From advertisements, to movies and paintings, visual art is represented by anything that elicits a response from the viewer; essentially, visual art encompasses all that surrounds us. I don't think there is a difference between a visual culture and visual art; when one exists, they both exist. Our society thrives off of visual art, which then creates a visual culture.
The book explains visual culture as "the shared practices of a group...[through] symbolic and communicative activities". This lends itself to the everyday process of our interactions with other humans; we use body language and facial expressions to determine the nature of conversations we hold.
Artistic practices vary from one person to another. I personally start out by developing an idea that will communicate my thoughts to the world in a cohesive manor, I then research the topic(s) involved and form work that expresses that particular view. This process is one that developed through practice; I used to create work and then once it was completed, figure out what it was portraying. By exercising the latter, I believe it represents the very essence of visual art. However, this raises the ever impeding question of, "Is that actually defined as art or am I simply fabricating a story?" I'm not sure if I, or anyone for that matter, will be able to successfully answer this question. Yes, I think it is a matter of opinion, but whose opinion is the one that matters in this case? Mine, the creator of the work? Or you, the audience?
The following is a perfect example of how our culture is focused entirely around the visually stimulating. These "memes" have become an iconic form of communication that are widely recognized by the majority of society, while there are still people out there who couldn't distinguish the Mona Lisa from the Venus de Milo. While I poke fun at this phenomenon, I'm also quite embarrassed for humanity.
