actually we have a computer store here, and they do make computers art...everything from super cool neon colored lights, clear covered side panels, water cooler tubes...i believe they call it modding...we've seen some of what they've built, and they were beautiful...as well as functional...

look at what people pay hundreds of dollars for now with contemporary art...art is in the expression, not what others think of it...

well, i would say a form of killing would be art. as most above have said, unsolved murders, and the forensic mind fucks they go through would be art. they have to interpret the whole scene, guess how they were illed, and where they were. how long they were there, and if they died right away. like art, it needs depiction. i took forensic science in highschool, and i tell you. when you study such a subject you are intittled to say it is an art form.

i also agree, using a gun is not art, it is like splatter painting which i only htinks depicts the laziness of mankind. i guess still art, but more like a cheap drawing done on drywall and aged 600 years.

hunting is cruel, but yes an art. people study the animals, and the best ways to kill them withought making it to painfull. the less pain, the more glorified the hunter, and recognized as the best.

Some people do consider the houses and buildings they create art, however. And I must say that some architecture can be considered art. and some architetects artists.

What do you feel about saying that art is a form of self expression?

Modding is most certainly a form of art, and one must not forget graphic designs. While some of it is complete crap, some of it is quite good.

I agree with this.

The fact of the matter is that art really can be anything. It really does come down to personal taste, but simply because some one does not like something does not mean that they have the right to say "that is not art." Which is really why I believe that at least some killing can be considered art.

the problem is, anything can be art..........but as i said, if anything can be art, then we really don't know what art is...............for example, the mona lisa is obviously art, a mcdonald's building is not, though a mcdonald's with a bell-tower incorporated within it, is far aesthetically pleasing than one without.........doesn't make it art.......perhaps itz better to say some things are "Art", and other things are "Aesthetic-Art"

Why should it be up to any one person to define art? At least as far as everyone else is concerened? Couldn't it be possible for everyone to define art as they see fit? What if the person who designed the McDonald's with the bell-tower felt that it was art? What if he was trying to say something? Just because you don't feel it is art doesn't have to mean that I can't? On the other hand, let's pretend for argument's sake that I didn't feel that the Mona Lisa was art for this that or the other reason. If I honestly believed that would popular opinion make it art to me any more than my belief that said bell-tower made the McDonald's building a piece of art?

I'm not truly advocating any of the above statements, but I am genuinly curious now.

i'm not going for popular opinion...........everyone keeps saying, art is in the eye of the beholder, itz what you make of it, anything can be art, yaddah yaddah yaddah.....but if that is the case, then can a mcdonald's truly be considered art..........i mean, i understand that this is like the liberal times and all, but why must we kid ourselves? the mona lisa is art, not a mcdonalds (clearly)........but what about a jackson pollock painting (for those of you who don't know, pollock essentially invented the "sling-the-paint-onto-the-canvas" style), is his work art? some say yes, others say no.........evidently it is art in some manner, otherwise his paintings wouldn't be worth $20+ million each........but whatz so artistic about slinging paint onto a canvas? anyway, as i have been saying, it appears some shit is art, and other shit can be considered art under an aesthetic principle.........but is it really art?

Can you give me a good reason why the Mona Lisa is art and a well put together McDonald's building is not? If you can do that for any reason save "asthetically pleasing" then I will say that you have made a point. All you have done is that it is the case and not given a reason. I'm not saying that it will change my mind, but I would really like to know why you feel the way you do.

Personally I believe that art should be a form of self expression, say something about society or humanity, please the eye/stimulate the mind, or all three. Therefore I do believe that art can be anything.

i was trying to say that anything can't be art, i was saying that itz "art" in the sense that picasso's art is art, other things would fall under more of an "aesthetic" category.......i can't really give a profound statement, only perspectives.....for example, what is more so considered artistic: music by rolling stones, or music by britney spears (one comes with passion from the artist, they themselves feel it and connect with it; the other is a product of a business); another example: majority rules, art scholars and public alike will more likely consider Mona Lisa a work of art other than a McDonald's (though that does not accurately, justifiably, prove that what the mass considers art is art); another example: art is meant to envoke feelings within you.....i would suspect that a piece by picasso or pollock or dahli (spellings of names...?) have more of an ability/essence.aesthetic-ability to envoke more feelings than a McDonalds.........

you are correct, beauty is in the eye of the beholder; aestheticism is synonymous with beauty......it just seems to me that there should be some kind of separation to what is considered as "art" and what is considered as "art: under the application of aestheticism"

one more point: nietzsche declared that the artists sees the world for what it really is.........not everyone does this.

and then the artists conveys how they see the world for others...

but how do we judge who's an artist, and who is not?

what's pleasant to your eye?

art is a visual pleasure, and what a boring world it would be if everyone had the same visual...

eh.....i give up with this one

wise decision

so was it ever decided if killing was an art or not?

it looks like the question is pretty much not worth answering.

art is also a touching pleasure J, dont forget those who carnt see, think of the ocean like texture of an oil painting.

i didnt notice this thread untill J kindly linked it, so i will re-post my comments lol (which were enitially about sex as magic, but became sex as art)

i dont doubt sex can be learnt, practised, and honed as an art. well art isnt the right word, kung-fu, sword fighting and other physical combats simply arent art in anyway....but i group sex in with that. there are thousands of differnt forms of sword combat all over teh world, from stuff created when sword were first concived, to some studants who make it up because they have some sticks.....each is a valid form of combat. but are they effective/productive. well given that each is respective to whatever area it was drempt up, much the same way we differ ethnically as a race, the chinese male being reknowend for having a small penis etc. but you can perfect your fighting style, or learn a new style that not only suits your body and it's abilities, but is MORE effective. the form of broadsword combat i teach, and use is great, and it can combat any other form, as proved over the years ive done it. theres no such thing as an unstopable move....but there is the ability to stop everyblow, and this is in the style i teach. theres no flaw in it, only the person can let it down by making a mistake. ive always said, if someone could show me a good blow/parry/block that made sense and was useful i would welcome it.....

i went into too much detail but i was useing it as an example. thus, you can just tweak some babes nipples and stick your hot rod in and pummel away.....or if you take time to learn what that woman/man likes, learn every inch of their body, inside and out, the perfect place to stimilate their clit, which parts of their breasts react best to massarge and stimulation, where on their neck, or back is most sensitive, what their sexual pace is, what excites their minds as well as body, learn to go at their pace, then thats honing your skill and perfecting it. thus you both are taken to a new hight.
it isnt art, nor magic, but it is skill. like being ABLE to draw is a skill, fixing plaumbing is a skill, fighing/sport/sex is a skill you can get better at.

certainly, art is something you make and appeals to given tastes. theres nothing that says a skill carnt be beutiful and deep, but the word art is bandied about way to much today. ill have to copy my last post into that thread J


if we are talking about killing, which we are, there isnt an actual ART to it, theres a skill, to have the ability to do it well or delibertly do it badly.

another comment my mind just wanderd onto, one of the lads who comes to my class and also does a number of other martial arts classes was practising a new bo/quater staff kata he had been tought. now kata's are essentially just you doing the moves, a form of dance. now in reality, the moves he was doing were stupid. almost all of them left huge, wide gaps where he could be beaten. but most of the katas alot of people are tought arent practical, and carnt be used in reality. the same way alot of the moves from surviving medieval sword manuels are just plain dangerous to yourself and are useless.
my point.......if your katas arent actual combat, but a form of dance, is THAT art........it depends on if you count dance as art?

Yeah, that was actually a really bad example, sorry. All I'm saying is that craft and art are separate. Some things, such as painting, involve both. The technical skill is the craft, and making someone connect directly to something is art.

I think it may be, or it may not be. Portraiture is an expression of someone else. It may have something of the artist in it, but it is certainly not pure. It may not be what the artist thinks of the subject at all. He might think the subject a feeble-mided fool, but if he conveys majesty and grandeur that stuns the viewer then it is still great art. A landscape may be an expression of natural beauty and peace. The artist might be miserable and pissed off, but it doesn't lessen the art.

Likewise not all self-expression is art. I am currently expressing myself, but it's prosaic and simple. I think art must make you connect directly to the feeling. It's not just an opinion, as this is.

I also don't think that art has to touch everyone that sees or hears it, but art that is universal is both harder to do and worthier imo.

the ancient celtic/medieval sculptures that adorend churches etc can be considerd art, as can stained glass windows, arches......but only if they are actually done as such.

all art is an exprestion of the artist who did it, regardless of who or what they paint ect because an artist cannot do anything without putting emotion and themselves into it. this is perhaps most evident in illustration, but even when you look up close to oils or water colours, the angls of the chisle strikes.

i agree wit dat snowman......and thatz my argument.........