Jan. 11, 2012

We had a class exercise where we had to bring in one object that we considered art, and one that we considered non-art. It was so difficult for me, because basically EVERYTHING can be considered art in some way. Which is what I assumed we would "learn" from the class activity.  So I brought in an old painting I made several years ago, and a blank sheet of computer paper. We ended up having a class discussion which went really well.

First, we were asked to write down 3 things Art has to have to be considered art, this is what I came up with:

• has been created or altered by someone
• evokes thought, feeling, or emotion
• has an aesthetic quality to it

To me, a piece of art does not need each of the 3 characteristics, but most things considered art have at least one.

After defining Art for ourselves, we each chose 2 objects of the ones the class had brought in and described them in detail.

Object 1:

about 1.5 inches squared

medium hue purple

rough

shiny

dense

sharp

chipped

natural-esque

lacking in negative space

bold

translucent

lavendar

(this object was an amethyst colored stone)

Object 2:

cheetah

mini

red ribbon

about 4 in. by 2.5 in.

slender

feminine

hard

mate finish

smooth

curvy

trinket

attractive/successful negative space

has shadows

colorful

opaque

(it was a miniature cheetah printed shoe ornament)

Next, people read their descriptions and said whether or not one, both, or neither of their objects were considered a piece of art. Many people though that if the object had a function, it was not art. I was one of the people that argued this point because I feel that it many things, like the popular topic of discussion - the water bottle - were designed and created. The logo alone, on the water bottle, had a lot of work put into it. Whether I, or anyone else in the class, considered it a successful logo or not, it was created. It was thought out. The shape, size, curvature, etc. of the bottle also had many aspects of design. It could be a marketing standpoint, but there was a reason it was designed the way it was. And that, I think, is a form of art. I still think that my painting is art, obviously, but I am unsure about my other object. Was the paper really creatively designed? Or is that just standard size for copies? I still don't know what it takes for something to be considered"Art" but it was a great discussion!