Art is a person's creation that catches the eye and causes the viewer to react due to the fact that art is detailed and advanced, inspires others to create art, and is expressed anywhere.
What do you mean by react? Also, by this definition, does it mean that art at the museum is not considered art because it doesn't inspire me to create art? Another opposing argument may be that a lot of art is very simplistic. For example, is a splotched painting advanced? What is advanced?
I don't think art is "a persons creation". Humans didn't create nature and yet nature is a very big part of art. Sure we can mimic nature and make something like plastic into a flower and it can be considered art by a person. Explain more why it is a persons creation.
Define your qualifiers more, they all can go into more detail. Also one might argue that art must follow rules and that some "art" such as splatter painting is nothing more than a mess and should not be considered art.
Does it inspire others to create art? Maybe sometimes but not always, and art is often based on something else, not just right out of the artist's head. This is arguable which is good.
I think this definition is really arguable because it is so specific. Your qualifiers raise questions like "what is advanced?" and whether or not art can be made anywhere. Be sure to define things like advanced, and what it means to be inspired in your paper to refute opposing arguments.
The definition is definitely arguable because is doesn't have to be a person's creation or inspire people, you can easily based your argument on these.
Some people might argue about what detailed, advanced art is. Could a stick figure drawn with a ruler be detailed and advanced? What if the art doesn't inspire something in everyone? It's hard to argue something is art because it inspires when not everyone is inspired by a piece.
I don't think that art needs to inspire other people to create art. One might see a beautiful and insightful piece that doesn't cause them to also create art.
I don't think art needs to detailed or advance. Art can be anything really. So this is somewhat arguable. Also art does not inspire lots of people either. Do they need to be inspired, if their not, is it art still?
When I see art I am not usually inspired to create art. I would also argue that not all art is detailed and advanced. But a very arguable definition which is great!
Art doesnt need to inspire to be art, but that is why i like your definition. You give us your take on what makes something art and makes us think about how we would define it.
Inspires others to create art- I think that art could still be art even if it does not inspire me to create art.
ReplyDeleteBut does the viewer have to react in a positive way or can he or she have a negative reaction?
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by react? Also, by this definition, does it mean that art at the museum is not considered art because it doesn't inspire me to create art? Another opposing argument may be that a lot of art is very simplistic. For example, is a splotched painting advanced? What is advanced?
ReplyDeleteWhat does react, detailed, and advanced mean? This is definitely arguable because art doesn't have to inspire others to create it.
ReplyDeleteI don't think art is "a persons creation". Humans didn't create nature and yet nature is a very big part of art. Sure we can mimic nature and make something like plastic into a flower and it can be considered art by a person. Explain more why it is a persons creation.
ReplyDeleteDefine your qualifiers more, they all can go into more detail. Also one might argue that art must follow rules and that some "art" such as splatter painting is nothing more than a mess and should not be considered art.
ReplyDeleteDoes it inspire others to create art? Maybe sometimes but not always, and art is often based on something else, not just right out of the artist's head. This is arguable which is good.
ReplyDeleteI think this definition is really arguable because it is so specific. Your qualifiers raise questions like "what is advanced?" and whether or not art can be made anywhere. Be sure to define things like advanced, and what it means to be inspired in your paper to refute opposing arguments.
ReplyDeleteThe definition is definitely arguable because is doesn't have to be a person's creation or inspire people, you can easily based your argument on these.
ReplyDeleteSome people might argue about what detailed, advanced art is. Could a stick figure drawn with a ruler be detailed and advanced? What if the art doesn't inspire something in everyone? It's hard to argue something is art because it inspires when not everyone is inspired by a piece.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that art needs to inspire other people to create art. One might see a beautiful and insightful piece that doesn't cause them to also create art.
ReplyDeleteI don't think art needs to detailed or advance. Art can be anything really. So this is somewhat arguable. Also art does not inspire lots of people either. Do they need to be inspired, if their not, is it art still?
ReplyDeleteWhen I see art I am not usually inspired to create art. I would also argue that not all art is detailed and advanced. But a very arguable definition which is great!
ReplyDeleteArt doesnt need to inspire to be art, but that is why i like your definition. You give us your take on what makes something art and makes us think about how we would define it.
ReplyDelete