6 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

Because I'm interested in Allan's thoughts on the matter.

[Allan Schumacher]

Art is.... the.... expressed, outward manifestation of a human's creativity?

 

 

This isn't an easy question...

Hahaha

[Maria Caliban]

*putting you on the spot*

Have you ever read Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud?

He suggested that anything which isn't directly related to human survival or needs could be considered art. Yes, an apartment building is for survival and much of its construction is based around practical considerations like plumbing, electricity, needing a bathroom, bedroom, and kitchen.



Yet when I look at this apartment building, it's obvious there are elements which aren't there to be functional. The shiny exterior, large windows, and high vaulted ceiling are there to create an impression of modernness. People are packed into cities, but this was designed to give a sense of space, openness, and light.

For me 'art' in the broadest sense is simply whatever answers yes to two questions:

Is this a deliberate creation?
Is this, or are there elements of this that are, more than simply practical?

[Allan Schumacher]

Is that a more well rounded and explained answer of what I said?

 

I guess creative expression can still be done for practical/functional reasons as well.

 

 

I haven't read that book unfortunately, but I understand the explanation and it does seem reasonable.  Would it be appropriate then if any creation is made with the aesthetics considered fits Scott's definition?

[Maria Caliban]

I brought up Scott McCloud's idea because it's the most broad one I've heard, and I wanted to see if your definition of 'any expression of human creativity' could be stretched that much.

My definition is a bit narrower than McCloud's, and yes, if you're making a creation with aesthetic considered, it would fit mine, as well as McCloud's broader one.

Would it fit yours?

[Allan Schumacher]

Probably.  I think many people have far too narrow definition of the term, mostly because I think the appreciation of art is in some way seen as sophisticated and desirable, so people will have a proclivity for things they like and understand to be artistic, while the less interesting and less understood is not seen as artistic.

 

 

So yeah, I'd say it does.  Similar to how I don't think different types of gamers have ownership over the term "gamer" that the term "art" is pretty open ended.  I am probably inclined to pick something in alignment with Scott's.  I'm not even that against "done for profit" like some people are.  But I'm biased there.

[Maria Caliban]

Well then...

 

To think people have spent ages on this question and we've answered it in five posts.

 

We are ridiculously awesome.