What is 'Fine Art'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
kelack said:
How about you pack it in with the personal jibes and getting round swear filters. We're getting really fed up with it all now
Click to expand...

I'm sorry and I'll take a ban if it's deemed necessary, but for the record I don't remember trying to swear.
 
woof woof said:
There's no need to thank me Pooky as there's a like button and an ignore button and both take less effort than your overly dismissive and critical responses to me and others but of course these options don't allow you to express your (IMO) misplaced self importance.

IMO fine art is a waffle term and I say this as an artist who has art hanging on walls I don't own.

You have a differing opinion and that's ok, I've read your thoughts and I've decided I'm right :D
Click to expand...

Then your work here is done, surely.
 
Woof woof, what art did you produce, what form. Genuinely interested as it's not often in the everyday life you meet people who say they produce art. Usually just the art itself.
Any thing that would prove an example to assist with defining art?
 
Pookeyhead said:
Not once in here have I tried to be the arbiter of anything.
Click to expand...

Really..... /thread (right toward the beginning)

{edit} Actually... apologies - post #65
 
Last edited:
Byker28i said:
Huh? I read that as an explanation, an opinion. It's not like he said this is it and anything else is wrong?
Click to expand...

Ok... just me being me. Seemed rather a definite conclusion that Pookey couldn't be bothered any more - like the "thread ends here - nothing more can be said"
 
So have we sorted the answer then? Fine art = stuff people would want in their homes vs Art = stuff to make a point?
 
ancient_mariner said:
So have we sorted the answer then? Fine art = stuff people would want in their homes vs Art = stuff to make a point?
Click to expand...
No, some people interpret Fine Art as your definition of Art, and would call your definition of Fine Art, Creative Art. Others wouldn't call it art at all and round and round we go ad infinitum. I think most people understand the differences, but until there is some consistency with the terminology and it's uses, it will always be debated. If it ever does get sorted, no doubt "art" will have evolved again, and will be deserving of some new definition. As long as you understand the concepts and you can figure out what the other person is describing based on their use of the terminology, you should be able to have a fairly civil conversation about it.
 
There was once a UK public company called Fine Art Developments PLC, headquartered in Accrington and Burton-on-Trent and then Bradford ... a successful company until it went the way of many ...........it was the largest printer of Christmas cards in Europe ....... 1 million a day in the peak season, Easter cards, Mothers and Fathers Day cards and of course Valentines day cards

The words "Fine Art" are either meaningless or it is an abused term ........ from Sotheby's to Fine Art Developments PLC
 
Last edited:
chuckles said:
Really..... /thread (right toward the beginning)

{edit} Actually... apologies - post #65
Click to expand...


That was called sarcasm due to the frequency these threads pop up. However, on a serious note... You'd actually find it hard to argue with what was in post #65. Art DOES need purpose. Decorative art on the other hand just has to be attractive enough to hang on a wall and be... well... decorative. I suppose being decorative IS a purpose... but you know what I'm getting at I'm sure.




ancient_mariner said:
So have we sorted the answer then? Fine art = stuff people would want in their homes vs Art = stuff to make a point?
Click to expand...


Not really, no. Fine art is really the problem here. I think it's a pointless definition. Some would argue with me here, but so far as I'm concerned, there is Contemporary Art, and decorative art. Fine art is often used to describe fine paintings etc... that yes, would adorn a wall in a home, but having said that, many universities that run Fine Art BA (Hons) courses deal solely with contemporary and conceptual art, and wouldn't go anywhere near decorative art.

I genuinely think it's easier to get your head around to think of it as contemporary art, and decorative art. When art mellows with age, some of it inevitably becomes more acceptable as decorative art.

But... LOL...


Then you see.. it all gets ridiculous.

BillN_33 said:
There was once a UK public company called Fine Art Developments PLC, headquartered in Accrington and Burton-on-Trent and then Bradford ... a successful company until it went the way of many ...........it was the largest printer of Christmas cards in Europe ....... 1 million a day in the peak season, Easter cards, Mothers and Fathers Day cards and of course Valentines day cards

The words "Fine Art" are either meaningless or it is an abused term ........ from Sotheby's to Fine Art Developments PLC
Click to expand...

It's not often I agree with Bill, but he;s pretty much right here. Fine Art is a seriously abused term.

There's contemporary art, and decorative art. Contemporary art that's also aesthetically pleasing, eventually becomes decorative art in all likelihood.


It really is easier to just think of "Art" and "Decorative art" IMO. Saves the headache, and you wouldn't be far wrong.
 
As with art itself, it's whatever the beholder thinks it is. Maybe. ;)
 
Art is such an nonsense, ambiguous word. To a lot of people art is a painting or sculpture or something similar, whereas to some people anything at all can be art, modern art exhibitions are full of anything and everything. And most of it is pointless. I think Art is a rubbish word, it doesnt really mean anything.
 
JulesP said:
That's basically why I asked the original question as in my eyes, it's an overused definition that has lost any real meaning.
Click to expand...


Yes.. I get that... but it can disguise the real debate. The question is really what is art.

JonMo said:
Art is such an nonsense, ambiguous word. To a lot of people art is a painting or sculpture or something similar, whereas to some people anything at all can be art, modern art exhibitions are full of anything and everything. And most of it is pointless. I think Art is a rubbish word, it doesnt really mean anything.
Click to expand...

And we go full circle.... This idea that art is whatever you want it to be is erroneous and misleading. Your assertion that most modern art is pointless is clearly incorrect: It ALL has a point, as that is a pre-requisite of contemporary art. What you mean is.. you don't see the point. Modern art? What examples of modern art are you referring to, seeing as the "Modern" art movement started around 1860 and is widely agreed to have ended around 1970?


Sorry, but this kind of opinion can't be taken seriously in a serious debate about art. If this is the case, and art is whatever you want it to be, then everything is art. Is that your proposal? Everything is art?
 
I think the issue is that to your average person, fine art appears to be a misused term for expensive galleries of strange sculptures or low contrast nudes in photography, or at least thats the way it was to me before I started studying.
JonMo said:
Art is such an nonsense, ambiguous word. To a lot of people art is a painting or sculpture or something similar, whereas to some people anything at all can be art, modern art exhibitions are full of anything and everything. And most of it is pointless. I think Art is a rubbish word, it doesnt really mean anything.
Click to expand...

Art is a descriptive word, almost a collective noun, used to define the product of a creative process. How can it be ambiguous?

Art is created by artists, who produce things to affect the senses, you'd have to say the majority of art affects our hearing, in the amount of music produced, but is also combined with visual art. At time even smell has been used to enhance the experience.

As such, of course art is subjective. You and I possibly don't like the same music, the same films, the same smells, why should we like the same visual art?
And that's fine, provided we explore why we don't like it. To simply dismiss something in an instant, as some people do, when the artist has thought about stimulating your senses in some way is probably doing both people a disservice.
 
It contains so much rubbish ....... the word and the debate
 
BillN_33 said:
It contains so much I don't like, I don't understand and I don't want to understand ....... the word and the debate
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you.
 
Bythesea said:
Fixed it for you.
Click to expand...

strange way to react and proves my point as far as the debate is concerned ....... what you said is rubbish and a classic example of my point

what I said was

(Fine Art) ........... contains so much rubbish

(Fine Art) ...... the debate about the words contain so much rubbish

It has got nothing to do understanding or my personal views
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
strange way to react and proves my point as far as the debate is concerned ....... what you said is rubbish and a classic example of my point

what I said was

(Fine Art) ........... contains so much rubbish

(Fine Art) ...... the debate about the words contain so much rubbish

It has got nothing to do understanding or my personal views
Click to expand...

It has got everything to do with your personal views.

The post was made in response to more than just this post though. You have made it abundantly clear from this and posts in other threads that you are not willing to accept the possibility that others might have different views to you about art that are equally as valid as you saying that there is so much rubbish, based on nothing more than that you don't like it. It seems to come across as an intense dislike of modern visual art. Do you feel the same about music? There is much modern music (and I am not talking about what gets played on Radio 1 as much of that is merely created to make money) that I personally do not like, but I can appreciate the skill/ideas/thought processes that went into its creation. Would you consider that rubbish as well if you did not like it?
 
Bythesea said:
Fixed it for you.
Click to expand...
Bythesea said:
It has got everything to do with your personal views.

The post was made in response to more than just this post though. You have made it abundantly clear from this and posts in other threads that you are not willing to accept the possibility that others might have different views to you about art that are equally as valid as you saying that there is so much rubbish, based on nothing more than that you don't like it. It seems to come across as an intense dislike of modern visual art. Do you feel the same about music? There is much modern music (and I am not talking about what gets played on Radio 1 as much of that is merely created to make money) that I personally do not like, but I can appreciate the skill/ideas/thought processes that went into its creation. Would you consider that rubbish as well if you did not like it?
Click to expand...

as you say .........."Fixed it for you"

you comments illustrate the biggest enemy of "art" whether you like art or not ........ your inability to read and understand what is presented to you .. in this case in the written form ......... ...... the thread is about the use of the words "Fine Art"

art has got nothing to do with what my personal views are ............. or my dislikes or likes .... these only relate to me not to art

but the argument is not worth my time
 
Last edited:
“What is the art experience about? Really, I’m not interested in making “Art” at all. I never, ever, think about it. To say the word “Art”, it’s almost like a curse on art.”
Joel Meyerowitz
 
But you said:

BillN_33 said:
(Fine Art) ........... contains so much rubbish

(Fine Art) ...... the debate about the words contain so much rubbish

It has got nothing to do understanding or my personal views
Click to expand...

If that isn't a personal view what is it?
 
Bythesea said:
But you said:



If that isn't a personal view what is it?
Click to expand...

not at all - just look back at what has been said in the thread ....... about the definition of Fine Art and what it contains and how the word is used......... it is not my personal view at all ........ it is a fact based on definitions and from what others have said

It has little to do with my personal views on "fine art" ........My personal views could be completely different even before we get onto the word "art" .. which I do not want to as it is just a waste of time and a circular argument and I need to brush my teeth!
 
Last edited:
I believe Peter Lik has spent over 30 years pushing the boundaries of fine art.
 
BINGO - Lik, Emins Bed, Pile of Bricks, Discarded Tissues, Emperors New Clothes.


and as yet another thread on TP with ART in the title spirals into terminal decline and circular arguments lead by people with no interest or appreciation of the actual subject, I think it's time for the lock and keys folks

Mind the Doors
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top