0
This is such a hard concept. Most people end up confusing "art" with artistic, or pretty, or creative. All of which are necessarily subjective.
I don't think I have yet found an answer to this that I am completely happy with but the closest I have come is: "Anything that serves no other purpose".
I think this serves very well but I feel uncomfortable with the lack of creative responsibility (for want of a better phrase).
A pile of discarded junk may well be art, but not if it is simply discarded.
Perhaps you need to accept as implied a measure of creative input on some level.
But some of the greatest frescoes or the most illuminating aboriginal paintings are really no more than narratives to accompany biblical stories or folklore so if you interpret this as a "purpose" does it make them any less "art".
I think if you strip it right down then the definition works but you need to be so detached that it kind of makes the "art" irrelevant. I think this is the problem with things like the turner. It's not that it isn't art - it's just that if it is - or isn't - So What?
Anyway - happy contemplating!
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Professor
Rene
EzraThe objective of learning art is not just to learn how to draw lines on paper. It is a way for curtain people to express themself in a different way from just talking, when you can make it look beautiful too. To others it is a hobbie showing others your skills in drawing instead of saying it out loud.
So the main objective of art would be that you learn how to express you views and what you see in things in a visual way, so everyone can see what you see or have seen.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What was the design objective of the art and architecture ancient Greece?
an ancient Greece
Which is false according to Duchamp's definition of art A art is the depiction of objective beauty B anyone could be an artist C art has no intrinsic value D the artist's designation creates art?
the artist's designation creates art
How does a nonobjective work of art become the least abstract form of art?
A truly abstract work of art is derived from an actual object or things in the real world, something found in nature that the artist has 'abstracted'. A non objective work of art has no ties to any real world objects or things and so it is not an abstraction of anything, it is aptly named, non objective.
What step in art criticism involves listing the things that are presented or actually seen in the work of art?
This step is usually called description, which includes an objective list of the elements of the art, its composition, and its medium.
What is the difference in nonobjective art and literal art?
Literal art would involve at least some form that is recognisable e.g. a bird. Non objective work is unrecognisable as anything other than itself e.g. a black square. The problem of course is that a black square may look like other black squares or as you may have imagined a black square to look or indeed the night sky. Hence is there really such a condition as non-objective for socialised humans?
