The line between art and not arts is when it brings no new perspective. Change the perspective on how a subject has been seen, up until that point in time, and you have made art. Repeat an existing view of a subject without changing perspective and you have not made art. (This get's interesting when an artists subject is the "lack of art in the world". Perhaps he expresses this by copying a bunch of art in a way that highlights this, but simply painting another Mona Lisa on it's own is not art.)

This is why an artists view of the world is so important. Good artists can see the world the way few others can. Great artists can capture and communicate their unique vision the best.

So an artist is someone who reveals a unique perspective on a subject. This means a real artist must have both a subject and a unique view on it to make a piece of art. Without either of these two things he cannot make art.

Fake pretentious, artist posers and those who cannot understand art hide behind the fact that many real artists cloak their subjects. Artists who do this may be considered "deep" or "complex". A common reason for an Artist to cloak their perspectives may be because they are commenting on subjects which are dangerous, even life threatening or where there are serious consequences for the artist expressing his view. Someone who passes a work off as art while pretending to have a cloaked subject, when in fact he has no subject at all, is a charlatan and the art world is full of them.

Jackson Pollock is a good one to test because he is so divisive. What was his subject? I would argue that the subject is the idea of the painting itself.His question was "what qualifies as a painting?". The moment someone said "anyone can do that how can it qualify as art?" it proved itself as art. Without this reaction Jackson Pollocks work would not be art because up until that point no one had thought to qualify random paint splatters as art. Pollock had made a statement about painting itself. He had a subject and a unique take on it and he communicated it so well that it incited some to anger.

Copying Pollock has no value because he was the first to reveal this perspective this way. His work engages the viewer - even angers them and makes them participate in his experiment. He demonstrates that art is perspective and perspective effects the viewer when you change it.

This is the artists role in society. To change perspective - to challenge how we see things. We can never look at painting and what defines a painting again in the same way. In my view he made art. I don't like his art aesthetically but I get the idea and it's a pretty cool idea.

A bunch of cheap prints by famous artists are not art. Put them in a room and change how you see the room and the room becomes the subject not the paintings - you have changed the way we see the room and therefore you have made art. Follow the subject. Art is way more rational than people say. Some try to mystify it for their own objectives others don't understand it but pretend they do. Once you get the real purpose and definition of art clear in your head you can never go back to not understanding it.

Art gives form, order, beauty and meaning to objects and activities in the natural and man-made environment.

Easy Prof !!! Anything that is created by humans with degree of beauty and meaning (may be not so much) is ART !!! Extension to this that which answers human condition "philosophical ART"...

Complicated language to answer nature is science , may be perceived as NOT ART by many :) --- It is though

Following

Art creativity and talent possessed by man

anybody could do that' isn't an extraordinary litmus test for workmanship/not craftsmanship - workmanship has never been about art, it's tied in with putting things in a setting that investigates an idea recently.

There's an Italian craftsman who takes a whole olive tree and a meter block of the dirt/roots and hangs it in a display. He's done nothing to the tree aside from place it in another place, yet it is craftsmanship since it makes inquiries like what it implies when we say things like "Italian soil" or "American soil" and how the place we experience them influences how we decipher objects

regards

I'm with Aparna on this. If a person can embed a sense of aesthetics in whatever his or her creation, it is art. I can write an elegant control protocol, efficent, lean, and effective, at doing its job, and I'd consider that a form of art. Someone else might achieve the same goal, but with an ugly protocol, perhaps with wasted loops, logic that is hard to follow, steps seemingly out of sequence, and most people will agree, "That's ugly."

Hence, art is everywhere. Aesthetics matter. Doesn't have to be a sculpture or a painting.

the prespective of the person

Art refers to creativity. The line between art and not art is creativity and whether the work is creative or not.

Art is a fun of manifesting scientific results and model geometries in natural settings. In short, abstraction of the real world is an artistic approach. Art bridges Science and Society.

Regards,

Jahangir

talent we born with but skills are acquired

Art is individual and original. A high school student may draw in an animate style and attempt to claim it is art. However, that student neglected to look for the (c) that makes everything about the book copyright. This becomes a break from art. Art is fresh. A child may see Picasso's 'Three Musician's' for the first time. To this child, this is art. To the standards set by the art world, this is art. A teacher may ask a student to create a selfie in the Picasso style, is this art or is this a teaching moment for the student to learn about art? For the student this is art. For the teacher, this is a teachable moment about Cubism. It is not original or fresh to anyone except the student. Art is in the eye of the beholder. I teach art at a public high school. I only discourage one style and that is animate. I believe if one is good enough to copy animate, one is good enough to create his or her own original style and pay others to create story line, the way many cartoon artist of today do.

Jeanne

Art is human psychology in physical form.

Any creation of utility (i.e. a folding chair) can be said to have been made by an artisan for utility only. But the more we add paint, design and ornamentation to it, the more "artistic" is seems to be.

If we finally conclude that it's purpose it to display the ornamentation rather than serve utility we label it "a piece of art" rather than a tool or item of use.

Art is the process by which all cultures can self-civilize.

Every invention begins in the mind of an individual. The Mona Lisa the motor boat and the Mozart sonata was conceived in a single mind. Through copying the concept and embellishing upon it, the invention becomes reproduced, improved and adopted by many in the culture.

What was once the possession of the individual becomes the birthright of the group.

Individuals die, groups (theoretically) can go on forever. The building up and improving upon art and invention is the very creation of civilization.

A more civilized society is distinguished from a less civilized one by the level of it artists and artisans.