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

[Hereandnow]

boywonderlord
Yeah sure, language is created by us, so nothing inherently exists. You can define everything in existence as art, and you can define one thing as art. I can create an urban dictionary describing each aspect of salt in the sea with the word cat written twenty hundred times in different fonts. I could just write the word poop twenty times and have that amount to the same thing as this paragraph. It is a pointless play on words, and to a degree, everything is as meaningless as the play on words you have just discovered. Congratulations, welcome to philosophy, it is wordplay, and everything is wordplay. Its just one somewhat complicated world that we have created. Limited,but as long as you ignore its contradictions, quite the spectacle. You are not ignoring its contradictions. That, however, does not make you special. It is quite easy to find these contradictions. What is cool, however, is toying with them and creating wonderful fallacies and loopholes and strange toys that make no sense but create music of life, of words, it is the creation of ideas! So sure, art isn't real. But it is! So wake up to the flowers, its time to play with those christmas presents.

It is not wordplay. It is understanding art. Art is not an object, it is a disposition, an interpretative stance. All things are not art, but they become art when one sees them as art. It is the "seeing as" that allows for all things to be art possibilities. This, however, invites the question, what is it that is in the interpretative act of seeing something as art that makes something art? This is complicated, that is, since art has become so inclusive, it requires a "text" to know what the art claim is about. All art is implicitly conceptual art, to some degree.
And incidentally, we don't create language, language creates us. Think about it.

[TheoDoesBurg]

I would argue that art is entirely subjective. Everyone can claim that their work is an art, but other people can make their own decisions about it. If many people agree with you and accepted your work as an art, then it will be considered valuable by that group of people. If you claim something is an art, and other people doesn't get it, then it's meaningless to them. If no one in the present gets it, then no one will say it's an art but you, but if some people in the future does, the it's also art for them.

So if an artist is to make art that would be appreciated by others, then he/she must have a connection, or deep understanding of others, or of a universal truth that can be understood by all. A good art then is something that evokes a feeling, or insight that can be understood by others of the same culture, or same sense of beauty. A truly great art, is something that goes deeper, and transcends cultural boundaries and thus can be understood by every person no matter from what culture.

An artist that does not possess this can be called "out of touch", and while in his/her own mind the artist thought he/she had something great and wonderful, no one will understand it, and will not consider it an art.

[Burning ghost]

Theo -

Nothing meaningful is entirely subjective ... unless you’re talking “intersubjectivity” (which is effectively “objective” being a collection of individually observed norms).

There are certain categories of “Art” I don’t call art. The main issue is the confused mongrel language of English. Art, craft, science, skill, beauty, aesthetics and many other terms get easily knotted.

Some distinctions I prefer to account for are:

- To actively look at something in an artistic manner (regardless of what it is). To look at the clutter on someone’s desk doesn’t make it a piece of Art yet you can quite easily view it artistically.
- Something recognised as a Work of Art without someone having to point it out to you.
- Conceptual Art = something that isn’t actually artwork and more appropriate to a physical manifestation of an idea having more in common with intellectual/philosophical thought than displaying a strong emotional expression (the key here being the affect of rationality on the creative process).
- Art, as in the manner of doing something. The “art” of playing football or drawing a picture (akin to skill or craft rather than being an artistic endeavor in and of itself - “drawing” in relation to emotional expression and draughtmanship).

My view is that a great deal of the confusion comes with the ground from which Art blossoms. That is it is about a connection between conscious appreciation and the unconscious coming forth into awareness and how we express it. Hence why I don’t call “Conpectual Art” art; because it is more about the conscious act of interpreting some tangible politcal/social idea than allowing emotions to flow more freely readily. This rough distinction is troublesome of course, but I feel the need to at least adumbrate a vague idea of where “Art” begins and whre “Art” ends ... otherwise everything is art and the term is meaningless - a mistake I’ve seen a few make because they mistake “viewing” everythign as Art as being what a art is.

We don’t perceive a chair and call it a giraffe or call a giraffe the intermediatary place between calmness and anxiety, so why call anythign we please “art”? What purpose is there to do so? None that I can fathom other than to avoid the whole complex issue of human aesthetics and human emotional expression.

[TheoDoesBurg]

Hi Burning Ghost,
I agree with you that art is not supposed to be something that is consciously formed to give physical form to a certain idea (that would be design, not art).
What I meant by an artist creating an art that can be understood by others should not be brought out by a conscious, or deliberate effort and thinking to make it so.
It is simply, that the artist, by merit of his/her experience, knowledge, and wisdom in life, marries those inner qualities into the artwork as they are expressing themselves in it.

And other people, when they see this art, will be able to connect and perceive those qualities.

As an example:
An artist who loves nature, and spends many time with nature, will notice many things in nature that was not readily apparent to him/her.
That artist then, when in the process of making art, expressing his/her love of nature, pours these things unconsciously into his/her art.
People who see this art then, will see that it conveys a hidden knowledge, that was not apparent to them, but know in their deepest (or perhaps most primal) part of their mind to be true.

If another artist then comes, who always spent his/her days in cities, makes an art about nature (not the longing for it), he/she will not possess the same insight that the previous artist had.
And the art that is produced would not be valuable, since it does not offer any insight to the viewer. (It is 'shallow', because the artist's knowledge is shallow.)

It is also the same if the subject is people, or other things, like love, friendship, or God.


P.S. this might be a difference in the concept of art in the West and the East that my professor taught me about.
That, based on his observations, that most of the paintings, and art in the West is more focused on the individuals (you can see the subjects being the focus of the painting)
While in the East, they are not so.
This can also be seen in most video games, with more games in the West being focused on making the player the main character, while more games in the East instead puts the player as the mere listener of a story.


On intersubjectivity, I do held the view that art is a result of intersubjectivity.
If we would show the Mona Lisa to an intelligent species from another planet, or nay, to an isolated tribe of humans, would they be able to recognize it as an art, without being told that it is an art?

I might even go as far as saying that any value is a result of intersubjectivity.
(While facts, that dictates no value, are the only things that are objective. It is an objective truth that 1+1 is 2, but it is a mere fact, and not a value, it doesn't tell you what's more or less valuable)
As an example, the concept of chastity might have a great value in some cultures, while having no value at all, or even considered a bad thing in other cultures.

The only thing I can think about that would be the closest thing to something that is objectively valuable is energy.
At least, all life, no matter their form, requires energy to exist. (although, if there really are multiple dimensions, with different laws of physics, even this might not be true)

[Burning ghost]

Not sure I agree with the East West comparison, but it’s an interesting idea.

[Intellectual_Savnot]

Art must be considered in a state of relativity to one's artistic interests.

[Dai Cymru]

Art and nonsense are not mutually exclusive, art is nonsense when it makes no sense, but it is still art

[Sculptor1]

Art is what you like and appreciate.
Nonsense is eternal.

[Julian Carax]

(Forgive me, I still use bing)

view=detailV2&ccid=gtOxVUL9&id=7F713A53EDBD8AC302056696D1E335C7167E68AF&thid=OIP.gtOxVUL9HS5vRWJP5VHSUgHaFV&q=five+year+old+drawings&simid=608025435482161914&selectedIndex=6&ajaxhist=0

view=detailV2&ccid=CyxhKmmb&id=C4C0BA39DC78378205A95C465F10854E6E9029B8&thid=OIP.CyxhKmmb37ifHyH83CcBogHaFd&q=beautiful+art&simid=608024426141910798&selectedindex=1&mode=overlay&first=1

Now after looking at both of those, tell me the difference. Personally, the only difference I see is a change of vibrancy of colours and detail. At what point, does art lose its function as art. Art, due to its abstract nature, is such an indefinable thing, and therefore, there is a clear position of relativity with what is art. Beauty (I'm making another topic, named "Is Art Beautiful?"), like art, is relative, therefore at what point does art lose its status as art. Personally, I believe that art doesn't exist to begin with. It is just a certain term that we apply to certain things on a canvas or wall that seem either pleasing to the senses or have vibrant colours with particular detail. Its like with language and words (I'm making yet another topic, "Is Language Art?" and "What Is Language?"[General Philosophy]), whereby we assign certain meanings to certain symbols. These meanings then get ingrained in our head and we 'know the meaning of them'. They have no inherent meaning, solely the meaning we apply to them that we interpret. Someone in China who doesn't know English would find this just as complex and in-understandable (for lack of a better term) as we find Chinese (Mandarin or Cantonese, I am lost with both due to their use of symbols I have never learnt to pronounce).

So in conclusion, at what point is art no longer art. At what point does it just become an ugly splodge and mess of colours. For example, would you consider "Red over Black" art?

An apple is food. An apple pie is cuisine. A slice of apple as a garnish on an apple tartlet is cuisine. When does the apple cross the line from food to cuisine?

I like to think that something becomes art only when it was intentionally created as such. For me, art itself implies a creator, an so, intention for the product to be art. So far, this definition has satisfied me.

[rainchild]

Part of the problem in defining "art" is the term's frequent use as a synonym for "fine art" or "good art." If, for example, we define DaVinci's "Mona Lisa" as "art" or "true art," and define the umpteenth black velvet blacklight painting of a tiger as "not art" or "kitsch," we render problematic the use of the term "art" in the phrase "elementary school art lesson."

We do not have similar problems with terms such as "dance," "drama," "novel," "drawing," or "painting." When a preschooler, or a very bad representational artist, draws a picture of a cow, we do not ask "Is this work really a drawing?"

So too with other art forms, with the possible exception of "music," whose typical definition is as mired in judgment as the definition of "art."

For my own purposes, I define art as artifacts and activities whose chief purpose is to fascinate the viewer or listener. So, art is distinct from activities and artifacts that are chiefly used for some other purpose. Under this definition, pornography would qualify as art, but a backhoe, whose chief function is digging, would not (unless some conceptual artist turned the backhoe on its side and left it there for people to look at).

Bear in mind that beauty is not the only means by which art can fascinate us. In my view, Goya's grotesque painting, "Saturn Devouring His Son," is as much a work of art as the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

Whether pornography and blacklight paintings qualify as "good art" is, in my view, a more intelligent question than whether they are art at all.

But what are the problems with my point of view?

[Lagayascienza]

I guess we just have to accept that there are no right and wrong answers in art. It's subjective. We only have our subjective sentiments to go on. For example, I loath Jeff Koons' work. I think it's the worst sort of kitsch. But I cannot show objectively that it is bad art. But then, neither can anyone else prove objectively that it is good art. It seems to sell well so I guess a number of people with millions of dollars to throw around think it's good. I can only say more fool them.

[Stoppelmann]

Defining art is a complex and subjective task with no universally agreed-upon definition. The concept of art has evolved throughout history, and different cultures and individuals may have diverse perspectives on what constitutes art. Art is often seen as a form of expression that reflects the artist's creativity, imagination, and skill. It can encompass various mediums, including visual arts, literature, music, performing arts, etc. The question arises as to whether photography does this in all cases. I enjoy creating pictures by getting certain elements into the frame, but is that creativity, imagination, and skill?

Many definitions of art involve aesthetic value. Art is often appreciated for its beauty, emotional impact, or how it stimulates the senses. This perspective suggests that art is something created to evoke a response or appreciation. This is where I see my photography, but I see beauty everywhere, and it seems to prove that beauty is in the eye of the beholder because perceptions of beauty and aesthetic value are highly individual and can vary from person to person.

Some define art as a form of communication. It can convey ideas, emotions, or messages, often in a way that transcends language barriers. Artists may use their work to communicate complex concepts or to provoke thought and discussion. For others, art is frequently associated with creativity and originality. Artists are often admired for their ability to generate new ideas, perspectives, or forms, pushing the boundaries of what is conventional or expected. The saying "a picture is worth a thousand words" suggests that a complex idea or message can be conveyed more effectively through a single image than a large amount of text.

Cultural and historical contexts often influence the definition of art. Different societies and periods have had varying views on what is considered art, and these perspectives continue to evolve. Still, it also appears to be a question of seeing perspectives and reproducing them. We see in many old pictures a lack of three-dimensionality, and many pictures are two-dimensional. In some cases, that is no problem. Still, the ability to create art with a strong sense of three-dimensionality has evolved multiple times throughout art history, and it has often been associated with specific periods and artistic movements. This ability to represent three-dimensional space convincingly in art has been a recurring theme, with peaks during certain cultural and historical periods.

Some definitions of art involve the artist's intention. If the creator intends for their work to be art, and it is received as such by an audience or the broader cultural context, then it may be considered art. Still, it’s clear that the definition of art is subjective, and individuals may have their own interpretations based on personal experiences, cultural backgrounds, and philosophical perspectives.

[Pattern-chaser]

...
Whether pornography and blacklight paintings qualify as "good art" is, in my view, a more intelligent question than whether they are art at all.

In my view, the problems with "art" emerge when we apply the adjectives "good" or "bad". There is no such thing as good or bad art, IMO. There is art, and it's art if the artist says it is. But how do we assess art, if that is the case? Easy, there is art that I (or you, or...) like, and art that I don't particularly care for.

This works for me...?

[Lagayascienza]

It comes down to our subjective sentiments. A work can appeal strongly to us, it can leave us noncommittal (no strong feelings either way), or it can invoke loathing. And whether we call something art depends on a lot of things such as culture, education, experience... I've seen stuff in art museums that I call trash. I've occasionally seen stuff at street markets that I call art. The great thing is that you can't be wrong about art. You are right to like it, right to be left cold by it, or right to hate it. No one can show objectively that you are wrong.

[rainchild]

In my view, the problems with "art" emerge when we apply the adjectives "good" or "bad". There is no such thing as good or bad art, IMO. There is art, and it's art if the artist says it is. But how do we assess art, if that is the case? Easy, there is art that I (or you, or...) like, and art that I don't particularly care for.

This works for me...?

Yours is by no means a silly view. However, I think it's important to remember that, as subjective as evaluations of given works of art may be, such evaluations can be shared by a great many people. Art museums are filled with artifacts that hundreds of thousands--sometimes even millions--of people consider to be intrinsically fascinating. A good art critic can articulate and reflect upon such shared evaluations.