and wallpapers by many artists are ment to bring beauty, expression, and art to the screen. just because the person that downloads it only uses it as decoration does not mean it is not art. Some are created as an expression of the person, a visual representation of their thoughts, idea, or concept. No different from what a painter does with a brush, what a sculpter does with a chisel, or etc.

Function does not remove the quality of being art from a creative work. What is art is very much in the eye of the beholder, and in the final analysis, what is art is what we call art. (sounds pretty circular, I know ).

The idea that a creative work can only be art if it exists only for the sake of some ephemeral criteria of non functionality is pretty elitist, and is a limiting definition of the word.

Just to give as an example, here are two of the dictionary definitions of the word 'art'

art

n
1: the products of human creativity; works of art collectively [syn: fine art]

2: the creation of beautiful or significant things; "he was a patron of art" [syn: artistic creation, artistic production]

3: the superior ability that is attained by study and practice and observation; "he had mastered the art of a great craftsman" [syn: artistry, prowess, superior skill]

4: photographs or other visual representations in a printed publication [syn: artwork, graphics, nontextual matter]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University


art
n.
Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
The study of these activities.

The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.

A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.

A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.

A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.

A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.

Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.

Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: “Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice” (Joyce Carol Oates).


There are of course, those who claim that the dictionary definition doesn't apply because it doesn't appeal to their inner aesthete, but that misses the point. In the simplest (and best) definition, art is the expression of creativity in any medium or context.

Of course, there are several definitions of the word "Art".
Lets not forget the seven liberal arts, based on the types of studies pursued in the Classical world:
- Grammar
- Rhetoric
- Logic
- Arithmetic
- Geometry
- Music, Harmonics, or Tuning Theory
- Astronomy or Cosmology

But, of course, these are not what I was refering to.

The hood of a car may or may not be art, depending on a point of view. An aesthetically pleasing solution to an engineering problem (fit and finish, aerodynamics, contribution to the form of the automobile), can definitely be considered as art, with or without the above mentioned fantastic painting.

The inclusion of the fact that such an item is also functional in some fashion has no effect whatsoever on its artistic merit.

A good example, to go back to the chairs, are Eames chairs. Not only are these chairs functional in the definition of being perfectly usable, they are also art, not only in terms of form and creativity, but in recognition of that fact by some in the artistic community at the time.

The entire perception of art is supremely subjective. I, for one, have no regard for the artistic style known as 'found objects' as I have yet to see any particularly creative representation thereof.

From the standpoint of what is available on this site, for example, I find a great deal of what I call art, that which is aesthetically pleasing, both in form and function. The fact is that people in general are far more positively disposed to accept functional objects that are more than merely functional, i.e., they have some artistic and aesthetic quality that, in itself, has no bearing on the function of the device. And while that may not make a lovely screwdriver art in some ephemeral sense, it is nonetheless an artistic expression of creativity, and has as much right (perhaps even more) to be called art as any painting of Elvis on black velvet (just to use a particularly egregious example).

Enjoy

A wall has no function really. You can use a desktop fine without it (I do, solid black ofcourse), therefore the wall is only aesthetic.

As for those definitions Aleatoric gave, I like how they involve the aspect of skill. Though I tend to think of skill more as craftmanship than art itself.

How about this point: art is how others label someone's work. You cannot label it yourself. What do you think?

A wall is just a wall?
The Vietnam Memorial in Washington is just a wall. Yet it generates more emotion in people that see it then people viewing the Mona Lisa. It is only a black stone wall with names carved in it. Would you call that art? It certainly generates emotion and captures a moment.

"Music is meant to be listened to, not danced on (that's why I don't consider dance music Art)" A few classical composers would beat you over the head for saying that. The Nutcracker Suite isn't art? Ever hear of Johann Strauss? Most of what he did was tied to waltzes.


This reminds me of the debate that some scientists thought that the human race had learned everything there was to know in 1900.

Mobius....

You got me totally, totally WRONG with my comment about 'narrow minded view'.
I meant that it always appears that Joe Public's interpretation of what 'art' is is limited specifically to that which MOST looks like a painting on a wall...and in our case, that means 'wallpapers'.
You got me very, very wrong.....especially when I rate people such as yourself, and Nuvem, to name but two, as very significant ARTISTS of the 20th/21st century.

What I was trying to point out was that 'art-on-walls' is a narrow-minded view of the world of ART and that there is 'art' to be found in many, many MORE facets of society and its 'expression'.

For whatever reason, if you can continue to look at something, or touch it, or even USE it, and while doing so, continue to feel appreciation of it then, to you, it is ART.

ART is selfish and personal.
POPULAR ART is merely the same, but admired/appreciated by more.
THE MASTERS are simply Artists elevated to dizzy heights by opinionated 'critics' who wish to impose their 'perceptions' on the great un-washed who are not allowed to form their own opinions.

OK, this was posted immediately on seeing your comment on my post....now I'll read the rest of 'em in between....

ok jafo sorry about the misunderstanding of your post.

If a work [not using the word 'art'] of creativity is admired or appreciated by others, perhaps preferably 'numerous' others, then it can quite justifiably be called 'art'. It can be splashes of paint on canvas....pixels on a wallpaper....a clever arrangement of chrome pipe and leather on a chair....a photograph of Nicole Kidman....a Song by Deep Purple [OK....they're on my player at the moment]...a bird sitting on a branch....a WinAMP skin....the house on my drawing board....the DB4 Zagato Aston Martin [that I wish was in my driveway]....they are all legitimate depictions/examples of 'art'.

Paxx....IF a work of art also happens to have a truly 'functional' use it doesn't degrade its worth as art....it is more likely to enhance its value though....having BOTH function AND form...

OK, if it's 'art for art's sake', then you get a daggy blob on a canvas, or a stack of neatly folded blankets....and a bunch of idiot-savants falling over each-other to bask in reflected glory...'Picasso is 1337, because we say so'.
If the art has true merit people will more likely just say nothing.....and look and be mesmerized...

Every year, Ferrari release their new F1 car....and my comment is invariably...'yep, they've done it again.....such beautiful lines'.....maybe it's my 30 years of Architecture, design, and spatial appreciation/experience, but I definitely see 'art' in a hell of a lot more things than just 'things hanging on a wall'....

Oh well, I don't agree. But I'm the only one here. Hehe!
That's OK, I know I'm unique.

I still say wallpapers and skins are not the 8th Art.

But I'm not saying computer graphics isn't Art. MobiusCo, your work truly is Art. When I download it and look at it, I go Wow! And I save a few of your works and a few others like that. And once in a while, I open them and look at them.
Sometimes I even use some of them as desktop wallpapers. Sometimes I modify them a little though to give me more room to place my icons on the sides.
Ofeten too, I use some landscapes as wallpaper. I like landscapes on my desktop. Dunno why. But heck I hate landscape in Art. I would never put a lanscape on my home's wall. Berk! But on my desktop, it's different. It works there. Summer lanscape in the summer, winter lanscapes in the summer. Sometimes some sports pictures. Nothing to do with Art.
But sometimes I like to have art on my desktop too. That's when I use your stuff and a few others. Sometimes I also put some Monet or Renoir (I love Renoir).

For the last time, this is how I see it simplified:
- Desktop wallpapers are not Art
- But you can put Art on your desktop, as you can put other things that aren't art.

Grinffinme:
- Nutscracker is a ballet, and I said that dance is Art.
- A lot of people actually don't consider Strauss much more than a Britney Spears of the 19th century.

I wonder who would be insulted and who would feel complimented by that statement.

Well...maybe I shouldn't participate in this thread, but OK..Let me try...I can go along a lot of what Paxx has said, but something new is perhasps evolving too... Maybe every form of creation is art? Perhaps cloning too, and gen manipulation...Who is to tell? My opinion is that art goes beyond craftsmanship. Ofcourse, you need the tools and knowledge to become grandmaster in craftsmanship, but then the fun starts. There should be no limits in imagination or expression, it'just as far as you can reach on a given moment. Maybe Picasso is a good example, or Hundertwasser. Or even Monet. Rietveld's chair
Who knows, one day all the handcraft paintings will disappear from the wall and will be replaced by superthin screens that have a wireless connection to a webcam in the Great Barrier Reef (at least there is clear water there), or the butchershop. Or you can buy and enjoy an hour of images of digital works from a database...