What makes fine art "fine art" and not just badly

[Akaran_D]

...pained crap? A lot of things these days are considered art, but let's be honest: someone piling 300lbs of ham on a bed is a waste of money and food. Conversely, a watercolor painting of some broad with her tits flapping is considered "fine art" - why? Is it because of the age? Is it because it captures whatever feeling the artist wanted to show (I'm a horny man who can only get women naked by saying its for 'art')?

What is it, exactly?

[Siji]

That's like asking why someone likes chocolate over vanilla.. there's no answer as it depends on personal opinion of anyone viewing said art piece.

[vn_Tanc]

Fine art is art created for its own sake. As opposed to, say, a book cover painting.
Whether its ham on a bed or a watercolour painting has nothing to do with it. Though I doubt anyone would be commissioned to pile ham on a bed for a commercial purpose. You're confusing fine art and conceptual art which is a totally different question.
This is my definition anyway. And yes it means that commissioned portaits aren't fine art in my book no matter who paints them.

[Sylvus]

Is it because it captures whatever feeling the artist wanted to show (I'm a horny man who can only get women naked by saying its for 'art')?

What makes someone think that the only reason to look at a naked woman is because they are horny? Why is the country so puritannical that someone posts a painting of a naked woman by one of the most famous painters and people are immediately scrambling to close windows and look over their shoulders to make sure their bosses aren't looking. Is the painting that titillating to you? Is it something you'd punish your children for if you saw them looking at it? Would you get in trouble for looking at a picture of Michelangelo's David?

I can't tell you a definition of what makes something fine art vs. a pile of ham on a bed, but I can tell the difference between art and pornography, and a painting of a woman that shows her posing with her breasts exposed is not a big deal.

[Niffoni]

a pile of ham on a bed

Hot damn! I've got my fall semester final project!

[Toshira]

That's like asking why someone likes chocolate over vanilla.. there's no answer as it depends on personal opinion of anyone viewing said art piece.

Even this is open to debate.

There are some who would argue that the relative merit of any artistic work is in its closeness to Truth (big T truth, absolute), and that Truth=Beauty=Art.

Others fall in the "Eye of the Beholder" camp, claiming that value of any artistic work can only be judged by the individual viewing it.

Is art relational? Is the creator's intention the only thing that is important? Or is the relationship between the listener/viewer/consumer and the work somehow important in determining its value?

Does scarcity have anything to do with value?

Good stuff for a dinner party conversation.

---

btw, Vanilla > Chocolate, punk.

[Dregor Thule]

What the artist puts into it makes it art.

[masteen]

What the artist puts into it makes it art.

That explains why Pollock is so respected. That guy sure put a lot of himself into paintings that to me look like something a 1st grader would paint.

[Toshira]

What the artist puts into it makes it art.

What the fuck does this mean?

Strawberry Shortcake = La Bal au Moulin de la Galette because it's made with feeeeeewings?

[Dregor Thule]

That's exactly what I mean. Bravo.

[Toshira]

All right then. So maybe you'd identify with the Dionysian school of thought, that art comes from passion?

Cool.

Myself, I can't decide where I fall, and I've been debating this issue for years ><.