How big a factor is effort and skill in your evaluation of what constitutes art?

And because of your question and answer you are now an:

<strong>A R T _ C R I T I C !</strong>

Art is in the eye of the beholder. I like both

Well that didn’t come out right
It is okay to like or dislike any art; music, paintings, photos, sculpture, quilting, dance and even flower arranging.

I think considering something art or not is a matter of subjective judgement and perception, and intention, more than effort or skill. I’d even go so far as to say that I think it’s incorrect to try to say whether something is art or not is about an amount of effort or skill – I think it’s more accurate to say being art about the way of relating to something by the creator and/or observer – whether something evokes something other than what it is, or not.

Of course, there are also different ways to use the word art.

What makes art that I appreciate or am interested in is also different from what I consider art or not, and is a higher and more particular and personal bar.

The Warhol soup series did take effort, skill, imagination, and other qualities. I find it nowhere near as interesting as most paintings, but I wouldn’t try to say it’s not art. And I find it far more interesting that some works that involved perhaps “more effort and skill” which I might consider less artistic or possibly “not art”, such as verbatim painting reproductions of ordinary photographs, or some advertising.

@ragingloli, I appreciate your question and don’t think it has an easy answer, or the question of what is art wouldn’t have been good for a lot of lively debate over the centuries.

But I don’t think effort and skill are the right criteria. I’ve seen things that took plenty of effort and that never would have come close to being what you’d call art. And I don’t just mean things that had no artistic intention. I mean that I’ve seen fellow students in an art class labor away for hours week after week on a project that from beginning to end lacked some fundamental aesthetic quality—in my opinion—that would even qualify it to be judged bad art. It wasn’t art at all.

And as for skill, I grant that some technical proficiency is necessary, but it isn’t sufficient. Skill makes for good craftsmanship, but that is not the essence of art. I would sooner grant the label of art to a sincere amateur effort with a strong aesthetic purpose behind it but a weakness in skill (which can be learned and increased with practice) than to a highly competent rendition of, let’s say, a seashore at sunset with splashing waves and two seagulls and an absolute vacuity with respect to artistic idea.

So I guess this means that I’m offering as my criteria (a) intention, (b) aesthetic purpose,  (c) technique, and (d) artistic idea in addition to all those elusive components of beauty such as harmony, balance, contrast, emotional effect, personal vision, elevation of the spirit, and so on. I also tend to agree, but without a strong rationale, with those who think that utility takes a thing out of the class of art as such. Nonetheless, exceptions abound. And something can be made with great artistry and still not be what I would regard as art per se.

Your first selection certainly fits my idea of art, and your second doesn’t; but ultimately I can only qualify it as an idea of art that I find fitting. I can’t make a unilateral declaration about what they are or are not.

^^ Sorry, my mistake: I meant that the other way around. The second selection, the Sistine Chapel ceiling, is my kind of art; the first, the Warhol (if it is Warhol), isn’t.

Neither has as much import as talent. Effort and skill come afterwards.

A piece of art that doesn’t take a lot of skill can still be deeply meaningful and thoughtful provoking. While a detailed and labored pastel landscape can mean absolutely nothing.

Art can be many things. Photographs can be art, yet don’t require nearly the effort or skill required to paint the Sistine Chapel ceiling. The value of art really comes down to the ones looking at it. If it seems senseless, people may not like it. If it evokes emotion, they may. I can look at some art and see the talent behind it, but not like the form or the feeling I get from it. Music is a lot like that to me. I can appreciate the musical skill involved in a particular piece of music, but don’t like the sound…it isn’t in my range of tastes.