The mystery of Art.

What is art to you, is it a mystery. Is it merely a creation of the human mind, can it be found in nature? Has art changed your life? Is it even possible to live without it? Therefor my dearest fellow bloggers, ladies and gentlemen. For once (maybe twice or more later on, who will say) I need your help; if you had to describe what art means to you in a few words (or more). How would you describe it? If you, as wonderful as you all are, would be so kind to tell me your opinion on art in the comment area I would feel like a kid opening his presents on Christmas Eve (maybe even happier, which depends on how many of you respond).

There’s also this little question I’d like to have your opinion on:

Thank you for reading!

Have a wonderful and hopefully artistic day!.
Remember to use your imagination.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

4 thoughts on “The mystery of Art.

  1. Bernadett-B says:

    I think Nature can be artistic but it’s not art. Art in my opinion is always manmade (thus artificial). Most of what we call art is a copy or imitation of Nature/reality therefore Nature itself is the blueprint not the artwork itself.

    • Interesting view on art, I also believe it is artificial and therefore not to be found in nature but I wouldn’t call it merely a copy. Isn’t it so that even when talking about landscapes or portraits, that it’s about transcending nature instead of sole imitation?

      I’ve seen you’re into traditional art. So i’d like to ask wether or not you do believe that art has a purpose (biological, ecological) in meanings of survival. Although this is rather anthropology I believe it did, but anymore. As history shows (still seen in tribes) art was then used more as an utility, a tool to accomplish some goal. It was made to be used and therefore it got lost in the process.

      But is that still art? To us their sand-drawings and masks might seem to be art, but for them it’s something way different. Therefore their definition of art is way different then ours.

      So is it possible even considering to find a ‘universal’ standard of what art is?

      • Bernadett-B says:

        Transcending may be but the basis is still there:) /Of course it’s generalising a lot./

        Humans cannot, in my opinion, exist without art for art is very much self-reflection and that ability to reflect on ourselves as a whole and as an individual as well is what make us human. In this sense it matters little whether any artwork has other purposes too for it’s still a form of understanding our world and ourselves better. Even the cave paintings, apart from magical purposes, served a tool for early humans to make sense of their surroundings while at the same time trying to influence it.

        So I guess the answer is yes, it’s possible to find a universal standard of what art is the question is more about aesthetics, and what we find good and valuable which can vary greatly.

  2. I like the picture of the trees. The picture is art, the trees aren’t.

    If you consider culture (exclusively manmade) as opposed to nature (no human interference). OK. but… I think, ‘No, it is just part of it’
    ‘The mind as opposed to the body’ is the same type of axiom. But I think, ‘No, it is part of it’, just as art is part of culture.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: