In "the beginning", art was something that was it’s own category apart from other things, containing mostly painting and sculpture, as talents such as singing and drama was left for "entertainers" – a much less prestigious occupation.
Nowadays, our definition of art is more subjective, and has opened the doors to everything from video games to a selfie of our dinner last night.
When is art no longer a representation of our lives? When does it turn into a reality?
This is a fascinating subject! Sometimes people tend to forget that perceptions and interpretations varied greatly in different time periods. An intriguing book on this subject in reference to Italian Renaissance art is "Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image Before the Era of Art" by Hans Belting. The introduction especially focuses on the distinction between pre-modern and contemporary perceptions of what art is, how it functions, and its purpose for society. – skgoodwin8 years ago
I also agree that this is a very fascinating subject. My take on the relationship between Art and Reality is a triadic relationship of sorts. Reality, and the artist's existence in Reality, provides the materials that are processed into Art. Upon consumption/interaction by/with an auditor (or perhaps even upon creation owing to the fact that the artist is the first consumer in most instances) Art becomes part of reality, able to be subsumed once again into Reality. Thus when and if Art can ever escape its bonds to Reality, it may no longer be "a representation of our lives." However this seems like a very spurious possibility. Is it really possible to create Art that is completely removed from Reality? – echarlberg8 years ago