Can Sup Forums define art? what is art?

can Sup Forums define art? what is art?

A thing that either portrays a profound/non pathetic message or looks aesthetically pleasing objectively.

With a little "a" or with a big "A"?

Art is art.
Art is art isn't art.
Art is art isn't art is art.
Art is art isn't art is art isn't art.
Art is art isn't art is art isn't art is art.
And so on.

I don't know entirely, but humans need to be involved somewhere in the process. A mountain isn't art, but a painting or a picture of a mountain can be.

A part of experience captured. Now, what is good art? Good art is art that capture the right emotions for you. That's how post modernists get's away with just a toilet. It's subjective brings out the right emotion for them.
Now, for everyone else, this is just trash. And it has nothing to do with being sophisticated.

It's like, what is good music? Music that makes you feel like you want.
Musical taste is learnt, which is why every song sounds the same and people don't like classical music. They haven't learned to like it.. yet.

>A part of experience captured. Now, what is good art? Good art is art that capture the right emotions for you.
so basically what you're saying is what guy in OP did was good art. not only that, but porn is art too?

There was an interesting case a while ago where a photographer set up a camera somewhere in Africa where gorillas were known to live with the hopes that one or more of them would stumble upon the camera and accidentally take some pictures. When he returned in a few weeks, he discovered that exactly this had happened, and published them in a magazine or something.

However, he later discovered that his pictures had been uploaded online without his permission and he sued some search engines to get the results containing his pictures taken off for copyright violation.

The court ended up saying that he had no valid copyright because he didn't actually create any art. For a work to be copyrightable (and therefore presumably have a bare minimum of artistic value) then the artist needs to put in a bare minimum of effort towards arranging the composition. Because he got a fucking monkey to take the pictures instead of him, his photographs didn't even rise to the very, very low standard that your work has to meet to even be copyrightable.

As a side note, Peta filed an amicus brief arguing that the goddamn monkey is the copyright holder.

An actual lawyer got paid real money to argue that in court.

Yes.

>Good art.
Well...

wrong

logically:
Art isn't art.
Art isn't art is art.
Art isn't art is art isn't art.
Art isn't art us art isn't art is art.
...
... and so on

A piece capturing a moment of history depicted in a skillfully crafted manner.

But he obviously had to leave the country and go out into the middle of Africa to set up everything. That alone is a fuck ton of effort, money, and time.

I think the photo is art, because a human did set up the camera. I also get why the photo is not considered his, because he literally just left a camera lying around. If I leave my camera somewhere and someone uses it, the photo is not mine.

Once a monkey starts painting without any help from humans, we are going to need a new word for monkey art.

People mixed up art with performer and that wrong.

For me art is somthing that has to transmit a message to the audience while at the same time the method of transmission has to requiere some sort of skills that are hard to master.

Throwing some paint aournd and then claim its a critique to modern art can suck my balls and go back to the hole he came from.

God made everything in his own image.

everything is art.

This is art

I agreed with this view at first, but the legal standard is that the person who claims to be the creator of the art for purposes of copyright has to have some bare minimum of control over the composition of a visual work. It's not about how much money you spent, but how much artistic control you exercised over the final product.

So for example, If I pave a sidewalk and then some rain falls on it, I can't claim a copyright in the sidewalk with raindrops on it, because I had no control over the placement of the drops. But if I took a photograph of the wet sidewalk, the composition of the final work would be controlled by my choice of lens, lighting, exposure, etc and therefore could be copyrightable.

Anyways, I bring this up because although copyright is a poor proxy for what is and isn't art, it does provide one way of thinking about what we require of the artist before we are willing to accept his claim that what he made is in fact art. As said in your initial post, a mountain isn't art because there's no human involvement in its creation. But the case of the photographer and the monkey is a closer case, isn't it?

Anyways, I was just surprised to hear some aussie on Sup Forums independently deriving one of the cornerstone issues of American copyright law.

Also, courts have ruled that animals can't hold a copyright because they're not legal persons. Whether or not they can create art is a whole different issue, but personally I don't think they can.

Art is the creation of beauty. If it is not beautiful, or you don't create it, it is not art.

When you try a little bit more than make a pretty picture.

THIS IS A PAINTING I MADE
I CALL IT CAT1488

Two elements compose art: aesthetic and pathos, both of which are subjective to at least some degree. Modern art often has neither of these qualities though, since it rejects the contemporary rules of art, and the best way to do this is to remove subjectivity by becoming objectively shit.

Also, this is now a roll thread.

"Art is a jackboot stamping on a human face - for ever" - Vincent Van Goch

Print out and frame my fucking post and someone out there will consider it a masterpiece. They'll go "Woah, this is such an insightful piece about how we see art in modern times."

Art is a celebration of beauty
Beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder but has a stable form
If beauty didn't have a stable form then it would be impossible to have the concept of beauty
The fact that some people can't define beauty or find ugly things beautiful does not negate that there is a stable beauty, and it is not my problem

Plato digits ended the thread

9 or 5 please

a thing that artificially stimulate you through perception. a sensual drug.

IMAGINE MY SHOCK

This post is art