-- Posted by Dexter Ward at 2:05 pm on July 4, 2009 What do you consider art?  At what point do you think art becomes nothing but an obscenity or just stops being art. -- Posted by DaisyMontana at 2:05 pm on July 4, 2009 A beautiful photo is an art. -- Posted by Chasey at 2:06 pm on July 4, 2009 anything created with artistic intentions -- Posted by Violently Happy at 2:06 pm on July 4, 2009 Everything is art -- Posted by Sheebobee at 2:07 pm on July 4, 2009 if anyone considers it art...its art -- Posted by TaliaBBy at 2:07 pm on July 4, 2009 A type of watermelon. -- Posted by StraitjacketJunky at 2:07 pm on July 4, 2009 Anything found artful. -- Posted by sweetness14 at 2:09 pm on July 4, 2009 anything from the mind -- Posted by Dexter Ward at 2:12 pm on July 4, 2009 So if I take a crap on a bible is it still art or something else? -- Posted by LiveForeverDieTonite at 2:14 pm on July 4, 2009 Quote: from Chasey at 5:06 pm on July 4, 2009 anything created with artistic intentions This. -- Posted by Baron Samedi at 2:24 pm on July 4, 2009 Quote: from HarrySunderland at 3:12 pm on July 4, 2009 So if I take a crap on a bible is it still art or something else? I'd call that art. -- Posted by Dexter Ward at 2:46 pm on July 4, 2009 I thought there'd be more people on here that would say that a lot of things aren't art. -- Posted by Stormblazer at 9:20 pm on July 5, 2009 1. Something that communicates a specific idea or notion in a strong manner (note, could be linked to a specific time period) 2. Something that is well-done. 3. (self-only/subjective) Something with strong sentimental value to you personally. A lot of "fine arts" don't qualify except maybe for #3. There's a reason I hate most fine arts professors I've met, because most of them are spectacular idiots, or worse- arrogant with it. Impressionism is a great example. That people actually see impressionism as a whole as a valid form of art past #3 above I've always found to be hilariously pathetic. -- Posted by The Nowhere Man at 11:40 pm on July 5, 2009 Quote: from Stormblazer at 9:20 pm on July 5, 2009 1. Something that communicates a specific idea or notion in a strong manner (note, could be linked to a specific time period)   2. Something that is well-done.   3. (self-only/subjective) Something with strong sentimental value to you personally.   A lot of "fine arts" don't qualify except maybe for #3. There's a reason I hate most fine arts professors I've met, because most of them are spectacular idiots, or worse- arrogant with it. Impressionism is a great example. That people actually see impressionism as a whole as a valid form of art past #3 above I've always found to be hilariously pathetic. Where's the objective measure for impressionism not being well-done, and what makes you say that no impressionist painting as ever attempted to communicate an idea or purpose? edit:I realised just now that I got impressionism mixed up with something else.  My question about #2 still stands, but I'll let you have #1, ha-ha. -- Posted by osmoticdespair at 1:13 am on July 6, 2009 Art is that which is produced by man's arts (rather than by nature). A lot of people try and say bad art is not art at all, in reality though it's just bad art. However there is also a distinction between "art" and "technics" where technics is based primarily on the utilitarian application of mechanical principles thus taking the "human" element out of the artifact. Art is to a greater degree an expression of the human soul than technics, technics tries to distill out the human and leave behind bald application of natural law, and although less sophisticated that nature can be in some sense considered - were it perfect (which it never is) the inevitable form that it would take given physical reality.