+407
Art isn't how "pretty" something looks, it's how you interpret it, amirite?
by Anonymous12 years ago
Then why can't "pretty" be how someone interprets it?
by Anonymous12 years ago
Who says it can't be how someone interprets the art?
by Anonymous12 years ago
Alot of it is pretty straight forward. Also, aesthetics do play a huge role. But "art" is a pretty broad term ...
by Anonymous12 years ago
Art is anything, everything, and nothing all at the same time.
by Anonymous12 years ago
(_MIDNIGHT_ANGEL_):Lol I'm not sure I understand how it's nothing, but dude that sounded fucking beautiful.
by Anonymous12 years ago
Its because if art is anything, then everything can be art. If everything is art, then what is not art? When there is nothing that isn't art there is no reason to call it, "art," since everything falls into that category. Therefore, the category doesnt need to exist making it nothing.
In other words, everyone sees differently, so what you think is art isn't what someone else thinks is art. Therefore, art can be anyting. Since theres so many different people, then theres so many different things people think is art, so art is everything. But if art is everything, then what isn't art? Should the term, "art," even exist or is it nonessential? This is what makes it nothing.
I'm not sure if this makes sense, but it does in my head.
by Anonymous12 years ago
Hmm. I like the way you think, but I disagree. But you're right, what I think is art isn't what someone else thinks is art. To me, art is created (in many different ways, there are many different mediums) but it's always an effort. That shouldn't suggest, however, that one can't find things in nature or everyday life to be awe inspiring, or beautiful, or tragic, or thought provoking, or however you define what you consider art. But, to me it's a bit more intentional. :)
by Anonymous 12 years ago
by Anonymous 12 years ago
by Anonymous 12 years ago
by Anonymous 12 years ago
by Anonymous 12 years ago
by Anonymous 12 years ago
by Anonymous 12 years ago