Why Study the Arts and the Humanities?

By Daniel R. Schwarz
300





Following the recent report of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences on
the crisis in the Humanities entitled “The Heart of the Matter,” I have seen
quite a few insightful commentaries, most stressing economic utility — how
the humanities help students succeed in whatever endeavor they pursue —
and some stressing how the humanities contribute to making students better
citizens in a democracy.

In my definition, the humanities not only include literature of both ancient and
modern languages, the performing arts, philosophy, comparative religion, and
cultural studies, but also history, anthropology, and linguistics, although the
latter three are often on the border between humanities and the social
sciences.

What follows are my own reasons to study the humanities, with a particular
focus on the arts. My reasons balance utility with more idealistic quality of life
issues. Thus I want to stress both the isness and doesness of the humanities,
which in fact is a version of the Horatian credo of delighting and instructing.

On the utility or doesness side, I would stress the value of learning to think
critically and independently, read powerfully and perceptively, write lucidly and
precisely, and speak articulately.

On the quality of life or isness side, I would stress that the arts take us into
imagined worlds created by different minds and enable us to understand how
others live. We are what we read, the museums we visit and the
performances we see and hear. They are as much us — part of our
memories, our isness — as the culture we inherit and the life experiences we
have.
That entry into other worlds and minds does give us a larger context for
thinking about how to live and how to confront and understand present
personal and historic issues, even while also giving us pleasure for its own
sake.

Another way to think about what the arts do is to ask whether experiencing the
arts makes us more perceptive and sensitive humans. We can say with some
certainty that reading and viewing masterworks in the visual arts or in
attending performances of great music, opera, or ballet
widens our horizons about how people behave and what historical and cultural
forces shape that behavior. But will, say, reading War and Peace be a catalyst
to heroic action or, as Tolstoy urges, putting family first? Probably not. Will it
make us slightly more aware of the need to find definition and purpose in life?
Perhaps in some nuanced, immeasurable way, the answer is “Yes.” Do
adolescents learn anything about life, love, and the place of the imagination
from classic young adult fiction like Lawrence’s Sons and Lovers, Joyce’s A
Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, and Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye? I did.

Perhaps the best answer to who gets the most out of the arts is that it
depends on what the reader, viewer, or listener brings to her or his
experience. For there is a symbiotic relationship between art and audience,
and each perceiver is a community of one. Or, as Constantine Cavafy puts it:

Laistrygonians, Cyclops,
wild Poseidon — you won’t encounter them
unless you bring them along inside your soul,
unless your soul sets them up in front of you. (“Ithaka”)

Even while teaching us, the arts insert a pause between the tick and the tock
and in a sense suspend our diurnal lives. In defending the humanities,
perhaps we need to assert the value of that pause, whether it be attending a
performance of a Balanchine ballet, a Mozart opera, a Beethoven symphony,
or a blues concert by Buddy Guy. The joy and wonder evoked by such
performances are real if immeasurable values.

By awakening our imagination, art intensifies and complements our own

experience. Art represents people, cultures, values, and perspectives on
living, but it does much more. While bringing us pleasure, art teaches us.
While reading or contemplating a painting our minds go elsewhere. We are
taken on a journey into a world where form and meaning are intertwined.
Form matters and gives pleasure. How a work of art is organized — its
technique, its verbal or visual texture, its way of telling — gives pleasure. So
does the inextricable relation between form and content. The form of
imaginative art, as well as the form of well-written non-fiction, organizes the
mess (if not the chaos) of personal life as well as that of external events. Form
not only organizes and controls art but also other bodies of knowledge within
the humanities. Form imposes structure that our own lives — as we move
from moment to moment through time — may lack.

Narrative — sequential telling — imposes form as it orders and gives shape.

Indeed, in the sense that each of us is continually giving shape to the stories
we tell to and about ourselves, there is continuity between what we read and
see and our own lives. Put another way, what we read teaches us to find
narratives within our own lives and hence helps us make sense of who we
are. Our seeing shapes and patterns in stories and other kinds of art helps
give interpretive order — in the form of a narrative that we understand — to
our lives. We live in our narratives, our discourse, about our actions, thought,
and feelings.

While there is always a gulf between imagined worlds and real ones, does not
the continuity between reading lives and reading texts depend on our
understanding reading as a means of sharpening our perceptions and deepen
our insights about ourselves? Reading is a process of cognition that depends
on actively organizing the phenomena of language both in the moment of
perception and in the fuller understanding that develops retrospectively.

To cultivate both the utility of the humanities and their contribution to the
quality of life, we need to develop passionate, committed teachers at every
level whose knowledge, enthusiasm, and interest in students enable them to
help open the doors and windows of students’ minds to the importance of the
humanities. Too often university professors are so immersed in their own
research that some courses offered are narrow in scope, inadequately
defined, and unattractive to students.

Much more stress in college and university curricula should be on how to

attract students rather than how to satisfy faculty. But that does not mean
dummying down curricula or abandoning the canon. Rather it means
organizing the curricula so that the best teachers — those that truly engage
students in the odyssey of learning — are foregrounded. Course syllabi must
be more than maps of a teacher’s taste and interest. They need to be an
astute selection of texts as windows into cultural traditions and values.
Teachers should remember that the goal of the humanities is not only to
intensify and complement their students’ life experiences but also to give them
tools to understand and interpret the world in which they live. This will help
them be economically and professionally successful. But it will also enhance
their lives, enabling them to take pleasure in the arts and satisfaction in being
part of an ongoing humanistic tradition of reading, writing, and thinking.

Author of the well-received 2012 book Endtimes? Crises and Turmoil at the
New York Times, 1999-2009 (Excelsior Editions of SUNY Press), Daniel R.
Schwarz is Frederic J. Whiton Professor of English and Stephen H. Weiss
Presidential Fellow at Cornell University. He can be reached
at [email protected] and followed on Facebook.

Follow Daniel R. Schwarz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/danRSchwarz

Why is creativity important in everyday life?  It is because it makes life infinitely
interesting and fulfilling. Creativity is a way of living life that embraces originality and
makes unique connections between seemingly disparate ideas. Creativity is about living
life as a journey into seeing and communicating the extra-ordinariness of the simplest,
most every day acts.

Teacher and student

We often think about creativity as making something, but in fact the root meaning of the
word means ‘to grow’. When we are creative we feel as if the world and all that is in it is
vibrantly alive. Creativity’s by-products are some of the major achievements of
civilization–from the invention of the wheel to Mozart’s sonatas.
 Perspective – drawing and painting

Human beings are essentially born creative–from infancy on we find innovative ways to
negotiate life. The most creative people find ways around obstacles because they see
them not just as roadblocks but also as opportunities. Creativity expands our
perceptions and along with expanded perceptions come new ways of problem solving–
from making an exquisite meal when you don’t know how to cook to painting an
extraordinary landscape when you are living in a freezing attic and can’t afford a full box
of paints.

20 Signs You’re A Creative Person

 Daniel Wallen
Freelance Writer Read full profile

  Share
  Pin it
  Tweet
  Share
  Email

The world would be a dreadful place without creative people. Could you even imagine
life without art? The thought alone makes me tremble. Could you be the next William
Shakespeare, Steven Spielberg, or J.K. Rowling? Find out with these 20 signs you’re a
creative person.

1. You have an authority problem.

Creative types don’t always get along well with management because they would rather
march to the beat of their own drum.

2. You have a hard time relating with people.

Most people have a strong desire to fit in, something that you don’t understand.
Conformity is gross.

3. You like to solve problems.

While most people are running and hiding from problems, you purposely seek them
because you love nothing more than a fresh new challenge.

4. You are your own worst critic.

You wrote a blog many months ago and thought it was wonderful at the time you
published it. But then you read it again later and wonder, “What the hell was I
thinking?” You then identify approximately a thousand ways it could have been better
and kick yourself for being so stupid.

Note: Coincidentally, this is why I REFUSE to read my own old blogs and articles. 

5. You ask lots of questions.

A stagnant mind devoid of curiosity doesn’t have the capacity to create.

6. You carry a notebook everywhere you go.

Because how else can you remember all those brilliant ideas that strike you on the fly?

7. You find beauty in the ordinary.

Creatives live in the present and are in constant awe of the world around them.
8. You are numb to rejection.
Let’s face it: it’s a hard world out there. If becoming a writer or actor or artist was easy, a
lot more people would do it. Getting that dreaded rejection letter stinks at first, but
eventually you become able to just shrug it off and go on to the next one. 

9. You understand the power of atmosphere.

There is a reason some authors travel to a rustic cabin or sandy beach to write their
novels. Some atmospheres are more conducive to creativity than others. Maybe you
like to pack up your laptop and go to a coffee shop, downtown bench, or under a tree at
the park. Whatever the case may be, you know the locations that boost your creative
juices.

10. You think most people have poor taste.

You might find the movies and music most people enjoy to be downright terrible. I don’t
know about you, but I believe a kitten dies every time someone listens to Nickelback.

11. You are a people-watcher.

Why do people watch TV when real life is infinitely more interesting?

12. You aren’t in it for the money.

Money pays bills but it doesn’t provide happiness. There are much easier ways to make
a living. This isn’t about money, it’s about passion.

13. You experience emotional highs and lows.

Your emotional life is not a straight line. Instead, it is more like the path of a roller-
coaster full of dips, drops, hills, loops, and twists. Sometimes you might experience an
eruption of happiness and a crash to sadness within mere moments of each other. The
most painful parts usually find themselves in your art.

14. You seek inspiration.

Inspiration doesn’t happen on its own. Whether it is the opening of an art gallery, a
theatrical production, or live music at a downtown bar, you search for inspiration
wherever you can find it. It’s nice to know you’re not alone in your desire to create.

15. You have an interesting sense of humor.

Off-color jokes are the best kind of jokes.

16. You evolve like a boss.

An ability to adapt to challenging scenarios is necessary for survival in the creative
jungle.

17. You hate stereotypes.

You understand that human beings are way too complicated to be dumped into gender
roles or stereotypes.
18. You don’t have a filter.
Don’t you think life would be much more fun if everyone just said what they were
thinking with no filter? There is no such thing as TMI (Too Much Information). 

19. You take time to think.

Your brain is your greatest asset.

20. You don’t bend to pressure.

Whether it’s a hater who thinks your work of art sucks, a family member who thinks “you
should get a real job,” or a friend who thinks your idea “will never work,” you don’t cave
to outside pressure.

Minds on Monday: Art is Universal. (Why?)

Last week, I talked about the sense of beauty. I argued first that it would be very strange
if there were human beings, or even human-like beings, who are incapable of
making Kantian judgements of taste. Then, in a second post, I reviewed some attempts
to account for universal norms of beauty in evolutionary terms, i.e. the standards by
which we determine what things are beautiful. These attempts get the domain of beauty
wrong. From their perspective, chocolates and sex should also be objects of beauty. But
this is not the right category for sex. In sum, I think that the sense of beauty is
universal–but that norms of beauty are parochial and hard to account for in
evolutionary terms, at least if it’s important to account for them as beauty.
Today I want to reflect on the universality of art, which has been illuminatingly
discussed by Ellen Dissanayeke, Stephen Davies, Noël Carroll, and Denis Dutton. The
phenomena are striking.
 Art has extremely ancient, perhaps even pre-Homo sapiens, origins. Hand axes made
by H. ergaster one and a half million years ago display a symmetry unrelated to
function, and these was highly time-consuming to produce. Forty thousand years ago,
at Enkapune Ya Muto in Kenya, people made delicate strings of beads out of ostrich
eggshell, an extremely delicate process. While these artifacts lack the individual style
of their makers, and are hence better classified as craftworks, they nevertheless
display a “disinterested”–this term will be explained later–regard for appearance and
form that is the hallmark of art.
 Every culture, no matter how isolated, sings, dances, tells stories, erects monuments,
and draws visual patterns that exploit regularity, repetition, and enclosure. Almost
every culture makes visual images. In every culture, there are codified styles or genres
that govern each such activity.
 In every culture, there are connoisseurs who appreciate formal skill in these activities–
skill in execution that goes beyond the primary appeal of works in these media. For
 example, while the tune and the beat of a musical performance give pleasure to
almost all who share in the culture, there are always some specially knowledgeable
consumers who value aspects of the performance that are not evident to all–fine
control of dynamics, ornamentation, syncopation, breath-control, phrasing, and so
on.
 At least some art works in every culture carry a kind of augustness or specialness that
more quotidian artefacts lack. They are highly worked and made from expensive, rare,
and specially treated materials; they are kept in hallowed places; possessing them is
symbolic of power and wealth; they are associated with communal occasions on which
daily work is suspended for musical or dramatic performances, etc. Ellen Dissanayeke
makes this specialness a defining characteristic of art, and it is certainly true that
every culture makes at least some art-objects special in these ways. (One
qualification: the specialness accorded to an artwork must manifest itself in
its creation and form. The millionth Mickey Mouse watch might have been placed in
a museum: this would not make it an artwork.) 
 Most individuals appreciate some genres within every broad form of art. It is a
recognized disability, for instance, not to appreciate any form of music, and surely
the same must be true of visual art and drama. And most can recognize an artwork as
such: for as Noël Carroll says (echoing a remark of Stephen Davies): “Europeans can
recognize a statue of Ganesha as an artwork without being able to know its symbolic
import.” Similarly, it is evident to us that the cave drawings at Lascaux are art, though
they were created nearly 20,000 years ago in a context completely unknown to us.
(Nicolas Humphrey suggests that these were the products of pre-linguistic humans
with “pre-modern” minds. Extremely unlikely, but this would support the idea that
art has pre-modern human origins.) A qualification: recognition of artworks is far
from infallible. A member of an isolated tribe might take a Mickey Mouse watch to be
an artwork, noting its colourful design and elaborate mechanical movement.
 The universality of art cannot be understood just by unique origin and cultural
transmission. It is possible that there was a first visual artwork from which all
subsequent visual art descended. (This would be analogous to the invention of potato-
and wheat-washing by a single female Japanese macaque, Imo, and the subsequent
imitative transmission of the practice within her troup.) But even if this was so, art,
technology, and language are parts of a suite of cognitive capacities associated with
the emergence of Homo sapiens. Colin Renfrew remarks:
[I]n the early days, when our species was beginning to differentiate from earlier
ancestors such as Homo ergaster, it was not simply the innate genetic capacity . . . to
conceive of and make artifacts that was important. . . . The know-how of making and
using those artifacts was not passed on genetically . . . It was learned. . . In what we may
term the speciation phase of human development, up to around one hundred thousand
years ago, genetic and cultural co-evolution must have been an important mechanism,
operating for more than a million years.
Renfrew’s point is that the human species differentiated itself from its predecessors (and
thus became a separate species) by evolving the capacity to teach and to learn
sophisticated culture. Cultural transmission, including the cultural transmission of art,
is a part of evolved human nature: we are capable of learning to execute and appreciate
complex artistic styles. On the plausible assumption that the enjoyment of art is a
prerequisite for learning it, it must also be of the historical essence of H. sapiens that its
members are capable of aesthetic appreciation. The single origin hypothesis
presupposes these capacities of appreciate and learn; it does not eliminate it.
Art seems, then, to be a part of human nature. It is evolved. Is it an adaptation? In the
concluding posts of this series, I’ll consider this question.

Is nature art?
Question merged
You were redirected because the question Is nature an art in itself? was merged with this question.

21 Answers

Stephen Carpenter, Visual Artist at Artists and Creative Professions (1971-present)

Answered 11h ago · Author has 86 answers and 20.8k answer views
Originally Answered: Is nature an art or not? Why?

This question basically elicits an opinion. It is not the kind of question that one could build
an argument with citations on. That said, my opinion follows.

If nature is an art, then the question becomes theological. Here’s a reason or two why.
As artists generally understand the art process, making an image is manipulating materials
to express an idea or feeling. A “person” in the guise of an artist is central to the process. The
art ideas come from experiences with our senses. We receive sensory information from our
receptors- eyes, ears, skin, motion, etc. The brain interprets those sensations on the basis of
what has already been processed.
Without a sensate “artist person”, it is not possible to defend something as art that has not
been manipulated.

“Why do we respond emotionally and aesthetically to nature?”, would be a fair question to

ask. Sensorially, we are moved by those times when the sense input overwhelms us as far as
I can figure. Nature can impact us in the same ways that experiencing art does. But note- we
are at the center of the experience. We are the receivers and it is our experience that we
label. What is personal rarely is a universal and we get into trouble when we make that
assumption.

To summarize: the making of art requires a person with experience to make it.
If nature is art, then the discussion becomes one of theology or more precisely, religion. If
one wishes to go to that discussion, much of what we as humans experience must be
jettisoned because our notions of a “God as a person” is not universal.

By no means should you as a receiver of sensory information stop seeking out those
aesthetic experiences that only occur in nature nor should you stop labelling those
 experiences in ways that allow you a better or deeper understanding. But, understand that
others may see and feel the same experience and label it something very different.

Just my opinion as an artist and a person who seeks.

64 Views · View Upvoters · Answer requested by John Bilog

Related QuestionsMore Answers Below

 Can the beauty of nature be considered art?

 Why is art not nature?
 What is the nature of art? How is art supposed to "be"? What makes something an
art? Is it subjective?
 Why did nature invent art?
 Does art involve nature?
Ask New Question

Muskaan D. Chandra, Life is beautiful. Be happy in the moment!

Answered Jun 26 2015

Indeed. Nature is an art. It's a beautiful question!

Our touch with nature makes the whole world kin. Matthew Arnold has rightly said that: 
"Nature, with equal mind,
sees all her sons at play,
see man control the wind,
the wind sweep man away."
Nature is fascinating. Its beauty and spontaneous music galvanize the beings. We must obey
this gift from God. Nature gives us moral lessons. It's incredible! The aesthetic pleasure we
derive from Nature is incredible and cannot be expressed in words. I believe to know about
nature more and more each day we should start living!
Wherever you go, wherever you are, wherever you'll be, be happy and feel this tempting
nature. What nature wants to tell you, teach you and everything, one should understand it to
the core and should feel beautiful about themselves. 
For me, Nature is an art which can't be described or explained in words. This should be felt
in your heart. Cause' this is an art which is meant to be felt and not to be
explained.
4.1k Views · View Upvoters

Your feedback is private.

Is this answer still relevant and up to date?

Tetiana Vasylieva
Answered Feb 5 2015

I've been reading a few comments on this question. This is my point of view and I think
quite a few people would agree with me. Nature is not just an art! It is amazingly beautiful
art created by the greatest artist. Who does everything so perfectly and every little thing is a
masterpiece in His gallery.
The Bible says that when God finished creating the world He looked around and "God saw
all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning
the sixth day". If God by Himself said that it was good, then it was good for sure.
When we look around us at strong and mighty mountains, great and powerful waters of
oceans, seas, rivers and lakes and at beautiful, fragile, gorgeous flowers, strong trees... How
can anybody say that it is the result of evolution or it just happened to appear here by
accident? I guess I will never get tired of watching marvellous sunsets and sunrises with all
those red, purple, pink, and orange colors. Often we get so busy that we forget to look
around and to enjoy the beauty God has created for us. His deeds are the greatest art! 
"Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art."

1.7k Views · View Upvoters
Your feedback is private.

Is this answer still relevant and up to date?

Lee Barry, Composer and/or Artist

Answered Oct 1 2017 · Author has 362 answers and 120.2k answer views
Originally Answered: Is nature an art in itself?

If you use the definition of art as a process of combining and grouping small elements
generatively into larger structures based on rules and constraints, then nature is an art.
Humans are interwoven into nature as well, and are naturally equipped to perceive those
structures, and be inspired by them, recreate them into various forms on canvas, sculpture,
and so on.

750 Views · View Upvoters
Konrad Rutten, studied Art History & Fine Art at Scuola Lorenzo De' Medici
Answered Apr 2 · Author has 1.3k answers and 358.9k answer views
Originally Answered: Is nature an art in itself?

Is nature an art in itself?

Well, given that everything is art these days, why not?

I can pick a lot worst things than nature.

Seriously, this question depends on your core values and/or out look for life.

As for me, I don’t know if nature and/or the universe is conscious or has a consciousness,
but I’m mighty suspicious .

Nature is very, very inspiring and even magical, it inspire the best in me. There is a lot of art
in it and a lot of comes out of it, so yeah, why not?

“where does creativity come from?

Creativity comes from the Universe itself.

“There is music and poetry in the Universe itself — surely we hear it on planet earth.” And
Creativity comes from our joys and sorrows, our deep-hearted experiences. It also comes
“from and in the heart of God. All our spiritual traditions the world over agree that creativity
follows through the human heart and that it flows from the Divine Heart.”

Creativity is seen as a spiritual, inwardly-driven activity, directly influenced by a Higher

Power, or God. That is the ultimate in inspiration for me: to know I have “permission” to be
creative and to be a creator too.” 
― Matthew Fox, Creativity

“Where the Divine and the Human Meet" shows how important it is to meet the world with
the creativity of an artist, particularly in these uncertain times:

"What do we do with chaos?

Creativity has an answer. We are told by those who have studied the processes of nature that
creativity happens at the border between chaos and order. Chaos is a prelude to creativity.
We need to learn, as every artist needs to learn, to live with chaos and indeed to dance with
it as we listen to it and attempt some ordering. Artists wrestle with chaos, take it apart,
deconstruct and reconstruct from it. Accept the challenge to convert chaos into some kind of
order, respecting the timing of it all, not pushing beyond what is possible—combining holy
patience with holy impatience--that is the role of the artist. It is each of our roles as we
launch the twenty-first century because we are all called to be artists in our own way. We
were all artists as children. We need to study the chaos around us in order to turn it into
something beautiful. Something sustainable. Something that remains".” 
― Matthew Fox, Creativity
“To speak of creativity is to speak of profound intimacy. It is also to speak of our connecting
to the Divine in us and of our bringing the Divine back to the community. This is true
whether we understand our creativity to be begetting and nourishing our children, making
music, doing theater, gardening, writing, teaching, running a business, painting,
constructing houses, or sharing the healing arts of medicine and therapy.” 
― Matthew Fox, Creativity

Creativity as Divine intimacy flows through us and is bigger than we are, urging us to go to
the edge and grow larger. And our growth in turn delights God. “God is delighted to watch
your soul enlarge,” says Eckhart.” 
― Matthew Fox, Creativity

544 Views

Derek Laurendeau, studied Fine Art at East Tennessee State University

Answered 10h ago
Originally Answered: Is nature an art or not? Why?

No. Nature is a collective term for the flora and fauna of our world in various ecosystems.
Nature has been referred to countless times as the greatest painter which is simply
anthropomorphising the world; however, nature can inspire. Artists seek to recreate or
represent the natural beauty of our world through every medium and the results can be
amazing, but it is still nature translated through the eyes of an artist. The only caveat that
bears mentioning is the idea of installation or site specific art that incorporates nature.
Nature itself will become art in that situation, but only after having been manipulated in
some way by an artist.

36 Views · Answer requested by John Bilog

Pete Ashly, ephemeral

Answered Nov 24 2013 · Author has 9.3k answers and 7.2m answer views
Originally Answered: Art is nature?

Jackson Pollack's paintings were only interesting because his technique was fractal or scale
independent, similar to patterns in nature.  People only realized this well after their
acceptance in the artistic world.

1.7k Views
Angel Meadows
Answered Oct 8 2017
Originally Answered: Is nature an art in itself?

in my opinion it absolutely is!

Environmental art is a range of artistic practices encompassing both historical

approaches to nature in art and more recent ecological and politically motivated types of
works.

Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural world, physical universe, material
world or material universe. Nature refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also
to life in general. Wikipedia

Artwork based on nature can take many forms and serve many purposes. Because "nature"
is such an immense topic that encompasses so many things, I can only provide a partial list
of the various subtopics that may appear in nature-related artwork.

306 Views · View Upvoters

Patricus McCuller
Answered Nov 11, 2012

Art is the interaction of an artist with another person or herself through a medium, such as
paint or dance or music. Without an artist to create it, a natural object cannot be art, but of
course it can still be beautiful and meaningful.
1.2k Views · View Upvoters

Raginald Mars, Chief Apprentice at Emotional Martial Arts Training EMAT (2006-present)
Answered Nov 10, 2017 · Author has 1.3k answers and 163.4k answer views
Originally Answered: Is nature an art itself? Yes or no, and why?

As a German Biochemist my view is, in Winter 1973 in 1st semester Zoology ..we were
thrown to Ernst Haeckel and the amazing drawings of Radiolaria - that changed my
personality. God is a Master Artist! How can random Mutation ever produce such wonders!
No way. it also sharpened my senses for Art, Literature, Music, Film I believe there is true
Art and imitations or lousy Art...
Once you open your sense for Nature from Cosmos to particles, you see Art everywhere.
even mathematical equations like Maxwell appear as pure Art.

God is an Artist, a Mathematician and a wonderful Scientist...

Nature is the best religion we can study...

314 Views

Michael John Spitaletto, works at Fine Art

Answered Aug 12, 2018

That would depend on a person’s beliefs. Someone has to create art. Creation from nothing
had to begin somewhere.

art just doesn’t pop up out of nowhere, voilà! Someone has to create art.

Do you believe nature is art? Because there is art in nature. It depends on how you look at it,
or photograph it, or paint it, or sculpt it.

There you have it…hope that helps…there are answers on several levels. I didn’t know which
one your question is on…so take your pick.

#upvotemyanswer

(do you believe I just created a new hashtag?)

#itsprobablyexistedbeforetheages

20 Views · Answer requested by John Bilog

Dan Goorevitch, Artist (1968-present)

Answered Apr 2, 2018 · Author has 418 answers and 40.6k answer views
Originally Answered: Is nature an art in itself?

No. Nature is given, art is created. It’s horrifying that people ask questions like this. It shows
that thinking is not even skimming the surface. We are doomed as a culture if this is taken
as normal.

76 Views
Dave Marks, former PAN-EURO Character Merchandise Designer at Walt Disney
Answered Aug 11, 2018 · Author has 415 answers and 70.6k answer views

Well it is a creation, but a creation that has taken millions of years of evolution to evolve
into what we see today. It is not intelligent design, rather the result of genetic mutation
which is ongoing and started with the first cell for most species in nature and
“mitochondrial eve” (the first female) originating from Africa in man.

31 Views · Answer requested by John Bilog

Eugenio Gattinara, studied at McGill University

Updated Feb 19, 2015 · Author has 3.2k answers and 2.3m answer views

Art, by definition, is a human activity. By saying that Nature is an artist you are ascribing
human attributes  to Nature (anthropomorphizing it). I think this is only valid as a
metaphor.
The all too famous witticism by Oscar Wilde, "Art does not imitate nature; it's nature that
imitates art.¨, is very clever, but still a witticism.
All art is creation, but not all creation is art.
1.1k Views · Answer requested by John Bilog

Gareth Austin, HSE Advisor at Rio Tinto Group (2017-present)

Answered Aug 11, 2018
Originally Answered: Is nature an art or not? Why?

Yes the formation of structure and colour formed randomly. Famous Japanese saying a man
can spend his life looking for the perfect blossom and it would notnbe wasted bit the answer
to it is they are all perfect

5 Views

Kathleen Grace, 30 years an artist, art consultant, instructor, 10 years certified framer
Answered Dec 11, 2014 · Author has 13k answers and 14.8m answer views
 Originally Answered: Is nature an art in itself?

Well, art in itself is something made by us humans, so no, it isn't an art. However, it's rather
a magnificent inspiration for us, it being so grand in so many ways, inspires us to emulate it.
1.7k Views · View Upvoters

Dana Mandell, Musician, Sound Engineer

Answered Nov 10, 2017
Originally Answered: Is nature an art itself? Yes or no, and why?

I would have to agree with John and Steve. Art is man-made. Even the word ‘art” which is
short for “artifice” implies human intervention or interaction. So in the simplest terms, if I,
as a human, see art in nature, I have created the human interaction required and then it
could be considered art.

(But yes, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it still makes noise) :)

214 Views · View Upvoters

Ian Sawyer, Interested in learning about pretty much anything.

Answered Nov 15, 2012 · Author has 5.5k answers and 4.5m answer views

No.  Whilst nature can be stunningly beautiful at times, art as such needs someone to
compose the various components into a form which others consider beautiful or
meaningful.
751 Views

Related Questions

 What is the context art of nature?

 What is the nature of nature?
 Is this natural?
 Is nature cruel?
 Why does nature develop?
 Why does nature exist?
 What are nature and natural phenomena?
 Is it art?
 Is nature intelligent?
 Is nature a science?
 Why is nature important?
 What is nature?
 Could you show us some of your art?
 What is traditional art?
 What is the nature of the mind? Is it physical or mental? What is the nature of the
external world?
Ask New Question
Still have a question? Ask your own!