TOK: Is everything art? by Lindsay Lyon

Are Video Games Really Art?

llyon — 2016-10-06 05:55:47 UTC

Claim: Not everything is art, because to be considered "art," it must be intentional, of high quality, and evoke empathy from the receiver. (RLS: BioShock). CC: Because the intentions of the artist are never truly known, it is possible that "anything" can be considered art. OR. Reactions from audience vary so widely, it can be justified that "everything" can be art.

I believe that not everything is considered ‘art’. According Lagemaat, the main objective of art is to “distinguish things from other things” and that ‘art’ is something relative to ‘not art’. Thus, according to this view, if everything is art, then nothing is truly art. What I believe distinguishes art from other things is the intention of the artist. This is because one of the main reasons for art, is to invoke a response or emotion. Therefore, if anything is made by an artist that has a deeper meaning and has the sole purpose to cause some sort of response, it is considered art. However, since art is such a broad term, many people might not agree with this. One person’s example of art might not be considered art by another person. For example, below is the painting “Blood Red Mirror” by Gerhard Richter. To most people this is not considered art as it is simply a red canvas. However, to some people this is a work of art as the artist painted this to have a deeper meaning and convey a message.

2016-10-06 07:32:32 UTC

Can video games be considered art?

aprodger — 2016-10-06 07:32:40 UTC

C: Everything can be considered art depending on whose perspective and what definition of art is used. One definition says that art is "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form". This allows for nearly everything to be art if it can be seen as long as people follow this definition. (RLS: the game Journey) CC: Not everyone's perspective on art is the same, and the definition of art is not universal. If someone's definition of art does not line up with the artist's, then perhaps the work of art is not a work of art to others no matter what the artist thinks.

hcheon — 2016-10-06 07:33:39 UTC

Claim: Not everything is art because art depends on three things; intention of the art, quality of the art and audience of the art.
CC: The value of art depends on the individuals.
EX) Nike back to the future shoes: can be considered art to runners as its innovative, but critics might disagree because there's not much artistic thoughts put into the shoes making it less valuable.

Is everything art?

2016-10-06 07:33:41 UTC

I don't believe everything can be considered as art. There are key components for something to be valued and appreciated and it should have three characteristics (quality, intention reception). For example, I might consider my scarf a work of art because I know its of good quality and also know that many would appreciate it too because of its purpose, however it also might not be considered art because I'm unaware of its intention. I am unsure if it was made for my needs or if it was just produced for profit.

Is everything Art? Fawziah

2016-10-06 07:34:09 UTC

Claim: Not everything is art because it does not all into the three criterion that entails what art should encompass. RLS: Swan Lake one the most acclaimed pieces for performance art and it falls into each of the three standards of art. CC: There are various forms of art that do not necessarily fit into the three standards RLS: two teenagers placed a pair of sunglasses on the floor in a museum and after a few minutes "“people appeared to be viewing their handiwork as bona fide art.”

Is Everything Art?-Ryan

2016-10-06 07:34:14 UTC

Claim: Everything can be considered art.
Example: Photography- The way that I view things as a photographer, there is a heightened search of appreciation in how things look. I do not see the difference between the art that would be taken on my camera vs. the art that I would be viewing in the moment when taking a picture. This is played into the argument of the “response of spectators”, as “art requires an appreciative spectator in order to complete it.”

Counterclaim: What can be considered art is variable between each individual. Definition involving art usually references human creativity.
Example: Koko the Gorilla (clearly not a human)- She creates paintings which are sold to individuals. The intentions of the artist in this situation would not be able to fully explain their intention because the form of communication is not fully developed (use of sign language). Aesthetic value can still be seen in her paintings, so there may be disagreements in whether or not her creation is considered art.

No not everything is art. art is intentional, a creative choice meant to communicate something from within the artist. To make art, the artist must choose a medium, a subject, and a message. If the literal meaning of everything is used, then even the smallest of electrons would be classified as art which is simply not true. The Stuckist group of artists stood up against anti-conceptual art because they felt it was not art. They also called it pretentious, "unremarkable and boring" and on July 25, 2002, in a demonstration, deposited a coffin outside the White Cube gallery, marked "The Death of Conceptual Art". cc: Art is everything. Art is subjective and thus whether something is art or not is up to the audienceSome people did not agree with the Stuckists and felt that anti-conceptual art is art.

tahsyed — 2016-10-06 07:35:00 UTC

Is Everything Art?

2016-10-06 07:35:36 UTC

Claim: Sol LeWitt believed that something is only considered art if the artist intended it to be art.

Counter Claim: A teenage boy placed glasses on the floor next to the information card and the visitors took it for an actual art piece.

Is everything Art? Tabassum

2016-10-06 07:35:42 UTC

Claim: Not everything is can be considered art as there are key components that make something art such as the intention, reception and high quality

Example: Harry potter series, as it encompasses the three main components that are necessary for a creative piece to be considered art.

Counter Claim: However the definition of art varies for everyone, so everything can be defined as art depending on whose perspective the piece is looked at. For example in 2010, there was an art exhibition in the Milwaukee art  museum showcasing everyday items such as water cans.

Is Everything Art?

ayasin — 2016-10-06 07:38:50 UTC

Claim: Not everything can be viewed as art since it's different for each person.
Counter Claim: Since there are so many distinctions on the view of Art there is no set view of what art is, thus everything can be considered as art.
Example: Moisés Mahiques. An artist that creates drawings of humans showing different poses of the same action

Mohammad Butt

2016-10-06 07:40:26 UTC

Not everything can be considered art. Not everything made was intended to be art. A door to a shack for example, it was intended to be a door for privacy to serve a purpose rather than a message. Hence since this was not intended to be art, it is not art.

Is Everything Art? Urmeen

2016-10-06 07:41:09 UTC

Claim: Everything has the potential to be art but it depends on an individual's will to see something as art or not. Art is extremely personal and individual taste can spread to become shared artistic taste, which gives everything the potential to be seen as art. RLS: My initial distaste for Classical Pakistani music, but I eventually learned to enjoy it once I started studying the music and learning the techniques. At first, I did not thing it was art but eventually, I willed myself to see it as an art, and I did. Counterclaim: There are some art forms that do not require the will to see it as beautiful and should be seen as universally aesthetic. Real art is something that is seen as universally beautiful, so not everything can be art.

Is everything art ?

2016-10-06 07:50:12 UTC

Not everything can be art as in order for something to be art it needs to fit into the three criterion; quality of the art, intention of the art and the audience of the art. If a piece does not fit these three criterion then it shouldn't be considered as art.

Ex: Only some things can be called art but anything can be the ingredients of art. For example: A cake could be called art as it fits into the three criterion required for something to be art, but the ingredients to make cake cant be called art as they don't fit into all the criterion.

CC: Art is subjective and thus any thing be considered as art from different perspectives and viewpoints.

Is everything art?

2016-10-06 07:55:17 UTC

Some might argue that everything can be considered to be art if they only have to follow the criteria that the artist needs to have intentions, the art needs to be of “quality”, and there should be people to react to the art. For example, the piece “One and three chairs” by Joseph Kosuth is called conceptual art. People may argue that this piece of art contains a message and can be considered art. They might say that true art gets its viewers to really think about the piece and the message that it delivers. However there would also be those who would not see this as art as they’re “just chairs” and not much quality or effort was put into the piece, nor would there be a lot of emotion evoked from its viewers.

Is everything art?

2016-10-06 07:55:57 UTC

Is art everything?

Claim: everything is not art as there are three criteria to which art is dependent on. The three criteria are the artists intentions, the audience's reaction, and the quality of the piece.

CC: How good or bad is up to the audience to decide as one person will think of one piece of art differently than the other.

Example: Is technology art?

RLS: Some people argue that technology is not art but some say it is. Those who say its not say its just some hardware to fulfill a need. The opposing argument is that technology is a “creative effort emanating from a need” and that it’s also used to implement innovations. So in this case the reception of the audience is used to establish whether or not something is art.

https://www.fastcompany.com/friends/loop/dcart.html

Is Everything Art?

2016-10-06 07:57:02 UTC

Claim: Yes, everything is art. Anytime an individual expresses him or herself, or displays something about themselves, it is art. When someone dances, or sings, or shows a part of him or herself to the world, they are making art. When someone writes or produces anything, it is art. When an individual is simply being, they are art.
An example:Museums hold all kinds of work, from blank canvases to the most detailed paintings. These all represent someone, and as a result, are forms of art.
Counter Claim: Art is not everything. To create it, the artist must choose a medium, a subject, and a message.
Example: Anti-conceptual art was considered pretentious, "unremarkable and boring". (Stuckists).

Asem: Is everything art?

2016-10-06 07:57:55 UTC

Claim: Anything can be art if someone wants it to be. No matter what the piece is composed of the real art depends on the person. No matter of the response it gets, if the artists intentions were to make something he passionate about and that means something to him with value then it is art. For example Rob $tone is an unknown rapper who has a lot of talent and therefore I see his work as art no matter what response the people are giving it.

Counter-claim: Even though I believe art is in the ye of the beholder, what the people think really does affect if a piece is determined as art or not. Especially those people of higher authority usually are known to have more of a say in whether something is art or not. My example is a personal one as in P.E class in grade 9 every time someone would play a rap song, Mr. Johnson would call it garbage and tell them to turn it off even though the reception of these pieces is enormous and has a huge crowd of people who think it has great quality and good intentions.

Is Everything Art?

2016-10-06 08:05:45 UTC

According to Lagemaat, there are three possible criteria to what makes something art: the intentions of the artist, the quality of the work, and the response of the spectators. However, I believe art is beyond that and everything can be considered art to a certain extent. According to lagemaat, something is a work of if it is made by someone with the intention of evoking an aesthetic response in the audience. Therefore, art is anything that expresses the artist’s intentions/emotions and connects with the audience. For example, the movie Straight Outta Compton is a film that is used to convey a message about the challenge of growing up as a rapper in a black society. This shows how an artist has a purpose and is used to connect with the audience. On the other hand, I believe watching the sun set is art. It is soothing and is aesthetic although it has no artist with an intended purpose. I believe that art can be anything whether it is published or kept personal between the artist and the object. If there is some sort of attachment then it is art.

The white board above can be considered art as it could provide a personal connection of emptiness between the audience and the art piece. Although there isn't anything physically drawn or written it can still be perceived as art

Is Everything Art?

2016-10-06 08:10:16 UTC

ARt

Is everything art?

nparks — 2016-10-06 08:24:38 UTC

Claim: Everything intentionally designed can be art, because everything will evoke a response from at least someone.

Art is something which is capable of expressing the artist’s intended message, in a way which affects others in some way, such as by causing them to think or feel a certain way. In instrumental music, there is no verbal communication of emotions or feelings, but it does evoke such things. The song “Thanksgiving” by George Winston is a very slow and paced piano solo. Somehow these aspects as capable of evoking a mellow mood. However these feelings may be different for some people. For example, for one person it may remind them of a happy memory of what they were thinking about while listening to the song in the past. For another person, it may make them feel sad. Therefore, how art affects a person may be different from the artist’s intentions, because everyone has a different perspective, which causes them to respond to artistic stimuli differently.

Counterclaim: Everything can’t be art, since many things intentionally designed do not evoke a response from most people.

If we consider architecture, for example, the Empire State building, which was intentionally designed, this likely does not evoke any emotional response from a large group of people. Perhaps people who are more interested in architecture would be more likely to respond to this in an emotional manner, since they have a greater interesting in the field of architecture, and thus appreciate it more. Therefore, whether or not something is perceived as art must be perspective based.

fart is art

2020-09-12 05:33:40 UTC