Casual I get "Art" now.

[AshenMan]

I get it now.

Good art, Bad art, Traditional, Modern.

Art doesn't have to be pretty. It's prettiness is subjective.

I get modern art.

It's not pretty, It's not for everyone, but it can be interpreted.

I get traditional art.

It's elegant, beautiful, has meaning, tells a story, but not everyone likes it.

I get good art.

It may not look pretty to a lot of people, but it has a great meaning.

I get bad art.

It may look pretty to a lot of people, but it was created for the sake of profit, agenda or other reasons.

Some art doesn't have to be judged by it's meaning. But by it's prettiness alone is enough.

Just because it doesn't have meaning doesn't make it "bad"

Again, art doesn't have to be pretty. It's prettiness is subjective.

This doesn't end at drawings or paintings.
Writing is art, performance is art, and so are many other things.


Let me know your thoughts.

 

[Khastle]

Let me ask you this, are *we* art?

 

[AshenMan]

Let me ask you this, are *we* art?

From a religious standpoint and/or if we consider nature a creator, yes. But from other standpoint then may or may not be so.
Like I said art is subjective.

You could look at modern art of a bunch of colors thrown together and say it's bad art. But some people can interpreted it as "mixed emotions", "abuse", "schizophrenia", "diversity", etc.

That's still good art.

Same way you could look at humanity from the lens of a fellow human. You can consider them a fellow being or a fellow creator if we're not looking through the lens of the things bigger than us, and weather if we're good art or not that's entirely up to individuals.

I don't think I explained it very well but I think you get what I'm saying.