Types of arts

[Nature of a Man]

I was wondering if a broad and comprehensive way of defining and categorizing different types of art in a consistent and easy-to-understand way.

I'm not sure if one exists, but if I were to attempt to do it - I would use a couple different categories:

---
Categorized by medium:
---

Performance arts:

Arts which are meant to be viewed or experienced as live performances

Examples: Sports and other competitive games (e.x chess, firearm-related competitions), singing and musical performance, dancing, theater, public speaking, beauty-related arts and shows, animal-related arts (e.x. dog shows, horseback riding, hunting for sport)

Static arts:

Arts which are meant to be viewed or experienced as finished products

Examples: Literature and writing, drawing, painting, sculpting, gardening, photography, fashion, culinary arts, musical composition, mechanical arts (e.x. designing or customizing automobiles), digital arts (e.x. graphic design); art and music appreciation or evaluation in general (as opposed to art production) might also be considered an "art" in itself

---
Categorized by subject matter:
---


*Arts which represent living things:

Examples: Art or music which represents animals, people, or other living creatures (e.x. mythological or extraterrestrial beings)

*Arts which represent non-living things things in nature:

Examples: Art depicting natural or cosmic wonders such as lakes, oceans, deserts, skies, planets, stars

*Arts which represent non-living things in culture:

Examples: Art depicting human ideas or inventions such as cities, cars, trains, airplanes

*Pure abstract or transcendent arts:

Art depicting abstract or transcendent concepts

Examples: Classical or symphonic music music without lyrics, abstract visual arts and architecture, pure science and pure mathematics, advanced philosophy, theology, and mysticism

[Hovannes]

Oliver Cromwell is widely regarded as a fArt.
Just sayin'

[durangopipe]

Don’t forget Cuisinarts.

[hugodrax]

Fainn is going to be so disappointed

[tuttle]

[durangopipe]

Fainn is going to be so disappointed

Yes.

Pivotal moments in life, defined (punctuated, if you will) by the fArts - primarily a performance form, although sometimes practiced in isolation - elevated above all other categories of human aesthetic production by the truly great fartists, most certainly deserve a special category.

The Fine fArts.

Hence, please see my humbly proposed additional, elaborating thread,”World’s Greatest Stinker Showdown.”

Tuttle will have his work cut out for him.
I do hope he is up to the task of cutting one for us.

[durangopipe]

But in some seriousness, NoaM ...

It has been variously attempted.

Again, as is often the case, Aristotle is generally considered the most important early contributor to the method of categorizing the arts that came to be known as genre criticism with his examination primarily of Greek Theater in his, Poetics.

He proposed an approach to genre that required both necessary and sufficient properties for a defined genre and necessary objectives and outcomes, or purpose. (This approach is known as essentialism.)

Genre criticism was further elaborated over the centuries by others; sometimes, including lengthy forays into articulating the distinction between the beautiful and the sublime, with a further category- the picturesque - added later.

And later still, anti-genre art critical theories were proposed by others, culminating (many would argue) in the anti-essentialist aesthetics of linguistic analysts (leaning heavily on the work of Wittgenstein) like Morris Weitz.

But before any of that categorization (or antipathy toward categorization) is attempted, it might be wise to attempt a definition of “art.” How do you break into categories something you have yet to define? The two tasks are interdependent. The second presupposes (and is shaped by) the former.

[Nature of a Man]

But in some seriousness, NoaM ...

It has been variously attempted.

Again, as is often the case, Aristotle is generally considered the most important early contributor to the method of categorizing the arts that came to be known as genre criticism with his examination primarily of Greek Theater in his, Poetics.

He proposed an approach to genre that required both necessary and sufficient properties for a defined genre and necessary objectives and outcomes, or purpose. (This approach is known as essentialism.)

Genre criticism was further elaborated over the centuries by others; sometimes, including lengthy forays into articulating the distinction between the beautiful and the sublime, with a further category- the picturesque - added later.

And later still, anti-genre art critical theories were proposed by others, culminating (many would argue) in the anti-essentialist aesthetics of linguistic analysts (leaning heavily on the work of Wittgenstein) like Morris Weitz.

But before any of that categorization (or antipathy toward categorization) is attempted, it might be wise to attempt a definition of “art.” How do you break into categories something you have yet to define? The two tasks are interdependent. The second presupposes (and is shaped by) the former.

I'd define it as creative expression, or creation of beauty, as an end in and of itself. (While things which are viewed as primarily "pragmatic" aren't viewed as arts).

I would be adverse to attempting to understanding intricacies of it (such as "beauty vs sublime", various academic theories, genres and subgenres, specific critics, etc) -without it being grounded on a sound foundation. (Maybe for the same reason that I'd be adverse to learning about a Formula 1 car if I didn't even have a driver's license).

Apparently "proto-forms" of art exist in the animal kingdom, such as how courtship rituals between birds display song and dance. And art in the broadest sense is culturally ubiquitous, whether in ancient cave paintings, or more elaborate forms of art which came into existence later.

[JimVH]

I'm partial to art where the dogs play poker.

[Hovannes]

I'm partial to art where the dogs play poker.

+1

[durangopipe]

I'm partial to art where the dogs play poker.

+1

But that fails to consider fluorescent paint on black velvet.
And Elvis.

[Hovannes]

I'm partial to art where the dogs play poker.

+1

But that fails to consider fluorescent paint on black velvet.
And Elvis.

meh....more like unrealistic realism.
Everyone knows dogs can't shuffle cards worth a darn.

[JimVH]

I'm partial to art where the dogs play poker.

+1

But that fails to consider fluorescent paint on black velvet.
And Elvis.

You make a solid argument. And let's not exclude black light art, especially the great pioneers of the 70s.

[durangopipe]

I'm partial to art where the dogs play poker.

+1

But that fails to consider fluorescent paint on black velvet.
And Elvis.

You make a solid argument. And let's not exclude black light art, especially the great pioneers of the 70s.

Buy now!
They can only go up in value.

[durangopipe]

... or any of the masters.







And you can never go wrong with unicorns.