Is creation art? | Kinmunity: Otherkin Community

Is creation art?

Discussion in 'Books, Music, & Art' started by Masema, Jan 6, 2016.

  1. Masema

    Masema Hatchling

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2015
    Messages:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    5
    Bones:
    Ƀ30.77
    Primary Identity:
    Therian/Were
    Something n that I have been wondering about... I'd creating a new and exciting thingamajig a form of art? What about lingosynthesis (creating new words or languages)? In other words, what exactly is art?
     
  2. darkreester

    darkreester Spawn
    Hiatus

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2016
    Messages:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bones:
    Ƀ0.00
    Primary Identity:
    Human/Non-Kin
    Creation is a form of expression, and art reflects that expression. So I'd say yes.
     
  3. Grey

    Grey Doodle Dragon
    Staff Member Guardian Dragon

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages:
    498
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Bones:
    Ƀ1,613.77
    Unsettling PhilterBold PhilterChibi DragonGold Dragon CoinFerocious Obsidian DragonGold Otherkin Heptagram
    Primary Identity:
    Draconic
    Mood:
    :sleeping:
    "The Arts" refers to a wide variety of things in modern times. Personally, I prefer a more rigid definition when talking about what "art" is.

    I think that in order for something to be "Art" it has to have been created for aesthetic/ expressionistic purposes only. So I would not say that a specific model of car is art. Even though part of its design may be for aesthetic purposes, it is mostly an object that serves a practical function.

    You can create fantastic new thingamajig and call it art. Just look at kinetic sculpture


    But that's just my definition. Not everyone will agree with me. Some people want the definition of "art" to be completely subjective, but without some standards and regulation then just about anything could be called "art". I believe that in order for art to mean anything at all to us, there needs to be at least some certain standards. My professor says that with art, "every rule has been broken in the 21st century", thus setting a precedent for anyone to break the rules.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  4. Cipher

    Cipher Great Wyrm
    Elder

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2015
    Messages:
    519
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Bones:
    Ƀ845.46
    Black Winged AngelChibi DragonBrimstone Demon
    Primary Identity:
    Demonic
    Mood:
    :relievedface:
    I wouldn't say coining new words is really art since again that serves a functional purpose beyond aesthetics. Fantasy languages, maybe? It would depend on what kind of person you are. A linguist would likely view them as a form of art if they are crafted especially brilliantly, but perhaps the regular person would just see it as another worldbuilding aspect. Fantasy languages are like...art tools. Paint, brushes, etc. They help the art of a written fantasy novel become art.
     
  5. Marz

    Marz A very curious kitty
    Elder Hiatus

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2015
    Messages:
    488
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Bones:
    Ƀ46.46
    Primary Identity:
    Therian/Were
    I think this definition is wonderful! Art really does serve no tangible or practical purpose, but there there are always those tricky little things that get you. Like Soviet Propaganda Textiles. (Google) Created by the top designers at the time they really are beautiful. They served the purpose of propaganda and could also be turned into wonderful tablecloths and drapes!
    This also brings to mind pottery. Functional-ware has it's own cult following within the art world itself. (https://www.pinterest.com/pleblan/ceramic-potters-famous/)

    Being in art school I have had many a debate about this topic. Is art simply art because we label it so? Can anybody make art?

    To me it all depends on context. If art is within a 'gallery' context and is created by a person who has been trained to a point where they can function within the industry as an art maker, then it is art to me. However there are exceptions... within the art world there exists the terms high art and low art. High art being those within the gallery, made by masters and up and coming geniuses filled to the brim with conceptual mumbo jumbo. And low art which is the stuff you find on deviant art or and other places (not necessarily bad but not trained and often are for just enjoyment. Keith Haring, with his colorful dancing people in the 80s, started out as more of an outsider low art kind of name before he and his brand exploded.)

    My idea of art at the moment would be considered more 'academic' I guess, when I leave school perhaps this will change, art to me changes as I change.

    My peers in college and I debate for ages what is considered art and to be honest I don't think there will ever be a solid, widely accepted answer. Art changes so much and encompasses so many things it's really hard to put a pin on what art truly is. Every time a new period of art comes into existence the art world cries "this is the end of art!". It happened when pop art and neo-dada came on the scene replacing Abstract Expressionism (well the parts of it that fell into the Modern Art stages of art history (used mostly in post WW2 dates, this included Jackson Pollock. The splatter house paint and smoke cigarettes all day person.) And it happens every time a new brand of outsider art becomes popular and trendy. To be honest I don't think the art world even knows what the heck it is really.

    In relation to just creation as being art, that's where it gets iffy. I could mush up some playdough and 'create' a blob monster or a little flower but that doesn't make it art really. That's really hard to say though... While creation and art often go hand in hand I don't think creation inherently makes something art.

    I agree with @Cipher about the whole languages thing. Elvish as created by Tolkein would count, perhaps even Klingon would count. When it is brought to that level of depth it is used as tool to build something. Mish-mashing word just for fun would never really be art, unless there was a purpose to it, then you could argue it was.

    I hope this makes sense. I feel like I rambled.:embarrassedwolf:
     
  6. AppyHeart

    AppyHeart Equus Genus

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2015
    Messages:
    414
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Bones:
    Ƀ215.41
    Primary Identity:
    Therian/Were
    I am in College for graphic Design. Legit ANYTHING is art. However. When you speak of language. That can be a hard thing to twist. Language is set. It is something that has been brought to people for centuries and pasted on. However Such as BANDS like Eluveitie. They use an almost DEAD language in their lyrics and I have FOLLEN for it. So hey, If they can make art through music out of words that hardly exist anymore, I am sure you could create anything you wished through whichever language you create. Art is not art unless it pushes the limits and makes people REALLY think about the world around them. You do what you wish to do and the world will respond. Negative or positive, it is a RESPONSE, and that is all that matters.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  7. Weather Forecast

    Hiatus

    Joined:
    May 19, 2016
    Messages:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bones:
    Ƀ35.76
    Primary Identity:
    Alien
    The idea of art has been degraded to a point where it holds no recognisable value. What does art even mean outside of the intention to make art? And does the intention to make art alone define what it is?
     
  8. Ormr Void

    Ormr Void Hatchling
    Hiatus

    Joined:
    May 10, 2016
    Messages:
    113
    Trophy Points:
    15
    Bones:
    Ƀ569.17
    Primary Identity:
    Draconic
    As stated by my colleagues above the definition of art or even what is considered art is degraded so much that I literally saw someone screw up a piece of paper into a ball, place it on a podium and call it art.
    Back to this question that I would say Inventing something like a new language is art since it doesn't express anything. You can say the letters look artistic themselves in their individual way but on the whole inventing something that will have function is not the same as say a painting or music which enlists emotional responses rather than physical ones
     
  9. FireSong

    FireSong Wyrmling
    Alien/SpacekinHiatus

    Joined:
    May 7, 2016
    Messages:
    177
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Bones:
    Ƀ1,001.07
    Primary Identity:
    Alien
    I would say that creating new 'thingamajigs' and languages and worlds is absolutely a form of art.

    There are majors based entirely around the first one, for example, usually with names like Functional Art or Material/Production Art. Invention is a kind of art. Kinetic sculpture is also still sculpture, if it's nonfunctional 'thingamajigs' you're thinking about.

    Conworlding and conlanging is an extremely creative process as well. If you consider creative writing to be a form of art, then conlanging and conworlding certainly fall under this category. I know I do a lot of it, and it's both fun hobby and a kind of art form. After all, you have to practice to get good at it, you do it to produce appreciation in an audience or for your own pleasure, and it deals with a lot of abstract thinking and applying abstract thinking to producing something. To me, that is definitely art.

    Art doesn't need to be deep to be art. It just needs to be enjoyable, or thought-provoking, and have some function beyond just survival. Even things produced for survival have artistic merit, since their forms are never solely functional, everything has some design element behind it. Trying to make art pretentious or narrowing it as a category I think does a bit of a discredit to humanity - as a species, we excel at innovating on visual, auditory, and symbolic forms! We have such a great capacity for art, and it's great to see how much variety of creation the human brain can produce.
     
  10. Cipher

    Cipher Great Wyrm
    Elder

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2015
    Messages:
    519
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Bones:
    Ƀ845.46
    Black Winged AngelChibi DragonBrimstone Demon
    Primary Identity:
    Demonic
    Mood:
    :relievedface:
    Definitely. And the screwing-a-piece-of-paper-into-a-ball at this point is just as pretentious. People like to think they're oh so clever today for "defying how art is defined", but that is old news. Dadaism happened after WWI, for reasons often involving that generation. Then you get people trying to do that same thing in the present and it just comes across as annoying and pretentious rather than making a real, powerful point.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. The Observer

    The Observer Hatchling
    SP Artist

    Joined:
    May 4, 2016
    Messages:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    10
    Bones:
    Ƀ255.41
    Primary Identity:
    Human/Non-Kin
    Mood:
    :)
    Oh my god, I love making up new words. When I don't know how to describe an emotion, or don't like a word for something, I make up one. It just sounds so much smoother and "right" when it's your own words. Maybe because of the sensory?

    As for my definition of art, art is anything that has a specific purpose, invokes emotions, and/or creates some kind of concept. I also believe that what makes it special is what puts it into the art category.

    For instance, south park is crude. However, people enjoy the edgy and bold humor. Disney, on the other hand, creates impressive stories that make us say, "Wow". They're both special for different reasons, but still are a form of art.
     
    #11 The Observer, May 28, 2016
    Last edited: May 28, 2016
  12. FireSong

    FireSong Wyrmling
    Alien/SpacekinHiatus

    Joined:
    May 7, 2016
    Messages:
    177
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Bones:
    Ƀ1,001.07
    Primary Identity:
    Alien
    I actually think that screwing a piece of paper into a ball can be great art. Maybe you shouldn't treat it with pretension, like a lot of galleries would, but what a great potential that has for art to be defined by the viewer. Maybe it can become kinetic art, interactive art, maybe it encourages people to start kicking it around, messing with it, and that becomes performance art. I think art's made equally by the artists and the viewers. It's a dialogue.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Cipher

    Cipher Great Wyrm
    Elder

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2015
    Messages:
    519
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Bones:
    Ƀ845.46
    Black Winged AngelChibi DragonBrimstone Demon
    Primary Identity:
    Demonic
    Mood:
    :relievedface:
    Oh, absolutely. The problem is that too many of the people making "art" like this don't have that in mind.
     
  14. Masema

    Masema Hatchling

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2015
    Messages:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    5
    Bones:
    Ƀ30.77
    Primary Identity:
    Therian/Were
    Wow. I really appreciate the deep comments that I am getting. I must say though, (from what we see) what I am getting as a whole is that basically everything and nothing is art, depending on the audience.
     
  15. coffeebear

    coffeebear Hatchling

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2016
    Messages:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Bones:
    Ƀ5.77
    Voice Key
    Primary Identity:
    Therian/Were
    "A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman; but a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist.”

    ― Louis Nizer
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Johnny Phox

    Johnny Phox Hatchling
    Kitsune Cove

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2016
    Messages:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    10
    Bones:
    Ƀ374.80
    Primary Identity:
    Kitsune
    "Art reflects life."

    I feel art, or what we consider art, will always be an objective definition. For instance I don't think I will ever understand how a painting of a cambells soup can will be considered above average art, but clearly some people do. However, I feel art is always meant to be a form of expression, or even abstract language to essentially say what you couldn't any other way. This can be achieved in many different ways: painting, sculpting, writing, singing and many others. In this sense, creation is art, as in all creation. It all comes down to how you look at it. A car can be aesthetically pleasing to look at, but you can also consider how every moving part within the car works in tandem as an expression of mathematics and chemistry brought to life. In that sense, though built for a practical function, the car itself is a form of art. In essence, the act of taking something ordinary and making it extraordinary is what art is truly about.

    And it's not simply that which people have created that should be considered art. Take landscapes for instance, the subject not the painting. Have you ever seen a waterfall, cascading over rocks for years, reshaping it into a new form? In a way, the water is the artist, and its being is transferred in a small way to the rock itself, becoming smoother and more fluid in shape. All natural formations are a product of what caused them, whether it's tectonic shifting creating new land masses or mountains, or tidal activities reshaping the beach with every wave, even the stars at night are the product of this. Creation, destruction, rebirth, even absence.

    The easiest way to summarize what I'm saying is that art is what we independently precieve as art. Whether created by someone or something, what makes it art is its effect on us.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. shweppswasabiale

    Hiatus

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2016
    Messages:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bones:
    Ƀ37.66
    Primary Identity:
    Therian/Were
    Yeah these people like to hear themselves talk don't they.

    Creation is art.

    The question is simple and the answer is simple.

    Beyond that there's opinion and analysis which can also be simple.

    For example, smoking a cigarette is not art.

    Why? Because it's counterproductive.

    Art has to be productive and intentional, or it doesn't qualify.

    For example, Clark Whittington and anyone who contributes to Art-O-Mat are idiots because directing the attention of children to the preservation of cigarette vending machine operation and awareness of the historical and continued success of the tobacco industry so that as a result one in fifty Indonesian children start smoking at age four is not art.

    It's crime.

    So you see, there really is a correct definition that dismisses the complacent attitude of "everything and nothing" that is not art. Because art is something.
     
  18. Johnny Phox

    Johnny Phox Hatchling
    Kitsune Cove

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2016
    Messages:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    10
    Bones:
    Ƀ374.80
    Primary Identity:
    Kitsune
    Here's an example of how art is objective to the beholder.

    I will never say that getting children to smoke is anything other than a crime, however, you would be fooling yourself if you thought art wasn't used regularly as a means to cause harm or manipulate the masses. You see this frequently in big industry commercials and political comics.
     
  19. coffeebear

    coffeebear Hatchling

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2016
    Messages:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Bones:
    Ƀ5.77
    Voice Key
    Primary Identity:
    Therian/Were
    Do you mean subjective? Furries might like the Joe Camel character and call it good art, just because it's furry... people like schweppswasabiale would probably find it offensive, since you've got a cartoon camel for a mascot selling cigarettes. Whether or not it's good is subjectively dependent upon the audience viewing it.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  20. Johnny Phox

    Johnny Phox Hatchling
    Kitsune Cove

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2016
    Messages:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    10
    Bones:
    Ƀ374.80
    Primary Identity:
    Kitsune
    Yes, I did mean subjective, thanks for the correction @coffeebear