Following our discussion in this forum http://www.ourscotland.co.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=2698 I would liek to ask what you think 'Art' is?

There are various hits around the web which will tell you 'Art is man-made", "Art should provoke a reaction" ... and all the other loose definitions which allow any old bit of junk (my word and personal opinion at times) to be exhibited and called 'Art'.


Are you the modern-Art type? Do you think 'anything goes' or do you hold more, let's say, traditional views?


Personally, I relate Art to beauty and at times, even culture. I believe 'Art' should not only stimulate thought and reaction, but must please the eye, or at least my eye.

Finally, I don't hold with the idea that 'Art' is, or can only be, man-made. I have argued elsewhere that Mother Nature herself was the original Artist.

Your thoughts?

The only real part of the "definition" of art that I am going to disagree with is that it needs to be man made. As you say Keith, art should stimulate thoughts and get a reaction; and then of course there's the bit where it needs to be pleasing to the eye... how often have you looked at a natural phenomenon (even one that has had some human interaction) and thought "WOW"? Whether its a sunset or a reflection in a loch or a rock formation or the Northern Lights its all Mother Nature's "art" in my opinion!

anything that pleases my eye or causes a reaction in me is art to me
evryone must have there own veiws in what they think is art i suppose

They say a picture paints a thousand words and I guess that's what art is. The artist displays his thoughts into an image of some sort, in a way in which words would be inadequate. A sculpture, painting etc. is an insight into the artists mind. He's displaying his imagination in a way that a philistine can never do. I suppose it's a gift, unfortunately, some artists have very strange minds ? I honestly believe that a lot of so called modern art evolved as a means to compete with photography, that is to say, artists can't compete with the camera when it comes to creating a likeness of whatever ? so they've sort of went the other way and create images, objects ? that bear no resemblance to anything except a very warped mind and a load of twits trying to guess what the artist was trying to say ??? On the other hand, some of these guys are making loads of dosh, so maybe they're not as daft as I think they are.

The late Fyfe Robertson was no fan of what can be loosely described as Modern Art. In the 1970s he made a documentary airing his views on the subject and referred to it as "phoney art", which he then abbreviated to "phart". He wasn't a man to mince his words!

Now there's a man whose viewpoint I can identify with

I too must admit to finding it a very apt expression for some of the rubbish that masquerades under the title of "art". Some of the perpetrators of "modern art" would have us believe that it is lack of understanding that leads to our failure to appreciate it. I think that one would need to be on some kind of illegal substances in order to appreciate a lot of this stuff. I don't have any desire to appreciate it anyway, so I think I'll just stick with the Laphroaig!

Now THAT is ART!