<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">

<channel>
	<title>EmptyEasel.com</title>
	
	<link>http://EmptyEasel.com</link>
	<description>Painting Tips, Artist Reviews, Selling Art Online and more</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:01:03 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EmptyEasel" type="application/rss+xml" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com" /><item>
		<title>Defining Art by What it’s Not</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/EmptyEasel/~3/hDZ2nofuw_E/</link>
		<comments>http://EmptyEasel.com/2009/11/10/defining-art-by-what-its-not/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:51:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Guest Author</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Art Opinion]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Art]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[define art]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[defining art]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[starry night]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Van Gogh]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[what is art]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://EmptyEasel.com/?p=7791</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What is art, you ask? That's a tough question. Would it be easier to define art by what it ISN’T? Perhaps. Actually, probably. So here’s my take]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What is art, you ask? It must be definition day.</p>
<p>But won&#8217;t it be easier to define art by what it ISN’T? Perhaps. Actually, probably.</p>
<p>So here&#8217;s my take:</p>
<p>1. Art isn’t the thing you hang on your wall to match your sofa.</p>
<p>2. Art isn’t the thing you hang on your wall, that you are sure your friends will approve of because they all have a copy hanging on their walls.</p>
<p>3. And on that note, art isn’t a copy or reproduction of an original piece of art.</p>
<p>4. Art isn’t something featuring the year’s top five “decorator colors”</p>
<p>5. Art isn’t something you made because you think somebody will buy it.</p>
<p>I wish I had a list of inspirational quotes from great artists of the past regarding art. We can see that <em>they</em> knew what it was, because of what they left behind: ART.</p>
<p>And THAT makes me think of the time I saw Van Gogh’s <em>Starry Night</em> at the Art Institute in Chicago.</p>
<p>The place was packed with other people all trying to see the paintings as well. You were supposed to be polite, look at the painting, and move on. . . nope. I was rude and I stopped. For a long time I stopped, because the painting required me to look at it for a long time.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s art. It makes your eyes not want to leave. It makes you not want to leave.</p>
<p>But realistically, it doesn’t have to be <em>Starry Night</em>, or <em>Luncheon Of The Boating Party</em>, or <em>Young Girl Writing</em> to be art. Even you or I can make something that is truly “art.&#8221;</p>
<p>All it needs is to have at least a smidgeon of something that all three of those paintings have—it has to be INTERESTING.</p>
<p>Maybe it matches your sofa, too. That&#8217;s OK. If it’s interesting then you can call it art. Your eyes want to look because it’s interesting, not because it matches your sofa.</p>
<p>And maybe it <em>does</em> contain all five of the current year’s top decorator colors—but forget that, if it&#8217;s so interesting that you want to look at it all the time, then it&#8217;s art.</p>
<p>OK, and one more thing. . . besides being interesting, &#8220;art&#8221; also has to be real.</p>
<p><!-- adman --></p>
<p>There are two kinds of real—there&#8217;s &#8220;real&#8221; as in honest-created-from-the-heart-real AND there&#8217;s &#8220;real&#8221; as in original, not-a-copy, not-a-reproduction.</p>
<p>A poster of <em>Starry Night</em> I can leave. It may be interesting, but it&#8217;s just a poster. <em>Starry Night</em>, the original, made me want to stay.</p>
<p>And look some more.</p>
<p>Now that’s art.</p>
<p><em>For more articles by Karen Cooper, please visit <a href="http://karencooperpaintings.com/blog">her art blog</a>.</em></p>
<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EmptyEasel/~4/hDZ2nofuw_E" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://EmptyEasel.com/2009/11/10/defining-art-by-what-its-not/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://EmptyEasel.com/2009/11/10/defining-art-by-what-its-not/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	</channel>
</rss>
