abstraction of reality is till an abstract, whereas, reality contains reality; painting and sculpture will return to realistic painting , turning away from an abstract representation. reality holds truth. theory vs reality as truth.
an abstract is a relationship between two objects, this is the same language used to represent development of consciousness; why draw a picture of an abstraction, when you could simply take the physical-mental life we see right before us as art. then we would develop our own consciousness.
its always hidden.....
I think personal preference; art can be considered by some to be expressive or heavily manipulated images on a PC, while other can disagree and agree that art should resemble reality as closely as possible.
Andy Warhol - Art is what you can get away with.
If you are smart enough to convince a gullible and rich bunch of people to pay for it it becomes art. Otherwise it is dross.
Read The Painted Word by Tom Wolfe.
In the minds of those who imagine it.
The only thing resembling a line that I can think of is the divide between that which is intended, and that which is unintentional.
The natural world is full of beautiful things: plants, animals, minerals, colors, sounds, etcetera, but I don't consider those beautiful things to be art because there is no intent involved in their creation (with the possible exception of some things that animal's create by their behavior. Perhaps their is some inkling of artistic intent in some animal minds; then again, maybe it is only genetic instinct).
I might classify one of two identical trees as art if one is growing wild, and one is in a garden, placed amongst other trees, shrubs, and flowerbeds that were meant to create an eye-pleasing interaction of forms, and colors.
If someone knocked down a shelf full of paint cans, and thereby created a cool-looking mix of patterns and colors on the floor, I wouldn't classify it as art, but if someone pulled up the floor's surface, put a frame around it, and mounted it on a wall, I probably would.
I guess I measure art by the degree to which it's creator's intent is achieved. One creator might intend to fashion a perfect forgery. Another might strive to create something completely original. Another might be concerned only with how well their creation serves it's intended purpose, and care nothing for it's graceful or pleasing appearance.
That all depends on your definition of art.
Which is actually a struggle that nearly every artist must decide for himself, because it isn't a sharp line but an endless grey mass of artisans who produce works, which are not considered art.
If I decide to produce painting in this years fashionable colors, because I know that such works will sell better am I compromising my art? If I decide to only paint ballerinas, because ballerinas sell, am I making art?
If I'm hired to paint a portrait is that any different? If I write advertising jingles instead of pop songs is there a difference?
Art is in the heart of the artist and the viewer.
I guess that would depend on the viewer. I have a couple of little nieces who love to draw, and I get a bigger charge out of their stuff than I get from some of the dreck that I see in museums and art galleries. I have a couple of "works" by my nieces on my refrigerator door. One is a rendering of my mother's (their grandmother's) Cocker Spaniel, which consists of two boxes with tail, eyes, and ears, and is colored green for some reason. I LOVE that picture - and I consider it art. And I have a reproduction of Picasso's "The Old Guitarist," which pleases me, too.
Art is in the eye of the beholder. If there is a "line" between "art" and "not-art," it's pretty blurry, as far as I'm concerned.