Response to Sean's Question: Does art need to be created by a living being and not a higher power to be considered art?

I do believe that art has to be created by a living being and not a higher power although a person may believe that god is working through them. Art needs to be created by someone according to most definitions. Three that were easily found on the internet were: The product of human creativity, the creation of beautiful or significant things and the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions. All of these involve actively making something but only the first specifies humans. One could then argue that nature is art if one firmly believes in god. They could say that nature is art created by god. This is irrelevant to people who do not believe in god because then nature is beautiful without having a creator and does not fit any of the major definitions of art. Art is certainly often inspired by nature and is often an imitation of nature. A quote from The Relation of Art to Nature by John Wesley Beatty says “the greatness of a work of art must depend upon the mental power of the artist, that power which enables him to apprehend or discover the essential qualities existing in nature”(6). If this is true than it is particularly important that an individual creates art.  

If something reproduced or even created by a machine would it be considered art?  

Art vs. Craft

Arts and crafts are terms that are often used together but they must have a difference that sets them apart. Both are made by people but crafts usually have an intended use. This might mean that art is only useless beyond sensory impact because all else would be considered a craft. This would eliminate a lot of the things many consider art from the category. One example would be architecture because it serves the purpose of providing shelter. Perhaps then art and craft are overlapping. Art’s purpose seems to be at least in part to make an emotional impact. Architecture does so. When one thinks of a spooky house one usually thinks of a Victorian and we often think professional when we see a large mostly glass building. These buildings are appealing to emotions while still serving a purpose making them both an art and a craft. They differ in that a craft can be functional while only appealing to a person in its usefulness while an art can appeal to emotions while serving no practical purpose. The problem in my last post then still stands because it is hard to determine whether money making ability is a use in the way it is meant when one separates art from craft. A film is made to appeal to the senses in order to make money. An individual viewing it has no use for it except for its emotional impacts but the individuals that produced it do. Thus movies would be on the borderline. Advertisement would probably be considered a craft because the viewer has the potential to learn about products from it and the producer has the purpose of selling those products. Advertising then serves a use for people, making it a craft. It would also be an art because it does appeal to emotions.

When determining what is art would the views of the creator or the viewer be more important?

Advertisements and Art

Many of us would not consider advertisements art and yet they fit many of the definitions discussed about art. One definition of art that we discussed in class was that art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that impacts emotions. Advertisements are designed in order to create an emotional attachment in a person to a product. One example is the ranch dressing commercials which are intended to link happy families to ranch dressing. They are products that are designed to impact emotions that lead you to buy them. Another definition of art might be that they are products of human creativity. Many advertisements are very creative and are of course created by humans. People watch super bowl ads so they can see the innovative and interesting ads that will be shown. They use all sorts of different effects and sometimes humorous stories that are creatively presented in 30 to 60second blocks when they are presented on TV. People also seek different mediums for advertising that can be quite creative. One creative ad is for Kill Bill. It is a poster of a woman with a sword but the blood coming off it goes beyond the boundary of the poster and covers the wall of the building it is on and part of the street. Another definition of art is that it gives us a way to be creative and express ourselves and certainly the people who create these ads are doing so. I suppose one could argue that advertising is not art because its intention is sales and not simply to impact people’s emotions even though that is part of it, but this would mean that art is only art if it is intended to be so. That would mean that film, for example, would not be art if its intention was to make money through tickets. Certainly it impacts people’s emotions but the ultimate goal is money as it is in ads. Both of these mediums are intended to appeal to a target audience.

Should art appeal to a mass audience or can it be art if very few people or no one is particularly impacted by it emotionally? Does something have to be deemed creative to be art?

Is advertising a form of art or is advertising taking advantage of the qualities of art?

I added a couple of creative ads that are interesting and show the creativity involved in advertising.