Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[gad-fly]

I am a bit unsure what you are trying to ask. You say that you are not looking for a definition and I looked at Scott's original outpost and that is what he is asking. Also.your post above gives your view of art which is not necessarily shared by everyone. For example, you say that art cannot be blamed for good or evil, which is disputable because it could be argued that artists have responsibility for their what they create. For example, think of artists In the advertising industry. Should they not think about the way art affects people subliminally. Art may have many aspects ranging from emotional expression to protest and consciousness raising. Perhaps, art can be used for thinking about matters like climate change.

I am not looking for definition? Please quote from where.

Confucius once said writing should carry the judicious way. Chinese Communism has strongly advocated art and culture to propagate the party line, particularly during the Cultural Revolution. Should art be skipped if it does not conform to good taste? Once upon a time, bare-breasted sculpture has to seek the help of the fig leaf. Ask your artist friend, especially on abstract painting. Are they wasting time, or should they turn art into craft?

I see art as unbound expression of line, form, desire, lust, hostility, anger, and aspiration. Art should not advocate violence, torture, and so on. but even then, in the Louvre there are depiction of war and rape. Yes, rape. Can you believe that? Would you rush through that to queue for Mona Lisa? Put it this way. The world would be that much poorer if right or wrong in art rules. Some may even find the world not worth living.

Note that the title ends with 2.0. It would be a waste of time to continue with Scott's 1.0. I doubt if anyone would bother going through 53 pages. Would you? And yet, What is Art? is too significant to be buried in the dust bin. i know it is beyond my control, but if there are only 3 pages of treasured replies, hopefully some of us may be enlightened by the first page, the last, and the one in between. Some, including me, can afford the time and effort, and even have spare to enjoy art.

Art to influence climate change? Leave art alone, please. It is one of the very scarce precious things worth living for on Earth, with Covid, war in Ukraine, and all that.

[JackDaydream]

I am a bit unsure what you are trying to ask. You say that you are not looking for a definition and I looked at Scott's original outpost and that is what he is asking. Also.your post above gives your view of art which is not necessarily shared by everyone. For example, you say that art cannot be blamed for good or evil, which is disputable because it could be argued that artists have responsibility for their what they create. For example, think of artists In the advertising industry. Should they not think about the way art affects people subliminally. Art may have many aspects ranging from emotional expression to protest and consciousness raising. Perhaps, art can be used for thinking about matters like climate change.

I am not looking for definition? Please quote from where.

Confucius once said writing should carry the judicious way. Chinese Communism has strongly advocated art and culture to propagate the party line, particularly during the Cultural Revolution. Should art be skipped if it does not conform to good taste? Once upon a time, bare-breasted sculpture has to seek the help of the fig leaf. Ask your artist friend, especially on abstract painting. Are they wasting time, or should they turn art into craft?

I see art as unbound expression of line, form, desire, lust, hostility, anger, and aspiration. Art should not advocate violence, torture, and so on. but even then, in the Louvre there are depiction of war and rape. Yes, rape. Can you believe that? Would you rush through that to queue for Mona Lisa? Put it this way. The world would be that much poorer if right or wrong in art rules. Some may even find the world not worth living.

Note that the title ends with 2.0. It would be a waste of time to continue with Scott's 1.0. I doubt if anyone would bother going through 53 pages. Would you? And yet, What is Art? is too significant to be buried in the dust bin. i know it is beyond my control, but if there are only 3 pages of treasured replies, hopefully some of us may be enlightened by the first page, the last, and the one in between. Some, including me, can afford the time and effort, and even have spare to enjoy art.

Art to influence climate change? Leave art alone, please. It is one of the very scarce precious things worth living for on Earth, with Covid, war in Ukraine, and all that.

I have no idea why you see the idea of art to explore climate change. I am not saying to influence exactly although use of ecology in use of art materials and recycling may be incorporated into the art process. But what I am speaking about is art or the arts to explore peace and ecology and various aspects of life.

Singers and visual artists do contribute to dialogue about social and environmental issues. When I did art I did explore ideas and I do wish to do so in the future. Science fiction and post apocalyptic or dystopian fiction has been a means of exploring issues about the future in some ways which can make people really think, sometimes in a way which is as profound as philosophy. So, I don't know why you are telling me to 'leave art alone' as 'precious'...because everyone is entitled to engage in art and think about it uniquely as an aspect of life and philosophy.

[JackDaydream]

Part of the ambiguity is around the subjective vs nature of what is good or bad in art. Some may see certain classic works as being art, such as that of Michselangelo, or van Gogh and dismiss art like postmodern installations. This may be asking what is good art really.

Years ago, I came up with this: art is art if the artist says it is. There is no good art, and no bad art. There is art that you like, and art that you do not like; there is art that I like, and art that I do not like. And so on.

This offers a simple way to understand art that avoids "that's not art, it's rubbish!" tit-for-tat arguments.

Sorry I never got round to replying to your post in response to me. Ultimately, it seems likely that it is problematic if people declare others' work as rubbish and it is dismissing another's perception and expression. However, the tension is about recognition of technique. As children there is an emphasis on skill and in some study beyond school. So, there is a balance between elitism and recognition of everyone's unique contribution. For example, when joining a watercolour painting class there is often a choice of beginner, intermediate or advanced.

In all the arts, like all other fields, including sports, are specific markers of achievement. There are aspects like whether one has exhibited art or in fiction there is the question of whether one has published, although many are self-publishing online now. There is sometimes a distinction between those who are considered professional or amateur.

This is complex because is it about whether one makes a living that way or not? It is hard to make money through visual art and the arts and even those who do so often have to do a day job as well. There can also be elitism about qualifications or even where one has studied. This is all questionable, but on the other hand, there needs to be some emphasis on learning and the serious pursuit of arts.

All these factors need to be taken into account and it may be that a certain fluidity rather than rigidity may be important. This is with a view to art being appreciated and, the process of making it, as a form of creativity, for enjoyment and expression in all its diverse forms.

[Pattern-chaser]

Now tell me: What is art?

Art is something we create and enjoy for fun, enjoyment and entertainment. Art has no direct use, we make it and 'consume' it because we like to. And yet, art contributes - strongly, in some cases - to our lives, cultural and otherwise. Art has indirect usefullness too. Stories, for example. As well as enjoying them, we also learn and remember best when the material is presented to us as a story.

[gad-fly]

Science fiction and post apocalyptic or dystopian fiction has been a means of exploring issues about the future in some ways which can make people really think. So, I don't know why you are telling me to 'leave art alone' as 'precious'...because everyone is entitled to engage in art and think about it uniquely as an aspect of life and philosophy.

Science fiction, like a vase, is a craft. Art may be incorporated in its creation, but its function is clear. If you make a vase with no intention of putting in flowers, you are trying to create artwork.

Sorry to confuse with "leave art alone". What I suggest: Don't impose a mission on art. Don't tell Art to serve, educate, please, calm, follow the party line, but never to provoke, annoy, incite, revolt. As an example, if a painting shows rape, don't attack it as politically incorrect. Give Art room, plenty of room. Don't censor it, even though you may find it revoking. Why? because you have no right, as in the First Amendment on Freedom of Speech.

[gad-fly]

Art is something we create and enjoy for fun, enjoyment and entertainment. Art has no direct use, we make it and 'consume' it because we like to. And yet, art contributes - strongly, in some cases - to our lives, cultural and otherwise. Art has indirect usefullness too. Stories, for example. As well as enjoying them, we also learn and remember best when the material is presented to us as a story.

You are on the right track. I would say: Art is not a consumer good, nor necessarily a '"positive" good, nor even a good with mission to serve. Yes, it contribute to our life. Story is more craft than art. The manner of presentation of story or whatever, a matter of skill, has nothing to do with what art is.

[JackDaydream]

Science fiction and post apocalyptic or dystopian fiction has been a means of exploring issues about the future in some ways which can make people really think. So, I don't know why you are telling me to 'leave art alone' as 'precious'...because everyone is entitled to engage in art and think about it uniquely as an aspect of life and philosophy.

Science fiction, like a vase, is a craft. Art may be incorporated in its creation, but its function is clear. If you make a vase with no intention of putting in flowers, you are trying to create artwork.

Sorry to confuse with "leave art alone". What I suggest: Don't impose a mission on art. Don't tell Art to serve, educate, please, calm, follow the party line, but never to provoke, annoy, incite, revolt. As an example, if a painting shows rape, don't attack it as politically incorrect. Give Art room, plenty of room. Don't censor it, even though you may find it revoking. Why? because you have no right, as in the First Amendment on Freedom of Speech.

I do agree that art should not be a mission to change, just like philosophy isn't about preaching. I see political correctness and censorship culture as being potentially problematic for creative expression, such as when people suggest that a certain musician should be avoided on account of some lyric in a song or something which they said. I am in favour of sensitivity but when people get too pedantic it can be too extreme.

I guess that I am just in favour of expressing passion which can be about expressing ideas and the imagination in general. If anything, I like art which is fairly on the edge, even a bit bohemian but all kinds of tastes and styles exist. Sometimes mixing genres and styles allows such possibilities, such as the crossover between metal and dance music. In the area of music, some people can be so inclined to rubbish all kinds of music.it can be an issue of hierarchy and superiority. One interesting movement is that of 'outsider art' which incorporates people who don't come from those who have studied art formally, at art school, and includes those who developed their art while in psychiatric institutions.

[gad-fly]

One interesting movement is that of 'outsider art' which incorporates people who don't come from those who have studied art formally, at art school, and includes those who developed their art while in psychiatric institutions.

I have not heard of 'outsider art'. I suppose you are referring to the difference of artwork created by artis and non-artist. Professional or amateur? It does not matter. Quality-wise, you would expect the former to be better, but that is about it.

Artist or non-artist: he makes a vase to display flowers; he makes one to display the vase. In the latter case, he must input artwork. In the former case, he must input functional requirement (like no leakage), but he may also input artistic features, in which case art is in both. He witnesses art, and he is about to answer: What is Art?

[JackDaydream]

One interesting movement is that of 'outsider art' which incorporates people who don't come from those who have studied art formally, at art school, and includes those who developed their art while in psychiatric institutions.

I have not heard of 'outsider art'. I suppose you are referring to the difference of artwork created by artis and non-artist. Professional or amateur? It does not matter. Quality-wise, you would expect the former to be better, but that is about it.

Artist or non-artist: he makes a vase to display flowers; he makes one to display the vase. In the latter case, he must input artwork. In the former case, he must input functional requirement (like no leakage), but he may also input artistic features, in which case art is in both. He witnesses art, and he is about to answer: What is Art?

I tried to create a link to 'Outsider Art' on my phone because there is so much on it, but couldn't manage to do so. The style of art is more folk art and people break conventions in the style, such as those of perspective. The other name for it is Art Brut and there is a magazine devoted to it, called' Raw Vision'.

The issue of vases in art raises questions. When I joined a watercolour painting class, I found myself in a group in which people were wishing to paint vases of flowers and still life. I was wishing to paint scenes like punks in Camden Town. The tutor seemed a bit baffled by me. It ended up being a compromise with me doing some still life and she did set some exercises to give me scope for my ideas.

I had a friend who used to do paintings of urinals and here maybe where some people seem a bit horrified, asking is it art? Probably, most people don't want pictures of urinals on the wall but, in some ways, pictures in homes are almost regarded as items of furniture or decoration. It may be that this places too much restrictions on what is seen as art.

It is about aesthetics and there are different values. Does one depict beauty alone or the ugly too. Also, this can become too stereotypical, especially in regard to people. In a culture of media airbrushed pictures it could mean that people wish to portray stereotypical images of 'beautiful' people, as opposed to those who do not conform to such stereotypes. Personally, I prefer to draw the outsiders, the ones who are a little out of the ordinary.

[Pattern-chaser]

Story is more craft than art. The manner of presentation of story or whatever, a matter of skill, has nothing to do with what art is.

If you are too elitist in your definitions, you will find the amount of art you are able to discuss or consider to be severely limited, I think.

I think that to write, and to tell, a good story is art, just as writing a theatrical play and acting in it are also art. How limited do you want 'art' to be?

[gad-fly]

Story is more craft than art. The manner of presentation of story or whatever, a matter of skill, has nothing to do with what art is.

If you are too elitist in your definitions, you will find the amount of art you are able to discuss or consider to be severely limited, I think.

I think that to write, and to tell, a good story is art, just as writing a theatrical play and acting in it are also art. How limited do you want 'art' to be?

1. Doing or creating something on purpose is not art. This applies to cooking, telling story, kite-making, and so on. Call that CRAFT. Don't mix fast food with fine cuisine, not that there is anything wrong with fast food.
2. Art can be incorporated in the product, like dragon or dragonfly painted on the kite.
3. Make a kite not for flying, but to display on the wall. You are creating artwork.
4. You tell me a story. I cannot categorically deny that you are engaging artistic endeavor. Depends on the story's artistic content.
4. Call any endeavor art, and art will be degraded to identify with production. Art deserves its place in the sun.

[Pattern-chaser]

1. Doing or creating something on purpose is not art.

So the works of Tracey Emin or Banksy are not art, because they created them deliberately? I can't see how this would take the 'art' out of whatever it is that they create? I find a much broader definition of art to be more helpful. But that's just me.

[JackDaydream]

1. Doing or creating something on purpose is not art.

So the works of Tracey Emin or Banksy are not art, because they created them deliberately? I can't see how this would take the 'art' out of whatever it is that they create? I find a much broader definition of art to be more helpful. But that's just me.

Perhaps, the more restrictive the understanding of art is the more elitist it becomes. The idea of creating something on purpose as not being art is a way of mystifying it. There is the issue of copying and representing in relation to the creative process. However, even the word 'artificial' has art in its prefix, so to remove the aspect of art being created deliberately may be unhelpful in understanding art. It would be removing it from the realm of conscious acts of creation. It could be asked to what extent the creative process is separate or related to the process of gaining awareness in life. To separate creativity from conscious awareness may be a complete muddle.

[Pattern-chaser]

Perhaps, the more restrictive the understanding of art is the more elitist it becomes. The idea of creating something on purpose as not being art is a way of mystifying it. There is the issue of copying and representing in relation to the creative process. However, even the word 'artificial' has art in its prefix, so to remove the aspect of art being created deliberately may be unhelpful in understanding art. It would be removing it from the realm of conscious acts of creation. It could be asked to what extent the creative process is separate or related to the process of gaining awareness in life. To separate creativity from conscious awareness may be a complete muddle.

Yes! Especially as it is often the case that creativity emerges from our minds - i.e. our non-conscious minds too.

[JackDaydream]

Perhaps, the more restrictive the understanding of art is the more elitist it becomes. The idea of creating something on purpose as not being art is a way of mystifying it. There is the issue of copying and representing in relation to the creative process. However, even the word 'artificial' has art in its prefix, so to remove the aspect of art being created deliberately may be unhelpful in understanding art. It would be removing it from the realm of conscious acts of creation. It could be asked to what extent the creative process is separate or related to the process of gaining awareness in life. To separate creativity from conscious awareness may be a complete muddle.

Yes! Especially as it is often the case that creativity emerges from our minds - i.e. our non-conscious minds too.

It may be that the process of creativity, as expressed in what is expressed in art, is part of the process of understanding mind and aspects which may be not conscious. The representations arising from imagination may give rise to works which may viewed and wondered about in connection with the symbolic and aesthetics, alongside reason, as aspects of appreciation and philosophical understanding of life.