Something I've always wondered about..

What's the difference between a regular drawing, and a piece of art?

A previous teacher of mine once said that for something to recieve the label 'Art' it has to be new, innovating, well made (as in; with skill) and should portray a message.
But I find myself unable to agree with this. I've seen work of numerous artists who make beautiful pieces, however most of them aren't innovating and don't portray a message. But they do show a lot of skill of the artist him- or herself. Now, who am I or anyone else to say these beautiful pieces of hard work and commitment aren't to be considered art?
In other words, I personally think the teacher was too strict with the concept of art.

What's your opinion on this and could you explain why you feel this way about it?

Hmm, the question of What is Art? is highly subjective. Indeed art itself , and the opinion (or possibly edict) of your teacher are both highly subjective as well. So if each element is subjective, how can anyone come to a decisive conclusion? Art will appear as many things to many people, and few people will have the same opinion. A person cannot seriously suggest that art has to be new or innovating, although I do believe skill is required. However, that is simply my opinion. For instance, if someone paints a beautiful painting (again subjective) - let us imagine that it's an oil portrait of a friend, done in the style of Rembrandt - which has been skilfully executed, and the artist has poured their time and effort into it, how can anyone say that isn't art? I would find it very difficult to convince anyone, or even myself, that it isn't.

There is very little that is new or innovating in this world, so does that mean we exclude all else? All that it suggests to me is that the artwork is not original, but it is still art. I personally think that a sheep in formaldehyde isn't art but others disagree. I think that this is the beauty of art - we can see whatever we want to see in it; we can be brought round to see things that we hadn't or couldn't see before; it can represent different things at different stages in our lives; and for that reason it is truly all-encompassing. (All in my humble opinion of course).

Hmm. The teacher was probably trying to encourage his or her students to be original and find their own voice.

Wouldn't art be anything that somebody creates to communicate his vision? To capture a moment (or moments) in time, or a thought or idea, and communicate that to the paper (canvas, clay, computer, etc.etc.etc.). ... And in my opinion, an actual thought process might not even be necessary. For instance, if you do some thoughtless doodles, it's capturing how you are feeling directly.

Then you have other contigencies for what is *good* art. Skill level, effort, experience, if the thought expressed strikes a chord with the viewer.. and these are all the things that depend on each and every viewer's different judging eyes. And the way a viewer judges is based upon what they know about the background of the artist, the story behind the artwork, different cultures, compositions, the skill of the media, their opinions on what they like to see in an artwork, etc.

In other words, if a child does a drawing, or you make shapes in the sand with your feet, it is art. I am not going to look at any painting and declare that it is not art. But, perhaps I will judge that it is not *good* art, based on my background, knowledge, and opinions. But art is not some lofty title to be bestowed only upon the master's works.

It's strange that art is so difficult to define. It's not like love, which is an abstract feeling, but art is a real physical thing. I guess because it's range is so huge people struggle with it. You could widen the definition to mean that anything we arrange is art, such as setting the table. Or you could tighten it down to mean that only the best pieces of the most prestigious artists are art.

I could relate it to something a bit more linear... writing. Are you only a writer if you publish a book? No, you can write for yourself your whole life without publishing and still be a writer. Does it matter if you are any good? No, if you write, you are a writer. ... If you only write 3 poems your whole life, you probably are not going to call yourself a writer. But if writing is a part of your life, you definitely should! Why should art be any different? ... If drawing is a part of your life, you are an artist. And going on, once you publish a book you are called an author. So, if one's art is in a gallery or published in a magazine or you sell a piece, then what are you? A professional artist.

p.s. I would say the sheep carcass is art. Specific steps were taken for the preservation of this creature at its particular stage of death. I believe a lot of art has to do with the preservation of time.

Good art is the one that is done with FEELING! otherwise is just some display of proficiency on certain technique.
Its still art.
Art is everything that a human being do with a goal of perfectionism or to manifest and communicate a feeling, that can be a good speech, a nice written advertisement line for a company, a perfectly shinned pair of shoes in the park, a well balanced in flavors and textures meal.
If you do it with love and feeling in a quest for perfectionism, is definitely art, if people like it or not, classify it as art or not, that's the other side of the story.
50% of art is what the artist made, the other 50% is what the audience see and feel.
What your teacher see and feel is a very short range of art given that she must be a art loving person, and that's a shame.

The art is in the mind of the beholder.

I agree with Swandieve complete. But I also agree with the original message the teacher had. If art does not convey at least one of those qualities described it is no longer a work of art that any given person can take credit for. For example a photograph of two people smiling at the camera, is no more a work of art of the person who took the picture and maybe asked the couple to move to a spot with good lighting (although unlikely) as this is a work of the people who gave birth to this person, nature, and/or god. The way I see it, if you don't execute on what the teacher had described as art ("new, innovating, well made (as in; with skill) and should portray a message."). It simply isn't YOUR art anymore.

Yes, but my teacher wasn't talking about one of those qualities, she said they should all be found into a piece before it could be called 'art'.

It has a little truth in it though, just think about all the great artists like Monet, Rembrandt, Dali and Picasso, just to name a few. They all brought something new into art, something that hadn't been done before. But of course, then you're not just talking about a regular artist, but true masters of art. That's a difference..

I think anything that is expressing a feeling, emotion, message or anything of the sort is art, visually, or not visually, music, digital, traditional, heck if you paint something on a goats ass that is expressing something, whose to say that isn't art? they are expressing, and that is the basis of art, to express.

Yes, I get to contradict someone today!
"It conveys some kind of content, be it emotional, political, etc."
" I agree: A sheep carcass floating in a fish tank in formaldehyde is not art. Shock shlock, maybe, but not art."
What if it conveyed a being's stance against animal cruelty?
Also, I do not see how 'certain kinds of media' has anything to do with art. I did a piece in coffee, once.
Feel free to reply with mind-bending philosophy.

drewcaine

Ah, "what is art" threads: The best way to waste one's time

My personal definition:

Art is the skillful and thoughtful application of a medium that is meant to evoke an emotional response/make a statement or convey an idea/be aesthetically pleasing/or all of the above.

a "medium" could be paint, music, the human body etc. to include visual, musical and performance artists, among others.

The thing with that kind of description is that is completely subjective. Everything is New, Nothing is innovating, most everything made with passion or excitement is "well" made on some level, and Skills vary from technical to emotional, and everything in between. Skills are constantly evolving in everyone as they learn and grow, so in a sense that means everything made with focus or purpose of any kind (be it a message or simply a desire to paint or an outlet for stress etc.) will hone those skills and so nothing is created without some skill. and the message can be anything from merely wanting to show how they see the world, to capturing deep meaning in spiritual beliefs. and anyone can attach a message to anything if they want to. Some of the conceptual art out there is simply found objects with thoughtful descriptions attached the turn it into art. an example I saw in a magazine was photographs of a gold miners ledger that had mold spots on it, and the farther you flipped through the pages the spots of mould grew smaller and then dissipated on the last few pages. On its own it was an interesting historical artifact, but the artist simply attached an essay and made it "art" for himself. (though I'd argue against it being considered art personally, It's really not my place to dictate what can be labeled art)

My artwork for example is all storytelling. My "message" is nothing particularly "important", its just a need to express the stories I have thought up. Most of my work is concept work for my animated films. It's no less art simply because it doesnt fit the criteria that was laid out by... someone i dont even know the name of LOL

My opinion: Art is everywhere. Everyone is an artist in their own right. we all create in some way, we all view the world in different ways. How we choose to express or react to what we see just makes us different kinds of artists. Some people express with words, some with images and some with actions. And its noones place to dictate what can and cannot be labeled as ART..

art - anything deemed so by a person

I always saw Art as something that appeals to the viewer, more like if someone liked it, even just the artist themselves, then it can be concidered art. However this dosen't mean I have to like it.

I think its subjective, 'one mans junk is another mans treasure' comes to mind, in the context of, everyone has their individual tastes and flavours, and thats what makes art so exciting, that because of these differences art grows more and more, and keeps expanding, work considered scrap 10 years ago is no masterful today..