How can you tell what is and isn't art?

[Grim]

I think that the beauty or artfulness of language has the most to do with structure and ambiance rather than stringent correctness.

[Raving Lunatic]

I believe it is all in the eye of the behold. I know that is a terrile cliche but it is true. While my sister adores most modern art, I don't really care for it. My sister and I (through the grace of our mother) have such a strong passion for art. Even though we both have some pieces that we do like in each others preference, it is what you make out of it.

[Rose Kolarich]

I also believe that it's in the eye of the beholder:

One of my favourite ever artworks was a temporary installation, part of the Biennale of Sydney that I saw in the Botanical Gardens a few years ago. It was set up in Palm House- a beautiful little greenhouse, the oldest in Sydney- and consisted simply of various objects strewn across the wooden floorboards: coloured papers tacked to the windows so that the light shone through them in blue, pink and orange; little bits of masking tape stuck to the floor so that their ends curled up; pencil shavings and pencils; broken potato crisps; a mouldering blueberry muffin.

The artwork was, for some of my companions, a lot of rubbish and foul besides (yuck, rotting food!) but it made me consider that even an old muffin can be seen as art if you look very closely. I think that if you look at the world around you with the eyes of a potential artist, rather than those of an art critic, then your definition of art grows much broader: art is as much about ways of seeing as the object of art itself.

[Grim]

http://books.google.ca/books?id=uauHVClZEd4C

Perhaps a little too scholarly for some, but a good read none the less.

[Thomas Hood]

Though we travel the world over to find the beautiful, we must carry it with us or we find it not. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

[Do_what93]

A lot of (not all) avant-garde and surreal artwork are considered art for the mere shock value of the piece. Of course, if someone can feel a sense of emotion coming from a piece then it's definately art to them, but thats not the case usually. It's just that a lot of people like to talk out of their butt that they know what art is.

What makes a painting, song, book, etc. a work of art to me is its ability to create an atmosphere that convicts emotion out of people. The element of being obsequious and yet having some overlooked meaning or the element of being totally abstract and yet giving the audience a certainty over the meaning are qualities of good art to me. Its just that many shallow "artists" take advantage of this and go overboard for the attention.
True art to me doesnt have to have a meaning as long as it creates an atmosphere that stirs up emotion.

[Thomas Hood]

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/mind/s ... 358883.htm
The Marco Polo of Neuroscience: V.S Ramachandran

"Now he's turned his attention to perhaps the wiliest question of all: What is Art? "

" So the argument is this is what if seagulls had an art gallery they would hand this long stick with the three red stripes on the wall, they would worship it, call it a Picasso, pay millions of dollars for it but not understand why. Because it doesn't resemble anything, why am I mesmerised? "

"Art. . .exploits what is really a close wiring between the visual parts of our brains and the emotional parts of our brains."

I know an artist who says that Ramachandran is his "Meaning of Art" guru.

Tom

[The Real Macai]

I'd like to agree with others here and say that I not only think art is subjective, but that artists tend to have this irritatingly pretentious idea in their heads that it's not.