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

[Magnus Anderson]

Some have mixed up Art with Work Of Art.

The two words are often, very often, used synonymously. For example, Brittanica defines the word "art" as "something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings".

The latter is the end product from the process of creating artistic sensation and inspiration, usually successful. The former is abstract, like Love, which you cannot buy, as the Beatles would tell you. I pity anyone trying to buy Love. If you buy a Work of Art for more frequent inspiration. fine. Keep in mind, though, that ownership does not mean it can inspire you more than me as a rare visitor. Sometimes once is all it takes. Unlike food, art is transcendental.

If you think that love is art then I'd say you're working with a very unusual definition of the word "art".

[Magnus Anderson]

Incorrect to say art is valuable. Unlike a work of art, Art is valueless.

That which is valueless is without value, which means, it is worthless, useless, unnecessary, redundant, pointless.If you think that art is valueless then, regardless of how you define the word "art", you have a very low opinion of it.

[gad-fly]

The two words are often, very often, used synonymously. For example, Brittanica defines the word "art" as "something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings".

If you think that love is art then I'd say you're working with a very unusual definition of the word "art".

Thanks for pointing out that work of art is sometimes referred to as art. I can realize that such mixing up, in an attempt to simplify, occurs often. People with talent, for example, are referred to as talent. We should distinguish between colloquial and critical which applies here.

No. love is not art, or even can be art. Love and Art are abstract nouns. Analytically, we often use example to illustrate the point.

[gad-fly]

Incorrect to say art is valuable. Unlike a work of art, Art is valueless.

That which is valueless is without value, which means, it is worthless . . .

Thank you for pointing out. I take valueless to mean beyond value, as priceless is beyond price. To avoid confusion, I should have said: invaluable.

[Magnus Anderson]

Thanks for pointing out that work of art is sometimes referred to as art. I can realize that such mixing up, in an attempt to simplify, occurs often. People with talent, for example, are referred to as talent. We should distinguish between colloquial and critical which applies here.

I thought this thread was an attempt to define, i.e. verbally describe, the meaning that is commonly attached to the word "art". The word obviously has multiple meanings. For example, the word is often used to refer to a process but it is also often used to refer to the result of that process. Given that the original thread was about one specific meaning -- namely, the result of the artistic process -- I thought that's what this thread was about as well.

I think it's absolutely necessary for any thread anywhere to be clear about its subject. Otherwise, misunderstandings will ensue. Even the original post in the original thread failed to make the distinction between "art" and "good art" which is why we keep seeing so many posts claiming, not necessarily wrongly, that what is good for one is not necessarily good for another (and then deducing from that, rather incorrectly, that each person defines the word "art" in their own way.)

No. love is not art, or even can be art. Love and Art are abstract nouns. Analytically, we often use example to illustrate the point.

I realized afterwards that you were saying that art is something abstract in the same way that love is (and not that love is an instance of art.) My apologies. On the other hand, I still don't understand how you define the word.

[LuckyR]

I have heard it said that the difference between an artisan and an artist is the former knows what they are creating before they create it and the latter does not.

The difference is that whereas an artist creates, an artisan produces. You may be either, depending on whether you are bringing something original to this world. God creates. We give arise to the next generation. We maintain the production line.

That originality brings inspiration of art. The inspiration may be brought along by the creation or by its produced copy. As an example, I have been inspired by the copy of the Mona Lisa, long before I went to see the original in Paris. I don't know about you, but to me, art has nothing to do with trade or ownership. Incorrect to say art is valuable. Unlike a work of art, Art is valueless.

Glad to hear that you agree on the definition. As to your experience with the Mona Lisa copy, an excellent example of the reality that artiness exists in the mind of the audience, not on a canvas or in a block of marble.

[gad-fly]

I thought this thread was an attempt to define, i.e. verbally describe, the meaning that is commonly attached to the word "art". . . Given that the original thread was about one specific meaning -- namely, the result of the artistic process -- I thought that's what this thread was about as well.

Even the original post in the original thread failed to make the distinction between "art" and "good art"

This thread is not an attempt to outdo the dictionary or google search. I could have put up a longer title, or to have art nailed down, to say art as in art and science, or art being generally known as the abstract subject matter, but not art in Dicken's Artful Dodger. Any way, sorry to have confused you.

I would not say art is the result of an artistic process. The result should be work of art, like painting and sculpture. Art is what inspires the process of creation in the first place. If successful, the work of art would inspire you and me, with you know what. Forget about dollar and fame. Isn't that a fair statement to the long-suffering artist?

There should be no distinction between good art, art, and bad art. Art is not benevolent or malevolent. You can pick, welcome, or avoid, and in the process you can say you welcome what is good for you.

[gad-fly]

Glad to hear that you agree on the definition. As to your experience with the Mona Lisa copy, an excellent example of the reality that artiness exists in the mind of the audience, not on a canvas or in a block of marble.

Canvas and marble are merely the hardware. What distinguishes art is the content which inspires.

i recollect queuing up to view the Mona Lisa. 15 minutes to half hour. 10 seconds, and it was over. I was inspired. More than in my armchair watching television? No. What is my point? Art is beyond space and time. it comes, it lingers, and it may even fade away. it reminds me of Love.

[tjjt1936]

You are asking the wrong question. When is art now is a predominant problem. Defining art is an open definition. The institutions today decided what is acceptable as art. Indeed, any thing including acts or gestures or functions can be accepted by the institutions. The goal of Modernism was and still is the destruction of past and to install egalitarianism in order to be inclusive. Forget about creation and value because no one is educated sufficiently to discuss those problems of philosophy. The universities have dropped any programs that deal with the past except art history courses, and they are even taught with a modernist ideology. Art is no longer a necessity for society. It follows God is dead. Art is dead. When will we bury it and get on with our lives.

[Pattern-chaser]

The difference is that whereas an artist creates, an artisan produces. You may be either, depending on whether you are bringing something original to this world. God creates.

If you assert that art must be "original", then there is little art in our world, and the amount of new art in that world must get smaller, as the original things are discovered and 'used up'. This looks a lot like a blind alley to me?

[Magnus Anderson]

This thread is not an attempt to outdo the dictionary or google search. I could have put up a longer title, or to have art nailed down, to say art as in art and science, or art being generally known as the abstract subject matter, but not art in Dicken's Artful Dodger. Any way, sorry to have confused you.

There's no need for a longer title, merely a description in the opening post as to what this thread is about. If this thread is not about verbally describing one or all of the meanings commonly attached toe word "art", then we have to clearly know what it is about in order to stay on-topic (:

I would not say art is the result of an artistic process. The result should be work of art, like painting and sculpture. Art is what inspires the process of creation in the first place. If successful, the work of art would inspire you and me, with you know what. Forget about dollar and fame. Isn't that a fair statement to the long-suffering artist?

This is, for example, an attempt to define the word "art" the way it is commonly used. If you wanted to merely describe how you're using that word, I think you'd just say "Well, the popular definitions might differ but the way I, and perhaps only I, define the word "art" is ..."

I don't believe that any of the meanings commonly assigned to the word "art" pertain to "what inspires the [artistic] process of creation". Inspiration is merely what motivates or urges someone to do something. It can be a need for the process itself but it can also be a need for the end result as well as need for money or fame.

There should be no distinction between good art, art, and bad art. Art is not benevolent or malevolent. You can pick, welcome, or avoid, and in the process you can say you welcome what is good for you.

There is a need for works of art. This need originates with the need to do something that one has no means of doing. For example, I often have a need for an environment filled with people with whom I can successfully cooperate in a particular way (by "successfully" I mean it's beneficial to everyone involved.) Because it's difficult for me to satiate this need in reality, I have no choice but to satiate it via imagination. In other words, my best hope is to imagine myself surrounded by people I can cooperate with. But because this process requires time and effort, I often wish for a device that would make it easier -- but not completely easier. Such a device is otherwise known as "work of art" and its task is to guide imagination in the desired direction. A real artist is born when a man detects, most commonly within himself, a recurrent need that cannot be satisfied in reality and for which no adequate work of art can be found (perhaps because it does not exist as of yet.) What inspires such a person to commence the artistic process of creation then is 1) a need to do something that they cannot do in reality, and 2) a perceived lack of art that can partially satiate that need via directed imagination. This is what art is and these are the real artists; although it has to be noted that the word "art" is a bit broader than this (architecture, fashion design and similar are typically considered to be forms of art but they are a bit different than the rest because their purpose is to create an impression.) Artists are obviously valuable people -- valuable to the society as a whole -- and it doesn't really matter whether or not they are selling their works for money (why shouldn't they?) so as long they are focusing on satiating a real need. We're currently living in a social environment populated by extremely selfish people who don't care about what other people really need and who are merely interested in taking advantage of them (e.g. by deceiving them about their real need in order to sell them their products; pharmaceutical industry does something similar.) The works of art that these people create can be said to be bad in the sense that it doesn't really satiate anyone's real need.

[gad-fly]

The difference is that whereas an artist creates, an artisan produces. You may be either, depending on whether you are bringing something original to this world. God creates.

If you assert that art must be "original", then there is little art in our world, and the amount of new art in that world must get smaller, as the original things are discovered and 'used up'. This looks a lot like a blind alley to me?

Let me repeat in simple English. An artist brings/creates something original: an artisan copies/produces the original. Both products inspire, like the Monalisa in Paris and on television. Would the amount of new(!) art be smaller with the advent of television? Perhaps.

Art and inspiration are not news. We should not care about art being new or old. You do? With due respect, I dare say you have not yet ascended to that proper level to be inspired by art. More worthy to spend your time watching stand-up comedy.

[Pattern-chaser]

We should not care about art being new or old. You do? With due respect, I dare say you have not yet ascended to that proper level to be inspired by art. More worthy to spend your time watching stand-up comedy.

Please don't construct straw-man models, based on nothing I have ever said, as though they represent my views.

[gad-fly]

There's no need for a longer title . . .

Inspiration is merely what motivates or urges someone to do something. It can be a need for the process itself but it can also be a need for the end result as well as need for money or fame.

Such a device is otherwise known as "work of art" and its task is to guide imagination in the desired direction. A real artist is born when a man detects, most commonly within himself, a recurrent need that cannot be satisfied in reality and for which no adequate work of art can be found (perhaps because it does not exist as of yet.) What inspires such a person to commence the artistic process of creation then is 1) a need to do something that they cannot do in reality, and 2) a perceived lack of art that can partially satiate that need via directed imagination. This is what art is and these are the real artists. . . Artists are obviously valuable people -- valuable to the society as a whole -- and it doesn't really matter whether or not they are selling their works for money (why shouldn't they?) . . . The works of art that these people create can be said to be bad in the sense that it doesn't really satiate anyone's real need.

thank you for your valuable advice. Agree I could have done better.

To inspire is one but not the only factor to motivate the artist. No doubt that fortune and fame may play a part. I call artists long-suffering. I sympathize with them, especially with the literally poor majority not at the top of the pyramid with work of art auctioning for millions. Trailing-blazing pioneers to satiate the world's free but unspecified need for inspiration? Indeed, as they persist at the margin of subsistence. These people are more than valuable. I would say: invaluable, brave, and dedicated, like patriots.

Well-said about "work of art", imagination, and originality (not exist yet).

The public's demand and longing for art is more than for satiation. The market is strictly unbalanced on supply and demand, as if each is going its way regardless of the other. It is a wasteful market. In the end, we are inspired by the creation, rather than we influence creation. I can live with that. Can you? I am happy to be led.

[tjjt1936]

What don’t you understand? One cannot define art absolutely. It is an open concept. As for the artist’s response, the Minimalist claimed to have the final answer with their works. For them art is simply order, abstract order structures with all other content removed. Of course their response was limited as have been all the attempts stated in the replies submitted. The original question asked was “What is Art”and one must stay on point.