You're Probably NOT Making Art (But I'll tell you how you can)

[@WorldWideWebObserver]

It’s up to each individual spectator to determine for themselves what is art and what is good art. Like your painting!🐱

[@DannySabraArt]

@@WorldWideWebObserver thank you!

[@andreasmith3034]

Danny, you did a stunning job painting our girl Ember. What I love most is the details you saw that I never saw in her fur colors. I really enjoyed your commentary on art too. This absolutely matters to us and we love your perspective of her. ❤️

[@andreasmith3034]

And we got to see Harry!!!

[@DannySabraArt]

@@andreasmith3034 thank you Andrea! So happy to get to do it and I hope it brings you joy and fond memories. ❤️

[@DannySabraArt]

@@andreasmith3034 haha yeah! Had to sneak him in there! 🐶

[@TN-pn2gp]

Art cannot exist without humans. It evolves alongside us. Therefore, if someone claims something is their art, I won't protest. Art is one of the languages we use to communicate with ourselves, with others, and with the world. This is why defining art is so difficult; instead of trying to define it, we should just create, enjoy, and live.😉

[@DannySabraArt]

I like this sentiment. Thank you for sharing.

[@pamelasaralliartista]

Carissimo! Che cosa curiosa sentirti parlare di questo! Poche settimane fa ho fatto un video in cui facevo una riflessione sulla bellezza e sull'arte. Ho affrontato anche dei punti che hai affrontato tu in questo video. Debbo dirti che tu hai colto il segreto dell'arte. Vedi nella cultura italiana, l'arte è una cosa ben precisa. Riguarda la bellezza. Infatti noi le cose artistiche le chiamiamo belle arti. Per gli italiani la qualifica dell'arte è la bellezza. Per gli artisti rinascimentali in più, l'arte riguardava un riconoscimento intellettuale. Quindi l'arte per noi è anche autorato. Infatti nel nostro diritto d'autore c'è un distinguo tra chi è autore e chi no. In questo distinguo l'autore viene visto come artista. Inoltre per noi la parola arte non ha soltanto il significato artistico. Perché arte per esempio riguarda i mestieri. Ogni mestiere ha un'arte dietro. Perché ogni mestiere ha la sua professionalità, ha la sua tecnica, ha le sue regole. Inoltre per noi la parola arte, è tutto ciò che risolve questioni difficili. Solo una cosa fatta ad arte cioè fatta bene, può risolvere i problemi. Però la sua qualifica rimane sempre la bellezza. L' italiano è composto dal 90% dal latino e dal greco. La parola bellezza deriva dal latino e significa buono. È questo il segreto che hai colto... La bontà... Mio padre fin da piccola mi diceva di fare tutto con amore. Così io mi impegnavo a fare tutto con amore. Mi accorsi che questo era buono e bello. Ogni dipinto che fai con amore e bontà, è bello. Se si fa tutto con amore e bontà, tutto diventa bello 🩷 Questa è una delle cose bellissime, che mi ha insegnato il mio papà e con piacere confido a te. Il mio papà adesso è in cielo, ma tutta la sua vita è stata un'opera d'arte, perché è stata piena di bontà. Non potrò dimenticarlo mai. La sua vita è stata un grande insegnamento, un grande esempio. Sono molto contenta che hai scoperto anche tu questo segreto.

[@cdsketch]

I really enjoyed this conversation! In a I think I lean more on the side that almost anything CAN be art. In my mind its similar to the division between movies and films. They're both the same format but one is more artistically intentional and the other relies on its subjects and being technically impressive. I will say though, that I think the line between art and non art is less clear than the line between art and fine art. Glad to see you back painting and making videos!

[@DannySabraArt]

@cdsketch that is a really fascinating idea I hadn’t considered before (the line between art and fine art) How do you know the difference? I’ll admit I do not! (Maybe that’s the problem! Haha) What does it mean to you to say something can be art? I can imagine a way it is true in that I don’t think a tree is necessarily art. I think it is nature. But could you use the tree to make art with or from it? Without a doubt. I guess I believe art had to be made…by someone… But people say things like a relationship is an art, or leadership is an art etc. I think that’s a metaphorical use of art. Or they seem to mean that it’s a delicate craft or that it requires thought and strategy. So it’s “like” art. But is it art? I had a friend in art school in Chicago. He said his professor had an art exhibit. At the exhibit the professor proceeded to… erm… let’s say.. “enact the process of biological human reproduction” with another person. The attendees had seats and watched. That was his “art show” with some other paintings and sculptures thrown in. Is that art? I think it’s definitely something! Haha. He may have even been an auteur and skilled at that process… but I lean towards saying that isn’t art. It’s a biological process. Can eating or walking be an art? I dunno. I want to be generous but those things feel different. It’s like asking if eating is walking. I don’t feel in order to allow someone to do it I must call it something it isn’t. If that makes sense?

[@cdsketch]

@@DannySabraArt That would certainly be an interesting exhibit to walk into haha. IMO art is made with the idea that aesthetic and technique trump all, while fine art focuses on the telling of a story, asking of a question or asserting of a point of view in the piece. Honestly, being asked to explain it is starting to dissolve what I thought were clearer distinctions haha. Who knows? I think you could find examples that escape my definitions but that's the best I have. Also the Sargent thing stumps me too. His work is undoubtedly "fine art" even the ones that are just portraits.

[@DannySabraArt]

@ those are really good points too. It would be fun to record a conversation on this or something sometime.

[@cdsketch]

@ That’d be fun

[@timothysmith2321]

Danny, thank you. We will treasure this painting forever. We had Ember for eleven years, and this is a beautiful tribute.

[@amandagloverart]

Animal portraiture is art in my opinion. I think that it's a matter of the different art world's and industries. The world's of fine art, modern art, post modern art, their galleries etc- that industry does certainly have different goals (money laundering?) than the commercial art world which includes graphic design, all the different types of illustration, doing commission works, portraiture of any kind, etc. and frequently the first group tries to, rather intensely, gate keep the second. You're not an artist if your work is derivative, too realist, too drawn from pictures or references, too this...too that. They can go tape bananas to walls. I also agree with you that- comparing ourselves to ourselves is always the way to go. consistent practice=improvement. Beautiful kitty- subscribed.

[@DannySabraArt]

@@amandagloverart excellent points. And thank you for your kind words.

[@brandonmagnus4414]

Beautiful painting

[@DannySabraArt]

@@brandonmagnus4414 thank you so much 🙏

[@melaniehellum1281]

In everthing that humans do their is this banter. A cat , a king a sandwich. We paint and it has meaning to the person that paints. Then some doodedo comes along and tries to define if it's art or not. Then these prints of nothing but smears and colour and people put them above their grey sofa and call it art. Then their are folks that paint goofy stuff and a rich person says it's good and then every other rich person has to have it. Is it good or just another meat dress. It's just best for me to paint like no one is going to look at it enjoy the process and develope skills that please me. Does the eye look shiny does the fur look soft does the shading do the trick . To much judgment kills inspiration and the enjoyment of creativity.

[@DannySabraArt]

@@melaniehellum1281 thank you. Too much judgement kills creativity. I like that. I wonder if the issue in this topic stems from people differentiating art and creativity. I think for me I care less about others assessments (at least in a good day) than pursuing my own creativity.

[@middleofnowhere1313]

Rendering realistically from life is not art? Let them tell that to Albrecht Durer.

[@DannySabraArt]

@@middleofnowhere1313 I agree!

[@loitermanart]

Less than 2 minutes in I'm thinking....again how if contemporary art is so "innovative" why do they keep doing the same thing Marcel Ducamp did over 100 years ago over and over and over again. People do realize he was probably messing with people, and it raised such a question that it became art cannon. Enough already.

[@DannySabraArt]

@@loitermanart really good point. Lots of things are derivative. And subjective. I think mostly I just feel that it’s not up to some gatekeeping snob to tell us that what we do isn’t art. Rather I think we can judge for ourselves if what we are doing is what we want to be doing and if not think about how we might get there. To me it’s the difference between being the slave of someone else’s opinion or free to make your own.

[@GRYMALKYN]

This idea that painting from observation is not art is, to me, one of the more toxic ideas about art that exists today. And personally, I find that most of the people that have been carting that idea around and being loud about it don't seem to possess the skills necessary to express the world around them accurately in an art piece anyway, so they're probably just projecting from a place of lack! It's become quite commonplace especially on social media for people to proclaim that something is not art or is "bad" art and will go into an essay about why they think so. I think it's very disingenuous for an artist to say that there's no benefit or value to creating from life. That's literally what we have done since the dawn of time. I'm sure the ancient cave painters would disagree! So personally I think that whoever says you HAVE to paint stuff that is partially or fully manufactured by imagination -- or it is not art -- is full of shit. And I say this as an artist who is very proficient in both art from observation and art from imagination. I love both. I make both, all the time. I don't consider one more superior than the other, the only thing I am concerned about is whether what I was trying to say came through in the result. You can paint from observation and still express something that could not be seen in a photograph. I do it all the time. I do hope the "art community" stops with this silly stuff. Anyway, great painting :)

[@DannySabraArt]

I agree. I think the sharing of the opinion that someone else’s efforts are not art is in of itself a toxic trait. If their opinion may or not may be correct could be open to debate but the sharing of the idea…the gatekeeping and putting others down because of a superiority complex. That seems more common in the art community than it should be and I do not like it

[@axelSixtySix]

Hello, I would like to weigh in on your video, which raises several points that I believe need clarification. Currently, the "everything is art" notion is outdated and no longer broadly accepted, except within the art market milieu. Here, once someone achieves the status of "Artist" by ticking a few boxes, such as being represented by a prestigious gallery or having their work acquired by an authoritative institution, they can produce any whim labeled as art, under the applause of a community that is both amused and uninformed. However, this status merely certifies that the works signed by this name are speculative assets, nothing more, and it is entirely independent of the fundamental artistic quality of the work. To clarify, I will not address the terrain of the art market, which correlates little, if at all, with the notion of art, as it is far more aligned with the notion of a marketplace. Alongside this, the boundaries of art are, in reality, quite well defined. The ideas of the "ready-made" (like Duchamp's urinal) or artistic intent (as seen in Fluxus) were necessary to expand the concept of art beyond classical notions of representation and technique. However, they are now more often regarded as poor in terms of artistic ambition-a significant concept I will elaborate on later. While every artistic form, be it figurative, abstract, or using past, present, or future media, is eligible as art, not everything is inherently artistic. For a creation to qualify as art, the work must first not be premeditated but instead arise from experimentation. This raises questions about figurative art and staged photography. For instance, a candid photograph that captures a moment aligns more closely with art than a fashion photo that is deliberately composed. The pursuit of reproducing reality, especially in classical painting, was rendered obsolete by photography. Nevertheless, hyperrealist painters do demonstrate an artistic process by allowing viewers to experience a subject from varying levels of understanding within the same canvas. They do not premeditate the depth of details, which emerge brushstroke by brushstroke, beyond their visual perception. In this way, they experiment. Secondly, a work of art must exist solely for the sake of art itself. This is what distinguishes art from craftsmanship, product design, or advertising graphics. Like fashion photography, which serves an external purpose, advertising and design aim to drive sales. Similarly, craftsmanship brings aesthetics to a functional object. Art does not need to be beautiful, ugly, pleasant, or repulsive, nor does it need to provoke emotions-this is not its objective. Nor does it need to communicate anything beyond the work itself. A work of art exists for itself, nothing more and nothing less. In this respect, commissioned paintings are problematic because the commissioner seizes much of the creative process, rendering it, by definition, less innovative. This is why portraiture, regardless of the subject, is considered a minor art today. It offers little compared to photography and is a premeditated composition. Finally, the third criterion that defines the scope of art is the artistic project. This is a concept that many fail to grasp, including some artists themselves. However, it is critical for establishing the foundation of artistic creation. The artistic project is what guides an artist’s work beyond the individual piece, often throughout a portion of their career. Let me offer some examples. The Impressionists and Pointillists sought to demonstrate that reproducing reality did not require precise forms and contours. Juxtaposed patches of color sufficed to depict a scene. Cubists, on the other hand, reflected the upheaval brought about by speed. For the first time in human history, people moved faster than a horse’s pace, producing perspectives and successive images beyond the brain's normal capacity to process visual input. They sought to capture this on the same canvas. When you observe an object passing by a train window, in mere seconds, you see it from various angles, up close and far away. This is what Cubists depict on their canvas, their artistic project. Without such a project, the artist struggles to create art and instead engages in what I will now discuss: artistic practice. Artistic practice alone is insufficient to qualify as art. When you learn to play the piano, you are not a concert pianist. Practice is necessary for refining technique, but neither is mandatory. One can create art without technique, solely through experimentation. The Arte Povera movement exemplifies this, requiring neither technique nor practice-only experimentation using random, low-value materials. For the artist, pursuing technique by copying the works of masters is a waste of time. It leads only to replication and inhibits experimentation and the liberation needed to develop one’s unique style, guided by a personal artistic project. Quality is also a subjective value, and everyone will have their own interpretation. It is an unattainable objective since some remain indifferent when viewing a painting by Géricault, undoubtedly a master of technique, while others are dazzled by Botticelli, whose works exhibit numerous flaws in color harmony and perspective I understand that you have a personal vision of what art is and what you have yet to acquire. However, I hope these words will help broaden your perspective and perhaps refocus your efforts on what is truly essential for you to feel accomplished as an artist. Best wishes to you!

[@DannySabraArt]

@@axelSixtySix Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and comments! You raised some great thoughts and questions for me. You note that artistry and art market are unrelated, how is that so? Is there not a commerce of appreciation which supersedes that of mere monetary value? That is to say you have a definition of what art is and is not, but someone else defines what art is through commerce or gallery representation. In absolutes aren’t these simply two different ways of appraising the concept of art? What is the difference? I also want to clarify and I tried to make it clear in the video that I completely reject the idea that everything is art. That seems prima facie false. You state that for something to be art it must not be premeditated? How do you know that is true? Likewise, the concept of art for arts sake is thoroughly rejected by many great thinkers and artists. What are we to make of the differences in philosophy here? Finally on the point of artistic project, who defines the scope of the project? The artist? Or someone else? Your point for instance that when you learn piano you are not a concert pianist seems specious to me? If you perform your instrument for someone on the first day does this not qualify as a performing musician? Or do you discount it on the basis of quality? Then wouldn’t it be a question of technique again? If quality is subjective, where do you find the objective boundaries of what art is? Where does the subjective end? Where does quality end and art begin? Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

[@axelSixtySix]

@@DannySabraArt I truly appreciate the opportunity to engage in this open conversation with you. As fellow artists, there’s a shared understanding we ought to strive for, one grounded in both experience and thoughtful exchange. Allow me to clarify that the definitions I present are not only current but also broadly accepted on this side of the Atlantic, particularly within contemporary aesthetics courses taught at university level. You are absolutely correct that I maintain my stance regarding the art market, especially the contemporary art sector, being fundamentally disconnected from an appreciation of intrinsic artistic quality. Once an artist and their work reach a certain threshold, they transition into being assets: objects of speculation. This speculative value bears little connection to talent, artistic merit, or the work’s influence on art history. I’m speaking here of the art market itself, the valuation of artists, and not the genuine appreciation of an enthusiastic collector encountering a work. The threshold where an artist becomes an asset is determined by a narrow circle of actors within the art market, including public institutions. This is a complex subject, worthy of extended discussion, but in brief, consider how artists like Koons manipulate their own market value. They might donate a piece to a museum or city, which then issues a certificate assigning the artwork an arbitrary value declared by the artist. Instantly, the other works in the series (regardless of prior pricing) align with this new, favorable valuation. Everyone benefits: the artist, the gallery, the collectors, even the museums. Artworks, you see, are tax shelters: safe investments that are often immune from heavy taxation, with steadily rising values. The profits from resale are often untaxed, and losses at auction are rare exceptions. Whether or not you like Picasso is irrelevant; if you buy him at market value, you can likely resell him in a few years for a handsome profit. At this level, artworks are no longer purely art: they are assets. And the market for these assets places little emphasis on artistic quality or historical significance. Even so, while Klein’s first monochrome might hold slightly greater value for its historical weight, subsequent monochromes, devoid of that uniqueness, fetch nearly identical prices. Klein, as it turns out, is a reliable asset. Artistic creation, however, cannot be premeditated. This distinction is critical to differentiating art from craft, advertising, or product design. When creation is driven by anything other than artistic action itself, it ceases to be art. It becomes something else: an aesthetic object or propaganda. Premeditating a work denies experimentation, stifling instinct and spontaneity. What remains is execution, translation, or reproduction, but not creation. Even in classical painting, experimentation was commonplace. X-ray analyses of old masters reveal numerous changes made during execution, and we know that da Vinci worked on the Mona Lisa for years, revising and reworking. Similarly, a director can reinterpret the essence of a play, altering its meaning through character nuance. A conductor can reshape a symphony in rehearsal, transforming its emotional impact. Both are acts of experimentation, the essence of artistic creation. Without this element of discovery, what you produce cannot, by definition, be a creation. Art must exist for its own sake. A true work of art is bound solely by its obligation to be a unique creation. A reproduction, however faithful, ceases to be art. This underscores the idea that not everything can be art, and here we find agreement. The concept of "anything is art" struggles to prove itself. To understand this, one must recall that from Duchamp to Fluxus, artists challenged the institution of art, then confined to museums and galleries, which dismissed any deviation from classical standards. This rigidity extended to visual art, music, and dance. Modern forms were discredited, just as the Impressionists and Fauves were vilified in their time. Their works, however, stood as powerful arguments for their cause. Early 20th-century artists, and those through the 1970s, pushed artistic boundaries, claiming that anything could be art. Jacques Prévert’s inventory beautifully demonstrates this: a string of nonsensical words juxtaposed into poetic resonance. Yet, the limits of this concept were reached surprisingly quickly, confronted by what can only be described as artistic absurdity. Whether it’s contemporary dance reduced to aimless contortions on the floor, music devolving into chaotic noise, or conceptual art epitomized by a nail in the wall, many so-called artistic endeavors struggle to justify their existence, while some may be sold pretty well on the contemporary art market. Today, we grapple with defining the parameters of artistic creation without unduly limiting it, and the definitions I provide represent the current consensus. Contrary to Duchamp’s assertions, merely declaring something art does not make it so. Splattering paint on a canvas does not inherently constitute painting, just as scraping a bow across a violin does not inherently create music. This principle applies across disciplines, from literature to sculpture. There is a clear distinction between cultural practice and artistic creation. A lifetime of painting does not make one an artist. A house painter or sign painter, for instance, is not an artist unless they create works of art. Something their trade often precludes. Similarly, cultural hobbies: whether modeling, painting, sculpting, or playing an instrument, do not instantly confer the title of artist. Otherwise, we might as well declare a one-year-old smearing yogurt on a napkin to be an artist, or a nail in the wall to be a masterpiece. Even flawlessly performing the Moonlight Sonata does not make you an artist, for where is the act of creation? Compose a song in your bedroom, however modest, and you have at least engaged in the act of creation. Whether it will revolutionize music is another matter, but you have created nonetheless. Recognition as an artist depends on additional factors. Those seeking to be acknowledged by the art world must gain validation from their peers and institutions, a process often disconnected from talent or accomplishment. History, for instance, will likely remember Maria Callas while Mariah Carey fades despite her awards and earnings. This is because her art, however skillful, remains minor. Recognition, however, is not essential for one to be an artist. If you make a living selling your work to private individuals, you are already a professional artist. Conversely, graduating from an art school and teaching does not make one an artist: it makes one a teacher. Lastly, there are those who dedicate their lives to their Art, enduring obscurity in pursuit of singular creation. Van Gogh’s story exemplifies this: a man convinced of his worthlessness, yet whose work became immortal. His talent, though unacknowledged in life, left a profound legacy. This, I believe, is the true focus for any artist: the act of creation itself. It is what drives us, beyond ambition or the necessity of making a living. If these were our primary motivations, we would become entrepreneurs or politicians instead.

[@nenad16x16]

@@axelSixtySix Who wrote this? ChatGPT? Talk is cheap. How about demonstrating your expertise by showing some of your art?

[@axelSixtySix]

I don't need AI to think for me. Art isn’t about expertise; it’s about experimentation, and the two couldn’t be more different. I don’t believe expertise means anything to artists. I leave the illusion of expertise to auctioneers and art critics, they love that stuff as much as you, don’t they? Makes them feel important.

[@nenad16x16]

@@axelSixtySix Experimentation is domain of empirical science. Art is about sublimation, poetics and aesthetics. Those things take skill and facility. And visual art is about visuals. It is to be practiced and experienced without words. It doesn't need or want any rhetorical tutelage. Watch out for that verbal relativistic egregore sowing postmodernistic obfuscation in your mind. Its name is nihilism and its mission is total destruction.

[@matthewhalpin8351]

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRITTY PICTURES AND REAL ART, UNFORTUNITELY 95 PERCENT OR MORE CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE, SO TEND TO GO FOR SOMETHING THAT RESEMBLES A SENTEMENTAL COUNTRY SEEN ECT THAT PULLS AT THE HART STRINGS BUT HAS NO SUBSTANCE OR REAL MEANING. NEXT, THERE IS THE ARTIST WHO HAS A TRACK RECORD AND SHOULD KNOW BETTER BUT TAKES THE WORK TOO FAR, BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO MORE TO SAY THIS IS ALSO A PROBLEM.. BUT. IF IT MAKES YOU HAPPY IN MOST CASES, THEN IT MAKES YOU HAPPY....

[@DannySabraArt]

what would you say is the difference between art and a pretty picture? what gives something substance?