Most probably this has been asked before, but I am really interested in knowing your opinion on it. Afterall different people, different ideas. Are there any criterias, spoken or not, a piece must fullfill to qualify as art?
sort by best latest
Are you sure you can define art :)? I haven't been able to the present day. I will agree with you art defined on the terms of what an elite produces is limited indeed. What I struggle with notion and the criteria on which it is defined.
But is art just about beauty? I have seen terrifying, verging to disgusting, paintings which, were technically flawless. Does art have to be appealing to senses or is it supposed to tease and even challenge them?
Well, I think that "beauty" can be found in terror and fear. I think "beauty" can be found in all things since everyone has their own definition of the word.
Think about this Luciano, if art is what you have explained then why would an unmade bad be considered art? what kind of talent does it take to leave it unmade. But if it is intentionally used to ilustrate an idea, then does it qualify as art?
There is always the subjectif jugement, Art can be also something that to me is not but it is for others! it depends also by cultures and I guess new thinking philosophies that go against classic definitions of Art!