What do you think, I think art is useless?

1. 73

   Gareth Pritchardposted 12 years ago

   What do you think, I think art is useless?
   
   Do you think the word Art no longer has any real meaning.
   
   The word Art seems to be used to describe just about anything, because of its ambiguity I think it has become a meaningless word but never mined me, what do you think? 
   
   
   

   replyreport
2. 70

   Neallposted 12 years ago

   An artist might tell you art is where someone's skill meets their imagination -- an example of which would be the clothespin in Philadelphia. As someone with zero artistic talent, I would tell you art is in the eye of the beholder -- so on that basis art can be anything or not -- an example would be the clothespin in Philadelphia.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Gareth Pritchardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      HI Neall, thanks for your contribution and sharing your thoughts.
      Gareth.

      replyreport
3. 59

   stuff4kidsposted 12 years ago

   I hope art is useless, it should be.
   
   In this world of utilitarian design and product-driven creativity, we urgently need things which are not useful, which don't even have a monetary value or a practical purpose.
   
   Art may be useless but I think it can be beautiful and is most certainly necessary.
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Gareth Pritchardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hi stuff4kids, ha, ha, I am not sure you understood  the question, I think many things are beautiful but I was specifically  thinking about the word not the outcomes.   Thanks for your contribution and sharing your thoughts. 
      Gareth.

      replyreport
4. 60

   anancelesteposted 12 years ago

   
   
   As an "artist" I think that art is defined by the third person. You would be surprised of how many of my paintings seem ordinary,even bland to me.When the client comes along and see it, their eyes light up and feel a real connection to the piece. Actually in my first exhibition, the piece that got the most attention was a cultural scenic portrait. Pots and pans on an open fire! And still a lady teared up.
   
   For others, that want you to paint their concept in canvas is the same. The piece is theirs, not mine.They came up with the concept and I make it tangible. I am pretty sure that at some point in life you felt inspired, connected or simply moved by any given form of "art". This is a good example, when I painted this I did not liked it that much. It was just a tree and a frog. But others did saw something in it that spoke to them. Does my painting could be considered as "art"? So yeah, I think the word art means something as long as inspires someone and makes them happy.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Gareth Pritchardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hi ananceleste, I have even cried real tears over my own work and enough others have also for me to know how emotive it can all be but that wasn't the question, human feces is also called art when messed about with. Thanks for trying. Gareth.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      anancelesteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      All these well intentioned  people tried to participate,and no one understood  your question. If no one understands, maybe you had something else in mind? Re-wording, being more specific maybe.

      replyreport
   3. 73

      Gareth Pritchardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Headline you could be correct, that's a concern with these comments, they allow too few words to say enough. Once questions are made they can't be changed and shouldn't be,  that would make it unreal but now I need a comment from you to finish my bit

      replyreport
5. 0

   DaffodilSkyposted 12 years ago

   I think art is the very opposite of useless.  Art is many things, but I believe that it is extremely important as a vehicle for expressing the human condition.  I don't think it should it be constrained by narrow parameters when it is inspired by such a diversity of ideas and feelings, and expressed in so many ways by such a diversity of talent.  Art of course covers music and writing as well as visual art, but at their best they all convey the important stuff - love and beauty as well as the darker side of life.  I think people need to express themselves and understand the world around them and art is the way to do it!  I've gone on enough now!

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Gareth Pritchardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hi DaffodilSky, music and writing as well as visual feces all fall under the same category that means nothing because it is too ambiguous, they can all be beautiful but they all have their own terms, individuality, until the art word comes out.

      replyreport
6. 75

   manatita44posted 12 years ago

   'The Supreme art, is to know the Supreme Artist, within and without. Art, in the most effective sense of the term, is a sublime Truth.' -Sri Chinmoy
   What I am now looking at, is beautiful art, but this is only my perception. Do you see this in a different way? I hear your argument and perhaps it has some truth.
   Still, Art is vast and continually creative. We may learn to see this with the intuitive eye or with the mind. In the region of the mind, some forms may be crude or tasteless, and others sublime. Still, it is the inner being that can truly understand great beauty. Art encompasses all things, and indeed life itself. Hope this helps.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Gareth Pritchardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hi manatita44, it is useful, thanks, but your interpretation seems to getting close to art being God " Art encompasses all things, and indeed life itself" isn't it just a word without true meaning unlike, music, painting, sculpture or nothing.

      replyreport
   2. 75

      manatita44posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Well Bro.
      You are separating, I am not. God is the Supreme Artist. Music, painting, sculpture .. they are the language of the Spirit. They are all His art.

      replyreport
   3. 73

      Gareth Pritchardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hi manatita44, "They are all His art." Yes I agree he is the creator of creation, not an imitator seeking sensation. Thank you for your insight and thoughtful clarification. It makes me wonder am I putting art on a pedestal when it's just the norm?

      replyreport
   4. 75

      manatita44posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You are ok, Gareth. Just being practical and perhaps relating to something you know and love. Times are changing and people are seeing and doing things differently. It is not my field. I simply observe. Much peace.

      replyreport
   5. 73

      Gareth Pritchardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hi, I think I live in decadence while 3 quarters of the world live in hunger, war and pain, I make pretty useless stuff when I need to be more sane, many die of hunger and I need to do more or lose my brain to the wrong others for profit and gain.

      replyreport
7. 69

   the girlsposted 12 years ago

   I disagree. Art connotes a positive word for me, a compliment. Art is abstract and it needs imagination, analysis and appreciation of the subject to understand it.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Gareth Pritchardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hi the girls, cool your allowed to disagree and there an't much wrong with my imagination compliment accepted. Thanks for trying.

      replyreport
   2. 75

      manatita44posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hi my brother Gareth.
      
      I feel for you. Some people take these things quite seriously. Seems like you opened a can of something there. Peace again. Keep smiling!

      replyreport
   3. 73

      Gareth Pritchardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Bro mana, I personally think most people only read the headline and it infuriated them so they went on the defensive, they became blind to the context but some did read the whole context so tried to answer it.  Headlines work the way they are meant.

      replyreport
8. 72

   Valeneposted 12 years ago

   In modern terms, I definitely agree with you. As we live in an age where the world is increasingly "smaller" with rampant advancement of communication technology, I think all sorts of things that use to be meaningful and define us as human beings have become cheapened and commonplace; original ideas spread around the world in a matter of minutes now, changing the original into the collective at the most rapid pace we've ever seen. "Art" is a word that's right up there with "phenomenal" and "awesome"...words that used to be reserved for something truly special, but now are commonplace--the miracles of nature used to be phenomenal, now so is the latest "as-seen-on-TV" product. Awesomeness was once reserved for the power of God, now it also describes the new pizza joint down the street. In a world of computer generated everything, it does leave one wondering who are the real artists anymore in this age when "art" can be "created" with a few clicks and drags of a mouse. Does uniqueness exist anymore? Expanded personalization and customization of material things in our lives (think Picasso skins on laptops) has actually diminished our individuality by treating "art" as something we choose with as much thought as one of the dozens of styles of coffee at Starbucks (all these things give us the illusion of individuality by offering "style" only in the trivial, distracting us from choosing the real elements of life that actually define our souls). Has our "progress" and advancement actually lead to degeneration of civilization and our lives becoming ever more meaningless? As a society, I think we keep mistaking materialism for originality (the source of art) and always at our detriment since this just adds to our hunger for the very uniqueness we're constantly trying to define. The more we try to create these days, the less it seems we are able to do so.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Gareth Pritchardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Valene, yes that's more like a thoughtful answer and plenty to think about    that I hadn't considered, thank you for your thoughtful contribution.
      
      Gareth.
      
      PS. ha. ha, we seem to have an abundance of genus nowadays as well.

      replyreport
   2. 72

      Valeneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      LOL, yes, everyone seems to think of themselves as original artists these days (i.e. Justin Bieber)! I loved your question, it really made me think for a change; thanks for posting this today.

      replyreport
   3. 73

      Gareth Pritchardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You are welcome it's a two way street and thanks to you again.
      
      Yes Justin
      Panting for his fix of deprivation
      Blinded in a vast discolouration
      Vulgar repetitious replication
      Craving for celebrity transformation

      replyreport
   4. 72

      Valeneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      LOL, love it! Whoever created him, they created a monster.

      replyreport
   5. 73

      Gareth Pritchardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      UMm, I tend to think he is influenced by his environment, a victim of an abusive system, the music Ind has a long track record, along with an entertainment business, the show must go on at any cost, all in plain sight, grown ups hold all the power.

      replyreport
   6. 72

      Valeneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Absolutely, he's merely a product of corporate commercialism, going much the way so many child entertainers have, completely exploited and prostituted to a consumer-driven society. And he, along with the rest of us are led to believe he's original.

      replyreport
9. 65

   tomy101posted 12 years ago

   I think art in a painting, art in music , art in a kids picture tell many things about us as people. Without art, this world would be plain and dull. If you think art is useless, well, I would hate to come over to your home and see the bare walls, and no music being played in the background. You must really get depressed. I would seek therapy if I felt this way. You have a right to like 7-up and drink wine together and I would say your crazy. That's what is good about America, we still have freedom of speech. I respect that in you're comment. Seems like a silly question with a person that has no one to talk too possibly. I feel sorry for you.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Gareth Pritchardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hi tomy101, well I think you didn't even read the question and just jumped on the defensive and you won't be able to uinsult yourself now either, pity.  http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/01/ar … cause.html he made his living out of art.

      replyreport
10. 63

    forevernaturalposted 12 years ago

    No, I do not agree with you. The word Art imply to works with superior quality and strong meaning.  Nowadays I lot of people call craft an art, which is bother me a lot.  Probably a lack of art education, they don't distinguish craft from art. Art you can see in the big museums and leading theaters, not in your local gallery and dance studio.

    replyreport
    1. 73

       Gareth Pritchardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Hi forevernatural,   "not in your local gallery and dance studio, see in the big museums and leading theaters, not in your local gallery and dance studio." That's another twist, high art and popular art, the unmade bed or the taxidermist? Thanks.

       replyreport
11. 0

    dreamseeker2posted 12 years ago

    According to my old dictionary, the word 'art' is described as: 'the making or doing of things that have form and beauty. (drawing, painting, sculpture, architecture, music, literature, drama and dance)'. For myself, I believe it still holds true to its meaning. I believe in the dictionary's view of it and how we see our world through these 'said things' described there. For me, it still depicts art as it is and perfectly! : ) We are all entitled to our own views and thoughts on things, so I guess it obviously lies in the eyes of the beholder, eh?

    replyreport
    1. 73

       Gareth Pritchardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Hi dreamseeker2, "lies in the eyes of the beholder, eh?" it sure does just about as subjective as subjective gets, thanks for the contribution. Gareth.

       replyreport
12. 59

    Lor's Storiesposted 12 years ago

    I live close to the Philadelphia Art Museum.
    The clothespin I don't think has much to do with rt.
    Neither does the love statue.
    But inside the museum I've wondered about that one of Warhol with just he splats on it,
    How do you compare that with Monet.
    I think one can tell good art from bad art.
    I can get a canvas and put my tongue in the paint and say I couldn't talk and people would go crazy over it. And look at Wyeth painting of Christina and say its ugly ( which it isn't) The weirder the better.
    No I am not going to paint with my tongue. But I'm sure people would say that was art!

    replyreport
    1. 73

       Gareth Pritchardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Hi Lor's Stories, "Warhol with just he splats on it," is that Warhol and not Jackson Pollack, they have Camouflage Self-Portrait, Warhol screen print and  No. 22, Jackson Pollack which is paint splats, not that it matters I get your point, thanks.

       replyreport
    2. 59

       Lor's Storiesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       It was Pollack
       I get them mixed up.
       Sorry.

       replyreport
    3. 73

       Gareth Pritchardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Hi Lor's Stories, thank you for getting back to me with that information I was curious and think abstract camouflage is very similar to paint splats, and the only real skill is convincing somebody that it is worthy of recognition, a good example.

       replyreport
13. 51

    whonunuwhoposted 12 years ago

    As your picture displayed depicts...art can be much the "Black Hole" or bottomless pit that sucks everything inside its infinite chasm. To me and I think it is a relative opinion, art means that which is drawn, painted, molded, sculpted or composed. Thank you for your question and I hope what I have said reveals my true love of art and not those things which to appear as false representatives of a revered and beautiful world of creation.

    replyreport
    1. 73

       Gareth Pritchardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Thanks for noticing the picture and taking the time to make comment, "art can be much the "Black Hole" or bottomless pit that sucks everything inside its infinite chasm." nice description.

       replyreport
14. 65

    lupineposted 12 years ago

    You are correct, to a degree. The word, ART, is used to describe just about everything from a collage of trash, to writing on a wall, a dance or a beautiful painting. Of course, people can tell the difference...call it what you want. The meaning is very broad. The traditional description of art, is as described by many of the hubbers here, and is taken seriously. For clarification purposes, your question asked specifically about the word, art, and not about works of art. Maybe there should be new sub-categories for the description of less traditional art, such as faux-art.

    replyreport
    1. 73

       Gareth Pritchardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Yes faux an interesting description, faux art, money and intelligence, not that it is particularly directed at any individual or yourself as you seem to have some kind of grip on substance.  Thanks for the clarification and your time.

       replyreport
    2. 65

       lupineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Thanks Gareth. There is faux jewelry and faux fur, everyone knows it's not the real thing, but is still accepted...so I say faux art is a good term, nobody gets hurt.

       replyreport
    3. 73

       Gareth Pritchardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Faux reminds me of this, in Viz Magazine, Elvis Presley Dambusters Clock Plate of Tutankhamun,  http://www.flickr.com/photos/norbet/570 … /lightbox/ so funny.

       replyreport