In the Best of YouTube -> Krumping thread, the discussion has turned to the question of whether or not krumping qualifies as art. Which leads me to ask a more general question, and I thought others might want to lodge their opinion: How can you tell what is and isn't art?

If it helps to frame the question, you might start by answering the question, Is there anything that you're in the minority in considering it art? Or, by the same token, is there anything you'd say is not art, but that at least some other people would insist is?

I think art is completely subjective in that everyone has their own likes and dislikes. My wife and I like to visit the Botanical Gardens just down the street from our home. Throughout the gardens there are these strange sculptures and pieces of twisted aluminum or rusted iron "art" things. I find them horrendously ugly and feel they have zero artistic value, but obviously someone somewhere disagrees with me because there they are. We could argue till we're blue in the face about what is and what is not art and I doubt we'll ever reach consensus. Art is defined differently by each person.

But then what about art galleries? Clearly lots of people find Thomas Kinkaid or Norma Rockwell paintings to be beautiful and genuine "art." Does their popularity make them more of a specimen of art than the local artist who throws Cheerios onto a canvas and spray paints the stuck cereal silver and then calls it art?

Agreed with Chris, Art is totally Subjective and in each persons mind. What may be considered a beautiful piece of artwork to one person could be a piece of junk on the side of the road to someone else. Most of the time opinions don't vary all that much though.

Art for me transcends aesthetics. It is more defined by the message it is conveying and the creativity in its expression. This covers all forms of art: books, paintings, music, film, etc.

I'm not too familiar with krumping so I just googled it. I would say that it has the potential to be art, but depends on the individual performer (which is the case with many, if not all, avenues of expression).

There are three art categories in my estimation:

Good Art
This category would encompass everything that bears a thoughtful reflection on self, others, or the world. Everyone may not necessarily "get it" especially without a little explanation, though the best art will be generally understandable. At least moderate creativity in how the message is expressed.

Bad Art
This category covers ideas that I feel are half-baked or oversimplified, perhaps showing an immaturity in the artist. Work that has very little creativity in its execution might fall into this category too, and executions that do not suit the message.

Non-art
This covers everything that lacks any real meaning. Family portraits, landscapes, pop music, the latest summer action movie, etc.

''I don't know anything about Art -but I know what I like.'' Used to be said to sneer at people who did not bow to the great god 'classical art'.
Now it has come to mean,what it should mean - ie ''It's all the Fault of Europe, innit ?''

Good art touches the soul. Bad art touches the body.

Tom

A great work of art is not just of itself....it is what you, of yourself, bring to it....

I think this is worth quoting......

Art in this day and age seems to have become identified with the ability to shock.....

Humour is not funny any more - often it is just the shock of the new!!!

That is not Art and not Humour....

I think there is an important link between art and humour......

What do you think?

I think this discussion can encompass the argument over good and bad writing. There are more objective measurements in writing that make one book good and another bad, but once the basic rules are observed, is literary writing "better" than genre writing, such as mysteries, thrillers, fantasy etc? I belonged (past tense) to writing forums where genre writers were treated with contempt, but my objection was if someone buys a fantasy novel, sits down for six hours and reads rather than watching television, then is that somehow less of a literary experience than buying a copy of "Old Man and the Sea"?

Art, like writing is subjective. So, it seems to me that these subjects are very hard to teach because everyone has different ideas of what should be done in writing or art.

I think that art is the abstraction of reality. Even realistic representations of life are abstractions due to the fixed perspective you obtain. The picture of your blank wall is art because it is in reality unreal. It is the separation of the object from its surrounding.

Art has no definition but it can have multiple explanations.

Poetry is art because it bends and contorts reality giving the reader a sense of its unreality. In general words are not art in the same way as many other conventional form because they construct reality in definitions which makes them very real. Science is not art because it is reality and if it were not then it would not fit the definition of science and would become a creative work of art.