Welcome to Kinmunity

Kinmunity is an online community resource for otherkin, therianthropes, the other-hearted, vampires, plural systems, and others with non-human identities. By signing up, you'll be able to participate in the largest and most active otherkin community on the internet. We provide forums, personal profiles, blogs, an image gallery, and a live chatroom to our registered members. Signing up is really fast, why not join us? All are welcome on Kinmunity!

Masema

Is creation art?

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?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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

[media]

[/media]

 

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.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"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

[media]

[/media]

 

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.

 

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:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say that creating new 'thingamajigs' and languages and worlds is absolutely a form of art.

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Oh, absolutely. The problem is that too many of the people making "art" like this don't have that in mind.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's an example of how art is objective to the beholder...

 

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.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Yes, I did mean subjective, thanks for the correction @coffeebear

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a lot of things as art. I think that if someone sits down and creates something that they and/or others think is beautiful and creative, it's art. That goes for a lot of cars too. If someone designs a car from the book and builds it for functionality, I don't see it as art. But if they sit down and design a car with aesthetic flow, something new and different, something that stands out and holds an expression and creates something that someone would see as beautiful or emotion-provoking, it's art.

 

Like, here's a few examples of what I mean.

 

These ones aren't meant to invoke any emotion or be creative, so they aren't art to me:

 

 

2011_Dodge_Grand_Caravan_--_06-24-2011.jpg

 

2011_Volkswagen_Jetta_(1KM_MY10)_118TSI_sedan_(2015-07-03)_01.jpg

 

 

These ones are meant to invoke emotion, meant to break the mold and create something that draws attention to detail and curves is art to me:

 

UPfurNz.jpg

 

Hennessey_Venom_GT_(16040233465).jpg

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe Camel isn't offensive. He's an anthropomorphized camel that appeals to the sentiments of an adult.

 

Art-O-Mat, on the other hand, is a vending machine marketing cigarettes, contraband, and pornography to children in the open, under the guises of education, novelty, and art. None of which it is.

--- Post updated ---

Joe Camel isn't offensive. He's an anthropomorphized camel that appeals to the sentiments of an adult.

 

Art-O-Mat, on the other hand, is a vending machine marketing cigarettes, contraband, and pornography to children in the open, under the guises of education, novelty, and art. None of which it is.

--- Post updated ---

Joe Camel isn't offensive. He's an anthropomorphized camel that appeals to the sentiments of an adult.

 

Art-O-Mat, on the other hand, is a vending machine marketing cigarettes, contraband, and pornography to children in the open, under the guises of education, novelty, and art. None of which it is.

--- Post updated ---

Joe Camel isn't offensive. He's an anthropomorphized camel that appeals to the sentiments of an adult.

 

Art-O-Mat, on the other hand, is a vending machine marketing cigarettes, contraband, and pornography to children in the open, under the guises of education, novelty, and art. None of which it is.

--- Post updated ---

Joe Camel isn't offensive. He's an anthropomorphized camel that appeals to the sentiments of an adult.

 

Art-O-Mat, on the other hand, is a vending machine marketing cigarettes, contraband, and pornography to children in the open, under the guises of education, novelty, and art. None of which it is, and anyone defending that is a waste of space.

--- Post updated ---

Joe Camel isn't offensive. He's an anthropomorphized camel that appeals to the sentiments of an adult.

 

Art-O-Mat, on the other hand, is a vending machine marketing cigarettes, contraband, and pornography to children in the open, under the guises of education, novelty, and art. None of which it is, and anyone defending that is a waste of space.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In some aspects, yes creation most certainly could be art. In other aspects, perhaps not.

For example, a cable box. It was created, and there is art ON it. But the cable box itself is not meant to be art. It is meant to be a functional piece of machinery to make the television play channels. No one really looks at it, they tuck it away so you can use the remote But don't really see the box.

But the television could be considered art. It is constantly being designed with better screens. Thinner. Sleeker. Shinier. All in an attempt to make it pleasing and artful to the eye, and thus more marketable.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now