Let's start with the dictionary definition: "The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power." I have no problem with this definition and think the "creative skill and imagination" is the nub of it. But I wonder what to make of Cezanne's famous still lifes, "merely" imitating a bowl of apples, and the designer at Ferrari who sculpts a new model of sports car out of clay. It's going to be striking and beautiful, but how is his product different from that of a new bulldozer, backhoe, or forklift? The bulldozer designer doesn't intend to evoke an emotional response, nor a sense of wonderment, nor say anything about the human condition. But somehow his work is less awe inspiring, less beautiful, than the Ferrari. But I don't know why. And what to make of amateur seascapes? Are they art, or just decoration, like random notes played on the flute that sound pretty but don't really say anything? A lady from the countryside was walking in the hall of my office building and stopped short when she saw a tacky old velvet painting of a ship at sea. "Oh daddy," she said to her husband, "Did you ever see anything so beautiful?" To her, that boat was art. It transported her to the sea and she was deeply moved by it. Sometimes I think "art" is a mere word in search of a meaning. But when I see the Pieta or any Madonna and Child painting from the Renaissance, I think "No, this is inarguably art." Today I saw a pistol drawn on a bathroom wall. Pretty mediocre in terms of skill and execution, but it had Monarch butterflies flying out of the barrel instead of bullets. That's art, too.
The definition isn't bad, but I'd add in that art can add in an intellectual side as well. The butterflies coming from the gun barrel is one example of that. A simple poem with layers of meaning could also be an example. Mostly, I think art is personal and what one sees as art may not be the same as what others see.
And I'd add that it's also a skill thing. If you can do things most others can't, or if you can do them far better than others, then it kinda, sorta, does qualify as art. IMO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art According to what I guess was my first definition of art, I've known one artist. She could draw a person's face more or less with photographic accuracy. It's interesting to me that this ability is as far as I know a fairly recent human accomplishment. What's more, is that it is one that has been rendered not so valuable due to even more recent human accomplishments. I've got a friend that I've known since high school that was an artist with a camera. She could frame shots that captured scenes and instants in time that often seemed quite amazing to me. Randomly reading through another thread there was a link to yet another thread and I found these three excellent photographs posted there: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/share-your-photos.189880/page-24#post-1073539425 http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/share-your-photos.189880/page-24#post-1073539520 Now, what's fun about these pics is that they were posted by @crank and I am starting to suspect he carries on with some of his posts here to maintain cred as PF's emeritus grouch. The thing is, to me, visual arts as classically defined to include painting, sculpture and architecture have lost impact due to overwhelming new technologies. I suppose my favorite art is performance art and in particular I'm absolutely addicted to these modern multi-episode television shows. I've watched several of these more than once. And of course films are magnificent works of art in my book as well. Another fascinating realm of art was blown open by Benoit Mandelbrot from about 1975 to about 1982. https://www.dreamstime.com/abstract...-complex-patterns-self-similar-image109287181
Really depends on the audience. I have seen some WTF efforts at art that others were gaga for One piece that comes to mind was like a couple bails of straw, some chickenwire and some garden tools. Looked like a pile of junk in anybody's back yard to me, not "art". I do kind of find guilty pleasure in industrial art though which is kind of an upscaled version of junk. Digital art really doesn't do it for me beyond maybe photographs that are enhanced.
Art or not? Classically according to the above wikipedia link it seem to me that this could reasonably be considered a sculptural work of art.
If it's unique and/or the first of its kind, and if the designer wanted to create something appealing to something beyond the purely utilitarian, I'd accept it as art. But I don't accept that art is whatever the viewer thinks is art. An unadorned hammer is not art even if it moves you to tears.
Art is what moves us. It is whatever makes us realize that we are not human beings trying to be spiritual, but spiritual beings trying to be human.
The bridge? I just quoted the post and the image appeared. I don't know anything about it. It’s pleasing to the eye. Art? I don't know.
