I don't see where beauty has much to do with it...If one picks what is a noble, or perhaps, a worthy subject, and art is subject, and it is not beautiful, but terrible, then beauty would hardly be a part of the art...

I've always thought that art is anything which inspires beauty...
Just anything you stop to look at and think, wow
That can be something natural, like a sunset, or the Mona Lisa, whatever, if it makes you stop and stare, and gives you those shivers down your spine, its art.

A little crude, but that's my personal opinion.

And then there's art as an institution. Here, its difficult to say. There's a very thin line which has become more and more blurred. To begin with, art was the only way of representing reality, it had a purpose. Then you get the camera and some big changes start to happen. Art doesn't need to represent reality anymore, you have pictures for that, it needs to serve some other purpose, maybe to make you think or feel, take Picasso and the cubists. Then you get Warhol et al, and art is suddenly about the celebrity - 'Everything the artist spits is art' - Duchamp.
And it just goes downhill from there...
In fact, as soon as art no longer had a purpose, it was a downhill slope to where we are today, nowadays who even knows what art is? We know only what we're told, and we're told it by people who accept anything they don't understand as art - both for fear of looking stupid and for the masses of money they're going to make.

You want to know what art is - well to be honest, its an institution, nothing more.

With art, I would be inclined to say its purpose was to produce beauty.

.Life is the prize that goes to those who see clearly...

I suppose it depends on your definition of what art is, what its purpose is...
With other subjects its usually easy to say, for example the maths and sciences have various practical purposes. With art, I would be inclined to say its purpose was to produce beauty.

But i suppose this is also flawed, because if a particular branch of maths isn't practically useful, that doesn't mean its not maths, so perhaps you could say that just because a work of art isn't beautiful that doesn't mean its not art.

This seems a contradiction though, because, for me, art and beauty are one and the same... Perhaps my definition of art does need some readjusting then.

However, I don't think I could ever consider anything ugly art. I suppose all it comes down to is your personal opinion of what art is... To me, it is something that is beautiful, i suppose this is very crude, but i can't imagine ever appreciating an ugly work of art!

Every art needs its purpose... People need a Purpose... They just can't say I am and so what...They have to have a purpose so they can get paid so they can buy more life to have a purpose in..But art does not need a purpose...Art is what it is.. It defines itself so we don't have to.. It is infinite.

Nice, Fido! But I would say that it defines us in defining itself, that art is one of the ways man defines himself.

All those paintings of Jesus are paintings of us at our best.

Poor pitiful man... What did he do to deserve that... What did they all do???

Born mortal! Just like us. Jesus is the myth of the God who dies. The only honest story of God. The rest is superstition. But of course this perfect myth was also turned to superstition. The whole point of it was simple, that god is just a man, and not only a man but a criminal, a reviled philosopher...

yes, it's mixed w/ a lot of crap, but that's what they do. They bury the diamonds in excrement. Lord knows they don't want the slaves to get wind that they are just as much God as their masters..

This is why Zizek, a political radical, recently published a book called "the Fragile Absolute" about the radical core of Christian myth. Zizek is also a Hegel man. I know you think about politics. Zizek wrote a great book called "The Ticklish Subject.' Check it!

The ticklish subject: the absent ... - Google Books
The fragile absolute: or, why is the ... - Google Books

He was a philosopher and a humorist... The world will never have enough of those and it already has too many Gods.

I think, if you agree with D.H. Lawrence; then American liturature is all about death. I think, as a people, we are fascinated with death. But; for the artist, death is a huge exclamation point that shines a great light at all one does and all of ones struggles. I don't think there is any beauty in death, though plenty of mystery. I have killed, animals, and perhaps some defensless fetus, but I have always went to one too many funerals; and now I can hardly kill a fly or a mouse without an apology to nature. If there were no one to make a big deal over death, who could see ones accomplishments in the short span of life we have; then death would be entirely without meaning. It is not a question of what is the sting of death, or how pretty is her face. Death is only a reminder to get up and keep moving, so that while we live we can improve, and soften, and medicate, and mend the human condition. While we live we can do good, and some times that good is art. In the broader sense, no art is as essential as living a good life, with few injuries to mankind or to nature; and that is the art of which we should become masters.

There is too much evidence that he did exist... Besides, no one ever gets a joke without a joker, and he had a million of them, folks...The Greek influence through Macedonia, even after the Maccabees was extreme, and Paul, one of the most pivital people in history was rich with Greek influence...Nietzsche was right to key into him as he did, and Paul is like Plato to Socrates... What would we know about Socrates without Plato... That knowledge is virtue??? What would we have of Jesus if Spinmaster Paul had not got him first???

Is art subjective? Are there boundaries? What makes "good" art and "bad" art?

Here are excerpts from the best essay I have read on the subject:



Online Library of Liberty - ESSAY XXIII: OF THE STANDARD OF TASTE - Essays Moral, Political, Literary (LF ed.)

gobedlygook....The more words you use the less you have to say...

It's a case for there being an objectiveness to artistic standards... the existence of a more correct assessment.

If you're cross-eyed, you're probably not going to be the best judge of visual art. The Don Quixote story says that the poorer judges were just going by what what was assumed to be true.

On the other hand, the cross-eyed judge isn't seeing the same work of art as the straight-eyed. A certain piece might actually look better cross-eyed.

It's a case for there being an objectiveness to artistic standards... the existence of a more correct assessment.

If you're cross-eyed, you're probably not going to be the best judge of visual art. The Don Quixote story says that the poorer judges were just going by what what was assumed to be true.

On the other hand, the cross-eyed judge isn't seeing the same work of art as the straight-eyed. A certain piece might actually look better cross-eyed.

Is art subjective? Are there boundaries? What makes "good" art and "bad" art?

Imo it's 2 things.

For the elite:
- anything which you can convince them is great art (the are many extremely naive and group think people)
- that which is expensive
- that which the others wants
- individualistic
- functionallity is a very low priority, most times not even considerd

For the ignorent mob:
- usually that which looks good
- that which can stimulate your senses well
- functionallity may be a factor, but not a nessessty

Does art have boundaries? Can something cease to be considered art? I think this is an excellent addition to whether or not art is subjective, Lore. Is it still art??????