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

[gad-fly]

but is the art of a musical performance limited to the sound of the music? I'd say: no.

Musical performance may or may not be a work of art. Some, meant for entertainment, should not be called work of art. The art exhibited by the performance may be multi-facetted, coming from lighting, backdrop, and so on, but mainly from performance and the sound of music.

[gad-fly]

To exhibit, to recieve, all point to physical perception of an object. Even if filtered by our emotions, those emotions are physical process in our bodies. What makes some objects or events art may differ in different cultural contexts, but nevertheless, it always points to something concrete with a recognizable form.

perception is a mental process. Hence "physical perception is oxymoron, unless you believe that mental activity is physical because "it always points to something concrete with a recognizable form." If so, what form is that? Some perceived chemical reaction or electric current? If indeed, art may be banished for all I care.

[LuckyR]

but is the art of a musical performance limited to the sound of the music? I'd say: no.

Musical performance may or may not be a work of art. Some, meant for entertainment, should not be called work of art. The art exhibited by the performance may be multi-facetted, coming from lighting, backdrop, and so on, but mainly from performance and the sound of music.

Care to explain the reasoning behind this opinion?

[gad-fly]

but is the art of a musical performance limited to the sound of the music? I'd say: no.

Musical performance may or may not be a work of art. Some, meant for entertainment, should not be called work of art. The art exhibited by the performance may be multi-facetted, coming from lighting, backdrop, and so on, but mainly from performance and the sound of music.

Care to explain the reasoning behind this opinion?

Performance serves to provide others with your exercise. The purpose may be entertainment, education, reward, acclaim, and what not. If for artistic inspiration, whether partially or fully, it is a work of art. If not, it is not. Whether which performance is more artistic is a different issue.

Say you perform to earn a living wage. Your performance is not a work of art. This applies whether you are an artist or not. Indeed, your performance may be better than some with art in mind. Call it the law of unintended consequence.

In your musical performance, you may dress up for the occasion, for example. Your dress, and how you play the violin, may exhibit artistic inspiration.

[Count Lucanor]

To exhibit, to recieve, all point to physical perception of an object. Even if filtered by our emotions, those emotions are physical process in our bodies. What makes some objects or events art may differ in different cultural contexts, but nevertheless, it always points to something concrete with a recognizable form.

perception is a mental process.

Perception involves the physical organs of perception. By definition it cannot be a purely mental process.

[Consul]

Musical performance may or may not be a work of art. Some, meant for entertainment, should not be called work of art.

Musical performances are artistic activities; but unless they are themselves (part of) a work of performance art, they are not works of art themselves. When Beethoven's 9th symphony is performed by an orchestra, there is only one work of art involved, viz. Beethoven's 9th symphony.

A work of art is a work of art, no matter whether it's meant for elevation or education, or mere entertainment. The artist's intention in creating a work of art needn't be to raise people to a higher cultural, moral, intellectual, or spiritual level. It's very snobbish to say that nothing is a work of art unless it is part of the elitist Hochkultur (high culture). That said, there are more or less sophisticated works of art; but no matter how sophisticated they are, all works of music are works of art, since music is a form of art.

[Consul]

Performance serves to provide others with your exercise. The purpose may be entertainment, education, reward, acclaim, and what not. If for artistic inspiration, whether partially or fully, it is a work of art. If not, it is not. Whether which performance is more artistic is a different issue.

Right, a work of art is a work of art independently of its artistic or aesthetic value. A bad work of art is still a work of art.

[gad-fly]

Right, a work of art is a work of art independently of its artistic or aesthetic value. A bad work of art is still a work of art.

Right on. That is my line. Good or bad, call the spade a spade. A noun is not defined by its adjective.

If it makes you feel better, your painting is a work of art, unless painted under exasperation. Your good deed? Less likely.

You can feel art in the air. The feeling is mental, but you are the host. Can the feeling be turned physical because you being physical is in the receiving end? Nope.

[gad-fly]

Right, a work of art is a work of art independently of its artistic or aesthetic value. A bad work of art is still a work of art.

how do we tell the difference between work-of-art and non-work-of-art. At the risk of mincing words, I would say:
The difference lies in whether it is work or not work. if enough dedication has been made to qualify it as work, then it is a work of art. In other words, it is not the result, but rather, the effort that earns the namesake.

[Consul]

Right, a work of art is a work of art independently of its artistic or aesthetic value. A bad work of art is still a work of art.

how do we tell the difference between work-of-art and non-work-of-art. At the risk of mincing words, I would say:
The difference lies in whether it is work or not work. if enough dedication has been made to qualify it as work, then it is a work of art. In other words, it is not the result, but rather, the effort that earns the namesake.

Consider Marcel Duchamp's famous ready-made Fountain from 1917: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

He didn't make this porcelain urinal; he took it as it already was—"ready-made"—and just gave it a name, dated, and signed it (with a pseudonym), there being no more creative "work" on his part. Is Fountain a work of art? I think so, although you might prefer to call it a piece of art, given that the material work wasn't done by Duchamp but by industrial workers, who didn't have any artistic intentions when they were creating the urinal. Duchamp's (effortless) contribution is ideal or conceptual, because he turned the urinal as an ordinary Gebrauchsgegenstand (object of utility) into a Kunstgegenstand (object of art) simply by declaring that it is a work (piece) of art, and using it as such by exhibiting it in art galleries. Nonart can become art through a simple speech-act, like an unmarried couple can become a married one through a simple (official) speech-act: "I hereby declare you husband and wife!" – Analogously: "I hereby declare this object a work of art!"

[Count Lucanor]

Right, a work of art is a work of art independently of its artistic or aesthetic value. A bad work of art is still a work of art.

how do we tell the difference between work-of-art and non-work-of-art. At the risk of mincing words, I would say:
The difference lies in whether it is work or not work. if enough dedication has been made to qualify it as work, then it is a work of art. In other words, it is not the result, but rather, the effort that earns the namesake.

Consider Marcel Duchamp's famous ready-made Fountain from 1917: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

He didn't make this porcelain urinal; he took it as it already was—"ready-made"—and just gave it a name, dated, and signed it (with a pseudonym), there being no more creative "work" on his part. Is Fountain a work of art? I think so, although you might prefer to call it a piece of art, given that the material work wasn't done by Duchamp but by industrial workers, who didn't have any artistic intentions when they were creating the urinal. Duchamp's (effortless) contribution is ideal or conceptual, because he turned the urinal as an ordinary Gebrauchsgegenstand (object of utility) into a Kunstgegenstand (object of art) simply by declaring that it is a work (piece) of art, and using it as such by exhibiting it in art galleries. Nonart can become art through a simple speech-act, like an unmarried couple can become a married one through a simple (official) speech-act: "I hereby declare you husband and wife!" – Analogously: "I hereby declare this object a work of art!"

One thing to consider, which made "Fountain" a work of art, is how context introduces meaning and even makes possible to be creative and innovative with a common everyday, utilitarian object, placed in a different setting for mere contemplation. This was the first time something like this happened and opened the door to conceptual art. However, once the "shock effect" is exhausted, doing the same thing again is no longer innovative. So it's not enough to declare an object a work of art, even if "Fountain" achieved that.

There's, of course, that famous Arthur Danto's definition which says that every object classified as an object of art by a social institution (the artworld), is art. I disagree, but most art galleries doing good business won't.

[Tegularius]

That said, there are more or less sophisticated works of art; but no matter how sophisticated they are, all works of music are works of art, since music is a form of art.

That implies that even the talent-less or nearly so can be artistic for no other reason than attempting to construct something within some artistic genre.

[LuckyR]

That said, there are more or less sophisticated works of art; but no matter how sophisticated they are, all works of music are works of art, since music is a form of art.

That implies that even the talent-less or nearly so can be artistic for no other reason than attempting to construct something within some artistic genre.

Many, if not most would consider that the definition of the term.

[Tegularius]

That said, there are more or less sophisticated works of art; but no matter how sophisticated they are, all works of music are works of art, since music is a form of art.

That implies that even the talent-less or nearly so can be artistic for no other reason than attempting to construct something within some artistic genre.

Many, if not most would consider that the definition of the term.

Yes! Most would consider that its definition. Somewhat tragic I would say. Why not just make a 10x10 container fill it up with stuff one usually throws in a landfill and call that art as well; put it in a display area along with other such artistic artifacts and be sure to give it an appropriate title so there's no mistaking its artistic significance!

[Nick_A]

That said, there are more or less sophisticated works of art; but no matter how sophisticated they are, all works of music are works of art, since music is a form of art.

That implies that even the talent-less or nearly so can be artistic for no other reason than attempting to construct something within some artistic genre.

Many, if not most would consider that the definition of the term.

Yes! Most would consider that its definition. Somewhat tragic I would say. Why not just make a 10x10 container fill it up with stuff one usually throws in a landfill and call that art as well; put it in a display area along with other such artistic artifacts and be sure to give it an appropriate title so there's no mistaking its artistic significance!

As I understand it, art is a verb. Art occurs. A work of art is like a phone call. It has an objective quality allowing the quality of emotion put into it to be be received by another. When this happens, art occurs.

A work of art has the objective emotional quality within it that can be received by another. Otherwise a work of art is really just an expression which can be interpreted by anyone. A work of art is the attempt at objective communication while a work of expression is just emotionally expressing an opinion.