves.
    it's basically a piece of ourselves.
    it can be expressed through so many different forms of media, and in so many different ways... that, even though it takes such skill and talent... everyone has the ability to do it. to create it.
  2. Hurted

    Hurted Well-Known Member

    I don't think that you always need talent.

    For example, you can learn to play piano without any talent.

    But i agree that in many cases you need talent, and it's important that you are creative and that you use emotions.
  3. Ziggy

    Ziggy Antiquitie's Friend

    To me, I like art that challenges my own personal worldview. Something that challenges my ideas, or helps me to see things from the perspective of another person. If you listen to a Beethoven symphony you can appreciate it because you think it's a nice tune, but you can appreciate it more if you know a bit about what the composer was trying to say, if he makes you think about what he's written.

    (It's like my avatar, it's a silly grinning face with the letters DOB. It has a meaning behind it. And it's that meaning which makes it important to me)
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 11, 2009
  4. Hurted

    Hurted Well-Known Member

    That's true. It's also important that the music is not shit, like most of it today is (without any creativity...)

    Speaking about Beethoven (I love him!), this is a beatiful piece written by him:

  5. ACRon

    ACRon Well-Known Member

    retorical question?

    i tend to go with the idea that art is a form of expression
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 11, 2009
  6. Random

    Random Well-Known Member

    You may be able to learn how to play the piano clinically without any talent but I have a hard time believing anyone could really play it emotionally and expressively without any talent. And certainly, major improvisation would probably not be very likely with an untalented player.

    Even the force with which the keys are struck is very important to how the music sounds. Expression is an important part of what makes something art.
  7. wheresmysheep

    wheresmysheep Staff Alumni

    art for me, comes in many different forms.

    the beauty of a realistic form, is completely different form the beauty of a piece form the impressionist era. same as a piece form Beethoven is beautiful in different ways again.

    so at the end of it all i suppose art is in the eye of the beholder
  8. Hurted

    Hurted Well-Known Member

    I agree to some point.

    To play concert level pieces you need talent.

    But with a lot of practice everyone can come to an early advanced level:)
  9. Random

    Random Well-Known Member

    I guess what I was getting at is that someone who has no talent would be hard pressed to take a piece of music and interpret it in their own way. A no talent player will always just be banging out the notes as he/she sees them on the sheet. They understand how something is supposed to be played in the same way that a CD player understands how to play a CD. The person who made the CD will always be the artist and the CD player will always be an instrument.
  10. Hurted

    Hurted Well-Known Member

    Not necessary.

    I have no talent, but i can play some late intermediate pieces like Schubert impromptu op.90 no.2, 2nd mvt of Moonlight sonata...Interpretation is far away from good, but its not just banging notes and playing without any dynamic...:)

    Do you play piano?
  11. Epical Taylz

    Epical Taylz Well-Known Member

    this has nothing to do with piano :X
    so i dont know if i have a right to interject my opinion

    i have no artistic talents, however i enjoy making things. everything that i make has a meaning which other people may not be able to comprehend unless they know absolutely everything about me, which is no one at the moment.

    example: i make signs for people, and a lot of them have a bee trail

    (bee) - - - - - - - - -
    one of those ^^
    except more creative.

    most people would think "oh how cute" but theres meaning. purpose, which i dont feel like explaining.

    also its like how people dress to express how theyre feeling
    how you dress is an art, i believe

    i dont know, im probably wayy off :[
  12. xan

    xan Chat Buddy

  13. fromthatshow

    fromthatshow Staff Alumni

    I did a paper on this in philosophy class.
    I think that everything is art because at any time anyone could claim anything art and no one could argue because if it is art to you it IS art. Therefore, everything is art because of it's potential to be claimed as such :)
  14. wheresmysheep

    wheresmysheep Staff Alumni

    what i was trying to say, just said in a fancy way :laugh:
  15. aki

    aki Well-Known Member

    erm expression, honesty...sometimes beauty...but a lot of the time making ugly things beautiful....or changing your perspective so you can appreciate ugliness...
  16. Summer.Rain

    Summer.Rain Well-Known Member

    Art is a form of self expression
    the better you express yourself and your inner world the higher is the quality of your art
  17. plates

    plates Well-Known Member

    destroying things. making things. asking questions all the time. never giving in. :smile:
  18. plates

    plates Well-Known Member

  19. JohnADreams

    JohnADreams Well-Known Member

    Art used to be self expression, often with the intention of invoking an emotional response in the observer. Now it's cutting animals in half and defecating into tuna cans.
  20. Locket

    Locket Well-Known Member

    i agree
    i seriously hate the way "art" is going
    just because something has a 'meaning' behind it, doesn't mean it's art
    like the big blue square in the tate modern... sold for 300thousand
    just because "it's originality hidden in ordinary"
    likewise with jackson pollock (the link in someones post before) ... got famous for throwing paint at a canvas... some people say you can see things in his work, you just have to look hard... that's utter ****! he just threw paint at a canvas and said it was art.

    that's why i say it takes skill and talent.
    and also, the music thing... yes someone can be trained to play a piece on the piano... but they didn't CREATE that piece... therefore it's not their art, it's somebody elses, and that person was the artist.
    music, painting, craftmanship... that sort of thing
    traditional forms of art... they're the best, the easiest to appreciate
    and to have a really good piece of art... it has to be easy enough to appreciate for the majority to think it's good... a shame in some cases, but that's just the way it works.

    that's my opinion anyway.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.