Is art in the way it's presented or the way it's perceived?

Art is portraying what is not perceivable by the five senses, even though they are all used to perceive art. Art is mixing physical perceptions with what the artist sees and feels inside, which may, or may not closely resemble the physical perceptions. Example: A spectator will see a homeless person on the street, and little else. An artist will see all of the problems of humanity in an epic, and age-old struggle for survival against all odds. They will see the rise and fall of humanity, society, and how it fails to live up to it's own ideals, and much more.....

Art has two facets: One is 'Form', which is the actual physical creation that you can see, touch, hear, etc....It can be written text, food, a picture, sculpture, music, or any other physical creation. The second facet, 'Content', is what the artist meant to portray, what they actually portrayed, and how the rest of the world, as individuals, perceives both the intended, and actual messages.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the defining characteristic of what constitutes 'art' is whether or not there is an intended message in the creation, apart from the actual physical form. The definition is based on 'intent', whether successful or not.

Wicca is a particular Neo Pagan faith. In and of itself it has no longer something to do with witchcraft. Witchcraft could rightfully be called 'spell craft'. In medieval cases, herbalists and midwives have been many times seen 'witches' because of the fact of their understanding of herbs and different drugs that basically priests and docs have been meant to understand. extra often than not this physique of concepts is a carry over from while absolutely everyone who had extra understanding than the common individual grow to be seen evil by employing those complete understanding grow to be much less. human beings don't understand spell artwork, so that they think of it 'evil'. At 14 you're too youthful to connect any team. learn on your individual then, at 18, you're able to make a selection whether or to no longer proceed. First study the variety between 'Wicca' and the various different 'Neo-Pagan' religions, which includes Norse, Heathen, Celtic, etc. Then do stable, stable study and examining of the path you go with. stable success on your journey.

Was this "art"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

On April 17, 2011, a print of Piss Christ was vandalized "beyond repair" by Christian protesters while on display during the Je crois aux miracles (I believe in miracles) exhibition at the Collection Lambert, a contemporary art museum in Avignon, France.[15][16] Serrano's photo The Church was similarly vandalized in the attack.

Anybody.. especially if backed by government funding, can produce "art" and many still won't believe it took any special effort to create it and many really won't appreciate it.

If that was "art", I can really produce some "art" without much time or imagination!

Art is a balance of both with the inclusion of your personal preference. For example, a Picasso in a junkyard may seem like trash, but when on a gallery wall, it radiates importance. A kinetic sculpture seems like a toy, but mount it on a wall, and you've got art! And yet, neither of those examples would matter if you don't like abstract or autonomous things.

However, if you are looking for the more dominant one, it would have to be the way it is perceived.

Art is, first and foremost, the expression of the artist's thoughts.

Unless it was specially intended to engage the observer (like installation and performance arts), I say art is more in the way it is presented because most artists create their works without considerations for an audience.

Both. Art is always perceived from the viewpoint that it is being presented. It isn't art until a creator is imagined behind it. And it was created to be perceived, so it isn't art unless it was made for an audience.

It is a dynamic interrelationship. Both parties must be involved for it to be art.

Art is only art for those who think it is art. Someone can make a painting consisting only of a straight black line and tell me it's symbolising the lifelong journey we all go through. I would be impressed by this persons interesting way of presenting a line, but I would'nt put it among my definitions of art. It's art for the person who made it, but not for me.

The definition of art can never become universal.

I think art benefits BOTH the artist and the observer. For me, creating art is a release, while appreciating other people's art is more of a voyage into that artists mind/soul.

Is art in the way it's presented or the way it's perceived?

~~~ YES!

It is in the eye of the beholder!

The 'presenter' is a 'beholder', as well as the audience!

art is always the way its perceived, its subjective. take "modern" art, squiggles and swirls! No two people see the same thing, people don't interpret it in the same way.

when engaging in art therapy its more about expressing how you feel, not how it looks when you finish.