thoughton wrote:
Art that tells a story, or makes you think, all falls under the 'interest' category.

Quote:
I'll agree IE8 is very similar in speed to Firefox.

Quote:
art is whatever is made in an artistic process and consumed as art.

whelmed wrote:
Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, sculpture, and paintings. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics.

The definition and evaluation of art has become especially problematic since the early 20th century. Richard Wollheim distinguishes three approaches: the Realist, whereby aesthetic quality is an absolute value independent of any human view; the Objectivist, whereby it is also an absolute value, but is dependent on general human experience; and the Relativist position, whereby it is not an absolute value, but depends on, and varies with, the human experience of different humans. An object may be characterized by the intentions, or lack thereof, of its creator, regardless of its apparent purpose. A cup, which ostensibly can be used as a container, may be considered art if intended solely as an ornament, while a painting may be deemed craft if mass-produced.

Quote:
Question: Is architecture art?

Richard Meier: Architecture is art. Every work is a work of art. Architecture is the greatest of the arts, and it encompasses thinking that other arts don’t even deal with. Like relationship of the work to the individual human being – the person who uses it; the person who experiences it; the person who sees it; and how that person perceives that space. You know there’s an old adage that a sculptor can make a square wheel, and an architect has to make a round one. You have a certain responsibility not just to your client, not just to the people using the building, but to the public at large with what you do.

Question: When does a building become art?

Richard Meier: Well I don’t say all buildings are architecture, first of all. So there’s lots of buildings that have nothing to do with architecture. They have to do with economics. They have to do with an enclosure, but I wouldn’t consider them works of architecture. To be a work of architecture is creating a work of art.

thoughton wrote:
The Sydney Opera House eh? And to think you accused me of going off topic! Sometimes it seems like you just want to argue endlessly because you enjoy it.

The dead animal photos you showed earlier are art. Crappy art, but art nonetheless. They are photos that have no purpose other than to be looked at. The skill is in the juxtaposition and composition. Why are you talking about delivering messages?

Quote:
In the course of daily life these native animals are killed by cars, domestic pets or power lines and are easily found scattered beside the roads throughout our urban environments. This new perspective made me question our existing relationship to wild animals.

thoramay wrote:
They disturb me. The use of the animals somehow intrude on the picture but at least I can see that the photographer is making a personal statement, inviting you into his picture, challenging you to understand what it is he is intending, almost, in one sense, attempting to shock those who treat animals as though they have personalities, human attributes.

robbie_d wrote:
I would argue that for something to be art, the primary function of it needs to be art.

In the case of the Sydney Opera House, it is first and foremost an opera house (and theatre, pop concert venue, etc.). It may have an artistic design (as many buildings, cars, consumer products do), but it wasn't built to just be admired, it was built to be used.