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

[ThomasHobbes]

To me neither picture in the OP are art.

There is no picture of a flower.

Failing to see art in the child's work is a failing that YOU have, not the child.

[cavacava]

To me neither picture in the OP are art.

There is no picture of a flower.

Failing to see art in the child's work is a failing that YOU have, not the child.

It looked like a flower to me.

In regards to the child's rendition, I never blamed the child. It may be a very good work on the part of the child, but it is not art.

[ThomasHobbes]

There is no picture of a flower.

Failing to see art in the child's work is a failing that YOU have, not the child.

It looked like a flower to me.

In regards to the child's rendition, I never blamed the child. It may be a very good work on the part of the child, but it is not art.

Not a flower - look again.

The child's art exactly fulfils the definition you gave.

[cavacava]

It looked like a flower to me.

In regards to the child's rendition, I never blamed the child. It may be a very good work on the part of the child, but it is not art.

Not a flower - look again.

The child's art exactly fulfils the definition you gave.

As I stated: "I found neither beauty nor emotional power in the child's work"

If beauty illuminates or expands our conceptions with an emotional force, I think the child's is work lacking in both these areas.

[3uGH7D4MLj]

In regards to the child's rendition, I never blamed the child. It may be a very good work on the part of the child, but it is not art.

Well why not? He probably made it in art class, with art materials, maybe there was an art teacher. I would say that the product was art. Kid art is the most wonderful thing.

But what I really want to say is that the simple definition is the best way to go when considering art. I know I'm in the minority on this.

Say you've been to an opening at a gallery. You saw the art, enjoyed yourself, met the artist, decided that you liked it or thought it was junk, whatever, anyway, someone tells you, "that's not art." Of course it's art. This statement is ridiculous. Art is simply art. It's a category of objects. There's no need for a more complicated definition.

Using the ordinary every day definition frees you up to actually talk about art. It's fun to talk about art. Art is breathtaking, soothing, maddening, some art is fraudulent, insane, too commercial, hobbyist, dilettante, unschooled, visionary, childlike, even nonsense, but it's all art. "What is art" is tiresome. You should be making art or enjoying it or studying it, who is your favorite artist? Can you get the esthetic of Richard Tuttle (what is with that guy?)? What about Whiting Tennis and his freeking hampers? Anne Hamilton!

It's a simple category of objects, it's not a mystery. Art is art, everything else is everything else. See how easy? I don't think about "what is art," and I've never heard of an artist thinking that was a hard question.

The ordinary everyday definition I spoke of is: pictures, objects, performances, made by an artist, shown in galleries or stored in basements, intended for use in the usual way that art is used, hung on walls, displayed for contemplation, etc., etc. including being taped to the family fridge.

I'll shut up now, but art isn't a big deal. It's just art.

[Eduk]

You can't absolutely define art. You just can't.
Do people see this as a problem?

[3uGH7D4MLj]

You can't absolutely define art. You just can't.
Do people see this as a problem?

No, no problem. Art is just art. Just my opinion.

[Burning ghost]

Given some of the current trends to inhibit free speech I wonder what terms we’d use if the term “art” was banned? Maybe thinking about this would help us see the term as a little outdated and vague so we can then reframe it in a more meaningful way (perhaps splitting it into several different terms - as it is already used in several different ways under given contexts of speech.

[Eduk]

This is the crux of the problem BG. You see current trends to inhibit free speech and feel there is a lack of meaning in the word art.
I see inhibitions to free speech as being a permanent feature of mankind and feel blessed that I live in a country which has free speech and I feel that the meaning of the word art is inherent to the individual's meaning, so therefore I feel art is meaningful.

[Burning ghost]

This is the crux of the problem BG. You see current trends to inhibit free speech and feel there is a lack of meaning in the word art.
I see inhibitions to free speech as being a permanent feature of mankind and feel blessed that I live in a country which has free speech and I feel that the meaning of the word art is inherent to the individual's meaning, so therefore I feel art is meaningful.

Not at all. I am, and have always, questioned the historical use of words, how phrases have changed, what people mean when they say something, what I mean, and the differences between written language, spoken language, songs, stories, how some concepts are collections of other words, how they fill in spaces for the convenience of use - to make communication fluid and quick, or to give depth - and how thought is largely “thought of” as being a verbose item with which we tend to rigidly adhere to without realising it (just like the manner in which I’ve typed this out now without any really understanding of where the words are flowing from and how I’m placing them in order in order to express some rather obscure and delicate idea about my thoughts and feelings of language.

Anyway, because many argue over what “is” and what “isn’t” art I thought it a useful experiment to ask yourself if I couldn’t use the term “art” what would I say? And then once you’ve found other terms to use such as “aesthetics”, “beauty” and “sensation” to then remove these terms and to keep going until you arrive at something interesting (or maybe it will prove fruitless for you!)

My view is the opposite. I actually think there is too much meaning in the term “art” and that it can only be really understood if its broken down into parts and examined more thoroughly - of course there is the risk that doing so will lead you to think that words mean nothing, but I imagine most people are stable enough mentally not to fall into such a trap!

One example being how I personally delineate “conceptual art” from “art”. The former I see as a misuse of the term because I’ve taken the time to think about how I define the later in regards to how “art” differs from the term “concept” - and being somewhat free and playful with words myself I am quite happy to refer to anything as anything in a given context due to the human need to express obscure ideas. That said, I still believe poetic licence shouldn’t overextend into technical speech. The dance of this I see as the primary need for philosophical discourse and exploration.

Note: when people im the UK are being encouraged to report offensive speech to the police I think it’s a level of stupidity that has seriously worrying connotations.

[Eduk]

How offensive? What happened?
Sure good point about the word art. But then I've never said X is art and then felt that enough had been said
My general feeling is that there is little point over arguing what is and isn't art as it is rarely the case that it actually matters if something is or isn't art. I'm inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt.

[Eduk]

BG the story you linked me doesn't quite match up with what you said. Anyway we can all agree there are, and always have, been gross miscarriages of justice. As well as gross incompetence in all public bodies.
People are always petitioning that their beliefs should be held above others.
Personally I don't see a massive slippery slope.

[Hereandnow]

Even when art is nonsense, it is art: ever heard of Dadaism?? Everything is art when it is perceived AS art. The dirt beneath my fingers, e.g.

[Jklint]

Art like intelligence occupies a range. Just as the latter goes from idiot to genius, the former goes from the lowest level of skill to it's ultimate human refinement.

[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.