Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Visual Art Definition
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
The following is my own definition of visual art- It has taken me quite a while to come up with this having read many definitions all of which seem to get bogged down in either verbosity or mud.
What do you think? Certainly the second sentence is a matter for debate and I know we all see it differently but it would be great if we could come to some sort of consensus for the sake of POL although I know I might be dreaming of airborne Gloucester Old Spots.
I have tried to keep it as simple as I possibly can and have deleted much from the original to keep the message clear, minimal, and to the point – It wasn’t as easy to come up with as you might think. Anyway here it is:
Visual art is the conscious outcome of creative activity expressed through a visual medium such as painting or sculpture or through the assembly of objects to create a unique viewing experience. Any work so produced will be a work of art regardless of how it is received.
Edited
by MichaelEdwards
Posted
Where do you fit ballet into that definition?
Here goes: Visual Art is a creative activity that exists in a physical space and can be observed. A space can be a frame, page, screen or stage.
Music - musician's hat on, here - is the highest art; it exists only in time
I think the reaction that art evokes is important; with my music that reaction could be different every time. I'd be interested to know what others think about this.
Posted
Visual Art: Something created that can be seen. Bernini sculptures and unmade beds are both classed as visual wonders by the art doyens. A J.M.W Turner painting and a tent full of post-it notes naming sexual conquests also qualify as do five hundredweight of house bricks and a painting of a tin of beans. Not everyone agrees on the content, therefore flexibility of the description applies as to what is actually art. The best way to achieve artistic fame is to die. Amen. 😆
Posted
Pretty good, Michael. A tough call. The stumbling block, as ever, is the 'ART' bit. We're back to what constitutes 'art.' That's something different for each and every one of us. I cannot possible call a scruffy unmade bed 'art'. I'll happily include things that get downgraded to 'craft' by the artsy-fartsy brigade...furniture, jewellery etc etc, is often art in my view.
Posted
Unmade beds and piles of brick are covered by my definition (assembly of objects as part of a creative activity) and if you accept the definition then it actually defines what art is.
When I added in the words 'assembly of objects' in the definition I was mindful that I have arranged plant tubs in the garden and took a lot of trouble to assemble them in a pleasing design.
I hadn't anticipated ballet being covered by the definition so perhaps for clarity perhaps my definition should read Enduring Visual Arts and music, of course, isn't visual. Film is captured by the definition as are jewellery and furniture but I have to agree the boundaries are hard to define. All manufactured objects are designed and, on the face of it are captured.
It could be argued that photorealism where the 'product, is an exact repeat of reality does not contain creativity and interpretation and therefor falls outside the definition thus becoming a craft rather than an art. Now there's a thought!
Posted
Yes Micheal, your description does cover things like unmade beds, and Pat's reference to a 'heap of fat' being removed by cleaning ladies. That's the problem...the term 'visual art' has the word ART in it, and I can never except some things as 'art'. This nonsense happens all the time (thankfully). Here's two more...
Above is a pic of a Damien Hirst 'installation' at an art gallery in 2001. The cleaning ladies thought it was rubbish (they were right), and cleaned it up.
Here's another 'installation' at an Italian Art Gallery in 2015, yes...I do mean all the bottles and trash on the floor.. (Don't know the 'artist', don't want to know). Once again the cleaners binned it. Who can blame them.
I can't call this art, not that I matter in these things. The Art Establishment love all this stuff, no such thing as bad publicity.
I don't think you can offer a definition that will please everybody...maybe...just maybe...that's the point of art.
But all this is a load of fun,
Lew.
Above is a pic of a Damien Hirst 'installation' at an art gallery in 2001. The cleaning ladies thought it was rubbish (they were right), and cleaned it up.
Here's another 'installation' at an Italian Art Gallery in 2015, yes...I do mean all the bottles and trash on the floor.. (Don't know the 'artist', don't want to know). Once again the cleaners binned it. Who can blame them.
I can't call this art, not that I matter in these things. The Art Establishment love all this stuff, no such thing as bad publicity.
I don't think you can offer a definition that will please everybody...maybe...just maybe...that's the point of art.
But all this is a load of fun,
Lew.
Posted
I see this issue in simple terms and we are in danger of getting bogged down by personal dislikes.
So putting the bed and the bricks to one side and returning to basics., if you go along with my definition then art is clearly identified and there is no debate. Whether or not you think a work is good bad or simply extracting the urine is another matter entirely.
If you don't like my my definition then you are free to write your own 😉
Posted
Gosh Dermot didn't expect to come under such a fusillade and rather think you have misunderstood or misread the points I made
Yes art is subjective and this subjectivity concerns our like or dislike of it - not the base question of whether it is art in the first place.
Basics - I was quite clearly referring to the fundamental question of defining what art is (ie the basics) - the whole point of this post was to consider a basic definition . It was not started as a discussion about the merits of individual works of art.
Extracting the urine - don't know why you take this personally - this comment referred to pieces of art and was not aimed at individuals - it has often been said that the bed was taking the p**s and having seen it I am sympathetic to this view but that doesn't alter the fact that it is still a work of art under my definition as is the Pissoir et al..
The purpose of my definition was to get a baseline upon which appraisal of art can begin. I tried to come up with something basic which , if generally accepted, would be non-controversial. Pat's excellent suggestion is even more simply put but is open to interpretation in that it does not identify what it means by 'expert' for which another definition is required.
Edited
by MichaelEdwards