Defining Art

[darkendless]

I am not the most philosophical person in the world. My mind simply does not comprehend the subjective very well (that's why i'm here, trying to improve that).

In a recent facebook discussion through mutal friends, a discussion about what is considered art and what is not came up. As a philosophically blank person, I tried to define art as a blurry line between ability and creativity.

However, in saying that I maintain that art's prerequisite is a mixture between both creativity and talent.

In reply I was told that my definition was terrible and that defining art is impossible. How can it be so? Does that mean anything and everything is art? If so, how is good art differentiated from bad art? If so, why is art sub-defined (or classified) into group such as cubism, realism etc?

Am I looking at this too narrow? Am I trying to apply boundaries to a form which requires no boundary?

Either way I need a stiff drink from dealing with someone who spends too much time with their head in a book

 

[nnmartin]

there's often the debate over whether grafitti is art or not - some of it is very talented, but I doubt it would have too many supporters amongst the chianti supping dinner party crowd

How about Glen Hoddle - his football was a work of art in my opinion!

so I'd say a lot of the whole 'is it art?' debate revolves around class based views.

 

[connermt]

I am not the most philosophical person in the world. My mind simply does not comprehend the subjective very well (that's why i'm here, trying to improve that).

In a recent facebook discussion through mutal friends, a discussion about what is considered art and what is not came up. As a philosophically blank person, I tried to define art as a blurry line between ability and creativity.

However, in saying that I maintain that art's prerequisite is a mixture between both creativity and talent.

In reply I was told that my definition was terrible and that defining art is impossible. How can it be so? Does that mean anything and everything is art? If so, how is good art differentiated from bad art? If so, why is art sub-defined (or classified) into group such as cubism, realism etc?

Am I looking at this too narrow? Am I trying to apply boundaries to a form which requires no boundary?

Either way I need a stiff drink from dealing with someone who spends too much time with their head in a book

IMO, the way you approach it is fine, if it's fine with you. Anyone can say what you believe is wrong or right, but it only really should matter to you.
Art is like beauty - it's subjective. That makes it extremely hard to define it. Once it's defined, all it would take is one person to want to amend that definition, and you could be "back to the drawing board" (pun intended).
In regards to good/bad art, I think art's art. The "good" or "bad" is a throw on by individuals who agree with said definition.

 

[Kathryn]

Art is in the eye of the beholder.