Hey folks, this is essentially a re-post of a response to a blog question postulated by the DeviantArt admins... What is Art? ah, such an old, wickedly debated question. I suspect a deliberate attempt to stir up a hornet's nest. Well, I have my thoughts on the matter, and what I consider just enough personal insight to feel they are worth sharing. If I'm lucky, I'll help some people understand things a bit better. It also gives one or two hints on my personal state of being, though I am not conceited enough to consider that important. Anyway, here's my response....

***

Art is basically just an oblique term for "expression"... Heck, I'd even boil it down to the old school tradition of "Show and Tell".

Lets see if I can simplify it enough without insulting any "artists" out there.

Something sparks a mental reaction in someone... something that a person sees as profound... it can be a sight, a smell, a taste... a physical sensation. Or it can be something less... tangible. A memory, an illusion, an emotion, or a hard-to-define physical sensation, such as pain or arousal.

Humans are inherently social creatures, and so, once a human has found something it believes is important, it will almost instinctively desire to share it with others. this is actually one of the cornerstones that has led to our rapid advancement as a species.

Sometimes, merely showing another human something and saying it is important is not enough. If I were to tell you I think flammie, a fictional beast from a video game (and the current icon for my avatar picture) was important to me, and possibly you too, you would not know why I felt that way... you would not have the same link of experiences I had that led to that personal belief. At worst, you would not even believe me.

Instead, Man found that the best way to make someone else believe what they believe, was to find a way to make them feel the same way, not just tell them what they should be feeling. In a way, a new invention began to develop... the invention of art. Essentially, art as a physical medium is a series of stimuli, such as mix of colors to form an image, or a mix of images to illustrate a series of events... or a mix of words to tell a story, or a mix of flavors... In as few words as I can muster, a deliberately constructed mix of stimulus intended to make those witnessing the stimuli feel the same way as the one who created the stimulus.

For example, I like this fictional creature, this flammie, because it invokes a feeling of both power and serenity to me, qualities I find important because of who I am and how I was raised and how I live. A furred, feathered dragon, a harbinger of the end of the world *if* it becomes too corrupted, but otherwise a gentle, helpful, friendly beast.

So... if I wished to make you believe that power and serenity, and in extension, flammie, were important, I would construct a series of stimulus in order to try and simulate to others the same feelings for the creature.

How this is done can be handled in any number of ways... 2-dimensional drawings seem to be the thing I am most adept at, so I use that, but any physical stimuli can be used. cooking, music, writing, architecture... these are all legitimate ways of trying to "show" the same thing.

Art is evolving and improving as we, as humans, become more aware of how our minds work, on both a conscious and subconscious level. For example... if I wanted to evoke a sense of both serenity and power, I know that large shapes with thick lines (for power) and flowing, curving linework (for grace and by extension, serenity) are good places to start....
...How would I know this if I hadn't studied past examples of artwork? Did our ancient ancestors understand this when starting their first cave scratchings? I doubt it. generations upon generations of trial and error, failure and re-examination, led to this one little "trick". I lament the "failed" artists who never had their feelings understood, simply because they did not know these tricks. As my screen signature states "The worst fate god can bestow, is to be a mediocre artist".

All it means to be an "artist" is to have some feeling that you feel is important enough to try and share with others, enough to create deliberate stimuli to invoke that feeling in others. The only difference between being a "good" or "bad" artist, is how well you were able to share this feeling with others. By that definition, a famous artist can consider himself a bad artist... though people feel pleasure of one form or another looking at his or her work, and thus his name and work is spread far and wide, the work might have invoked a different feeling than what the artist wished to share.

...Indeed, many "famous" artists only became so accomplished because they were self-tortured... they felt they weren't creating a perfect copy of the feelings they had, and so they work, and practice, and train, and work... until they either discover that perfect emotive formula (highly unlikely) or break under the strain, often becoming reclusive, anti-social, sociopathic or basically just giving up on being able to share that feeling with others...

...This is why I consider being a mediocre (or bad) artist such a terrible thing... to want to share your soul with others, and botch the job... even rich and/or famous artists are not always understood like they want to be... its also why they are often considered irritable perfectionists... and in a way I guess they are. But I feel pity for such a condition, not contempt.

....As for this spitwad coated wall... someone felt it portrayed something important... so they took a picture of it, in the best way they felt they could, then presented it to others in a way they thought would garner the best attention and reaction (whether that reaction is to be positive or negative, I cannot say: sadly, this piece of artwork does not convey any great meaning to me).

...I consider it art, and I hope I did well in explaining what I believe art to be.