*sigh*

Maybe I can't express what I mean, I don't know. But my message isn't passing trough.

Art doesn't belong on a wall only, but Art has a self purpose. Art is only meant to be Art. Art isn't meant to be sat on, driven around, open cans, or play music. Art is meant to be appreciated in itself. Whether it's hanging on a wall, Sitting on a stool, or even played through a stereo doesn't matter.

Paintings are meant to be looked at, not thrown around as a freesbee.
Sculptures are meant to be looked at, not sat on.
Music is meant to be listened to, not danced on (that's why I don't consider dance music Art)
Litterature is meant to be read without any purpose but enjoyment (that why a recipe is not litterature)
Dance is meant to be looked at (only dance as a performing art is art, what you do in a night club isn't art) and appreciated with the music
Cinema is meant to be watched without any purpose but enjoyment (that's why the evening news isn't usually considered artistic)

and wallpapers by many artists are ment to bring beauty, expression, and art to the screen. just because the person that downloads it only uses it as decoration does not mean it is not art. Some are created as an expression of the person, a visual representation of their thoughts, idea, or concept. No different from what a painter does with a brush, what a sculpter does with a chisel, or etc.

I think we're getting somewhere.

It comes down to what I was saying. You can put an artwork on your desktop as a wallpaper, but it doesn't mean that wallpapers are Art. Also, what I would accept as a beautiful piece of Art and even hang it on my wall at home, I would not automatically accept as a wallpaper here. Wallpapers should be submitted as a functional wallpaper. The artist that makes them should consider that most people will have icons on it, etc. Read the guidelines about moderation, you'll understand what I mean.
Again, there are great wallpapers that I would never think of calling Art. (for example, I have a couple of pictures of my kids on my desktop right now... absolutely not Art in any way, but still is my favorite wallpaper)
And there are great Artworks that I would never put on my desktop.

Function does not remove the quality of being art from a creative work. What is art is very much in the eye of the beholder, and in the final analysis, what is art is what we call art. (sounds pretty circular, I know ).

The idea that a creative work can only be art if it exists only for the sake of some ephemeral criteria of non functionality is pretty elitist, and is a limiting definition of the word.

Just to give as an example, here are two of the dictionary definitions of the word 'art'

art

n
1: the products of human creativity; works of art collectively [syn: fine art]

2: the creation of beautiful or significant things; "he was a patron of art" [syn: artistic creation, artistic production]

3: the superior ability that is attained by study and practice and observation; "he had mastered the art of a great craftsman" [syn: artistry, prowess, superior skill]

4: photographs or other visual representations in a printed publication [syn: artwork, graphics, nontextual matter]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University


art
n.
Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
The study of these activities.

The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.

A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.

A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.

A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.

A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.

Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.

Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: “Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice” (Joyce Carol Oates).


There are of course, those who claim that the dictionary definition doesn't apply because it doesn't appeal to their inner aesthete, but that misses the point. In the simplest (and best) definition, art is the expression of creativity in any medium or context.

thank you Aleatoric

art is not limited byt the medium, final use of the work, or the placement of the peice. Art is the creative process whether it is dance, music, painting, sculpture, building, steel, wood, or digital. It is the expression and creativity of the artist, they emotions, vision, and the byproduct of creativity. Art is not limited to one medium, placement, or if it can hang on a wall. A high detailed painting on the hood of a high performace car can be considered art, depending on the artist. A portrait of a person soul purpose was to capture the beauty, or appearance of the person, its function was to hold in record a moment in time that is seen by the artist at the time of its creation, but by some statement above since it has a function it is not art, but still it is art. Art does not need to be without function, art an expression that takes many forms.

Of course, there are several definitions of the word "Art".
Lets not forget the seven liberal arts, based on the types of studies pursued in the Classical world:
- Grammar
- Rhetoric
- Logic
- Arithmetic
- Geometry
- Music, Harmonics, or Tuning Theory
- Astronomy or Cosmology

But, of course, these are not what I was refering to.

But MobiusCo. What you are saying is not incompatible with what I am saying myself.

Yes, a painting on the hood of a car can be considered art. Yes, indeed. So, is the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. But the hood of a car itself is not Art. Nor is the car. What is Art is the painting on the hood of the car. You can put the same painting on a wall, as a wallaper on your desktop, wherever, it will still be Art, but the wall itself, the wallpaper on youre desktop, will not be Art themselves.

You may see this as just rhetoric, but I do see a difference.

The hood of a car may or may not be art, depending on a point of view. An aesthetically pleasing solution to an engineering problem (fit and finish, aerodynamics, contribution to the form of the automobile), can definitely be considered as art, with or without the above mentioned fantastic painting.

The inclusion of the fact that such an item is also functional in some fashion has no effect whatsoever on its artistic merit.

A good example, to go back to the chairs, are Eames chairs. Not only are these chairs functional in the definition of being perfectly usable, they are also art, not only in terms of form and creativity, but in recognition of that fact by some in the artistic community at the time.

The entire perception of art is supremely subjective. I, for one, have no regard for the artistic style known as 'found objects' as I have yet to see any particularly creative representation thereof.

From the standpoint of what is available on this site, for example, I find a great deal of what I call art, that which is aesthetically pleasing, both in form and function. The fact is that people in general are far more positively disposed to accept functional objects that are more than merely functional, i.e., they have some artistic and aesthetic quality that, in itself, has no bearing on the function of the device. And while that may not make a lovely screwdriver art in some ephemeral sense, it is nonetheless an artistic expression of creativity, and has as much right (perhaps even more) to be called art as any painting of Elvis on black velvet (just to use a particularly egregious example).

Enjoy

I agree with Mobius and Aleatoric in all that they have said! They took my words from my mouth

paxx,
Because you have mention many times above the word chair, I have to inform you or to remind you, that the chair "Red and Blue" designed by Rietveld, is a great piece of modern art and has been exhibited in almost every ART MUSEUM in the world. (by the way, many other chairs or objects are well known as pieces of art).
I have 'Red and Blue" in my house and sometimes I use this piece of art as a chair

A wall has no function really. You can use a desktop fine without it (I do, solid black ofcourse), therefore the wall is only aesthetic.

As for those definitions Aleatoric gave, I like how they involve the aspect of skill. Though I tend to think of skill more as craftmanship than art itself.

How about this point: art is how others label someone's work. You cannot label it yourself. What do you think?

I think that this is a good point craeonics , but at the same time I think that this is not the point.
How can tommorow be judged by yesterday?
The digital art is the art of tommorow.
The wallpapers are digital art.
Why you see the wallpapers as a desktop only and not as something that pleases your eyes as a painting in the wall, in your everyday life?

A wall is just a wall?
The Vietnam Memorial in Washington is just a wall. Yet it generates more emotion in people that see it then people viewing the Mona Lisa. It is only a black stone wall with names carved in it. Would you call that art? It certainly generates emotion and captures a moment.

"Music is meant to be listened to, not danced on (that's why I don't consider dance music Art)" A few classical composers would beat you over the head for saying that. The Nutcracker Suite isn't art? Ever hear of Johann Strauss? Most of what he did was tied to waltzes.


This reminds me of the debate that some scientists thought that the human race had learned everything there was to know in 1900.

I personnaly like the short definition the Office de la Langue Française gave to the word art: "Expression, par les oeuvres de l'homme, d'un idéal de beauté." My liberal translation to this would be "Way of expression, by the mean of man's work, of an ideal of beauty" (that's basically it ). The question this deficition brings to my mind is "what quantify or qualify this 'ideal of beauty'"? To that, my first answer would be that it's subjective to what each and everyone consider to be a "beauty". So basically, it's up to us, individually, to decide what's art and what's not

Mobius....

You got me totally, totally WRONG with my comment about 'narrow minded view'.
I meant that it always appears that Joe Public's interpretation of what 'art' is is limited specifically to that which MOST looks like a painting on a wall...and in our case, that means 'wallpapers'.
You got me very, very wrong.....especially when I rate people such as yourself, and Nuvem, to name but two, as very significant ARTISTS of the 20th/21st century.

What I was trying to point out was that 'art-on-walls' is a narrow-minded view of the world of ART and that there is 'art' to be found in many, many MORE facets of society and its 'expression'.

For whatever reason, if you can continue to look at something, or touch it, or even USE it, and while doing so, continue to feel appreciation of it then, to you, it is ART.

ART is selfish and personal.
POPULAR ART is merely the same, but admired/appreciated by more.
THE MASTERS are simply Artists elevated to dizzy heights by opinionated 'critics' who wish to impose their 'perceptions' on the great un-washed who are not allowed to form their own opinions.

OK, this was posted immediately on seeing your comment on my post....now I'll read the rest of 'em in between....

I never expected there would be so much debate on this matter.But now I understand that the whole matter leads to the eternal question:what is art?
Artists create only because they have no other choice.It is a means of expression.A statement to their enviroment,a need to communicate,to speak their own truth.It is their way to ballance their inner thoughts with reality.It doesnt matter if what they do is beautiful or functional.It only matters that they created it and that maybe they want to share it.
In a human-unfriendly world,art is the search for answears.It is the effort of man to make his world more understandable and therefore more bearable.
It is the truth of an artwork that makes it significant and not the materials you use to make it.Wether you use paint,metal,or digital means it makes no difference.

ok jafo sorry about the misunderstanding of your post.

I think that is what shocked me the most, out of any of the posting here yours had been one that shocked me the most, but to see the statement you made about the meaning behind the statement makes sense now, and sorry for jumping on you about it.

If a work [not using the word 'art'] of creativity is admired or appreciated by others, perhaps preferably 'numerous' others, then it can quite justifiably be called 'art'. It can be splashes of paint on canvas....pixels on a wallpaper....a clever arrangement of chrome pipe and leather on a chair....a photograph of Nicole Kidman....a Song by Deep Purple [OK....they're on my player at the moment]...a bird sitting on a branch....a WinAMP skin....the house on my drawing board....the DB4 Zagato Aston Martin [that I wish was in my driveway]....they are all legitimate depictions/examples of 'art'.

Paxx....IF a work of art also happens to have a truly 'functional' use it doesn't degrade its worth as art....it is more likely to enhance its value though....having BOTH function AND form...

OK, if it's 'art for art's sake', then you get a daggy blob on a canvas, or a stack of neatly folded blankets....and a bunch of idiot-savants falling over each-other to bask in reflected glory...'Picasso is 1337, because we say so'.
If the art has true merit people will more likely just say nothing.....and look and be mesmerized...

Every year, Ferrari release their new F1 car....and my comment is invariably...'yep, they've done it again.....such beautiful lines'.....maybe it's my 30 years of Architecture, design, and spatial appreciation/experience, but I definitely see 'art' in a hell of a lot more things than just 'things hanging on a wall'....

Doing this for the mere joy of doing it. What is wrong with that?

It is, I'm afraid, another indication of the times we live in. It seems that today we live by a certain creed that boils down to this...If what you do is not something people can watch on television, then it's not worth doing.

I just do it because it's fun. Plain and simple. No adoration of the masses. No boastful bleating from the herd. No crack-brain consensus of the multitudes. Just *fun*.

<- (see, fun)

Oh well, I don't agree. But I'm the only one here. Hehe!
That's OK, I know I'm unique.

I still say wallpapers and skins are not the 8th Art.

But I'm not saying computer graphics isn't Art. MobiusCo, your work truly is Art. When I download it and look at it, I go Wow! And I save a few of your works and a few others like that. And once in a while, I open them and look at them.
Sometimes I even use some of them as desktop wallpapers. Sometimes I modify them a little though to give me more room to place my icons on the sides.
Ofeten too, I use some landscapes as wallpaper. I like landscapes on my desktop. Dunno why. But heck I hate landscape in Art. I would never put a lanscape on my home's wall. Berk! But on my desktop, it's different. It works there. Summer lanscape in the summer, winter lanscapes in the summer. Sometimes some sports pictures. Nothing to do with Art.
But sometimes I like to have art on my desktop too. That's when I use your stuff and a few others. Sometimes I also put some Monet or Renoir (I love Renoir).

For the last time, this is how I see it simplified:
- Desktop wallpapers are not Art
- But you can put Art on your desktop, as you can put other things that aren't art.

Grinffinme:
- Nutscracker is a ballet, and I said that dance is Art.
- A lot of people actually don't consider Strauss much more than a Britney Spears of the 19th century.

Mmmm, that's an hard choice you put us on paxx: Strauss or Britney?

I wonder who would be insulted and who would feel complimented by that statement.

Well...maybe I shouldn't participate in this thread, but OK..Let me try...I can go along a lot of what Paxx has said, but something new is perhasps evolving too... Maybe every form of creation is art? Perhaps cloning too, and gen manipulation...Who is to tell? My opinion is that art goes beyond craftsmanship. Ofcourse, you need the tools and knowledge to become grandmaster in craftsmanship, but then the fun starts. There should be no limits in imagination or expression, it'just as far as you can reach on a given moment. Maybe Picasso is a good example, or Hundertwasser. Or even Monet. Rietveld's chair
Who knows, one day all the handcraft paintings will disappear from the wall and will be replaced by superthin screens that have a wireless connection to a webcam in the Great Barrier Reef (at least there is clear water there), or the butchershop. Or you can buy and enjoy an hour of images of digital works from a database...

I've never understood the fascination with trying to define what 'art' is.
Everyone has a different perspective on it.

Some guy paints a beautiful abstract painting of his interpretation of the universe. Is it art? He would think so.

Some other fella decides to take a crap on a plate, and sell it for 200 grand. Is it art? He would think so.

Besides, during all that wasted time spent defining what it all means, think how many 'pieces of work' the 2nd guy has sold.....