Furry Writers' Guild Forum

What is art to you?

This has been a question buzzing about in my head, or rather, my answer to it has been buzzing. Still, I think that if I asked 100 people what art is to them, I would get 100 different answers. Most of us probably agree that drawings, photographs, poetry, books, music and movies can be art. But what about these things makes them art? Is it the skill that the creator puts into them, or the effect they have on the person who consumes the art? Could that magical art substance be included in other media I haven’t listed? Are some of the things that I listed not really art? This is a totally open ended question.

So, what is art to you?

Art to me is a personal expression of an individual…sometimes for their own personal satisfaction, sometimes for the enrichment/pleasure/challenge to others.

I know that sounds academic, but that’s all I got :smiley:

I guess I’d say art is a personal expression that ideally creates an emotional response in someone else. I mean, you can create art and never show it to anyone, of course, but I think even in that situation, you’re creating something that’s intended to express emotion in some way, even if an audience isn’t present or may never be present.

I would say that art is the expression of those qualities which make us human.

For my part, I feel that truely interesting art happens when someone transcends limitations. I’m not too picky about what I consider a limitation: It could be the artist’s skill level, a seemingly impossible deadline, the rules and tropes of a genre, or even the laws of physics. Now, rather than ignoring these limitations, I think a great artist shows her/himself by using creativity, intuition, and willpower to stay within these limitations, but produce something that is beyond them. For this reason, Ilike to know the history and context of art.

That’s extremely good insight, but I would possibly clarify that for my own view art is the expression of what each of us thinks makes us humans. Slight wording different wording, but hey, we’re writers. And I’m not saying that’s what you meant to say, just what I feel is my definition-- or part of my definition.

Having done 4 years of fine arts in University, I have found that art is really undefinable. What is art to some is not art to others.

What I DO dislike - greatly - is people who explain poor grammar, style errors, poor plot, etc as being ‘Art’.
As if simply because it’s art means that they can do whatever you want.

Well, I think a good point to go along with this is that you can tell a successful piece of art by how long people look at it. Imperfections and such make people look away more quickly.

I disagree. Yes, when someone works at something for a long time, they can iron out imperfections. At the same time, it is possible to have someone produce something so inspired and game-changing that dispite imperfections, it has a huge impact.

Art is a performance of the soul which is creating the art. A bearing of the heart which creates it. Limited of course by the performer’s ability and the imagination therein.

Wait - so it’s not art if you do it for money?


Art IMO is the direct communication of emotions and feelings via non-verbal (or in the case of literature, via highly indirect verbal) means. Anything that does not evoke feeling, IMO, is “art” only in the sense that an attractive wallpaper pattern is “art”.

This is not to say that “art” is somehow high and mighty and “better” that attractive wallpaper. Each has their place. While I’ve aspired to write a few tales that might qualify as art by this definition, I mostly as an author strive to decorate wallpaper and am perfectly content to do so as long as the reader remains entertained.