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

[Consul]

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.

The adjective "artistic" is ambiguous between "of, relating to, or characteristic of art or artists" and "showing imaginative skill in arrangement or execution" (Merriam-Webster). A person can be artistic in the first sense (of being an artist) without being artistic in the second sense.

The question is whether normative criteria for aesthetic goodness should be part of the definition of art, such that nothing is (properly called) a work of art unless it meets certain minimal standards of artistic quality, i.e. if it isn't "too bad" to be art. But how good must something be in order to be (properly called) a work of art, and who is entitled to decide this normative question, given the factual pluralism of aesthetic/artistic norms?

[Consul]

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.

When I find pebbles on a riverbed and arrange three of them in a stack, declaring them to be a work of land art, there is very little effort involved.

How to define the difference between art(works) and non-art(works) is a very difficult question. The trouble begins with the linguistic fact that there is a general meaning of "art" in which everything created by man or human culture rather than by nature is part of art; but this meaning of "art" is much too general and too broad to be usable as a definition of "art" or "artwork" in our intended senses of these terms here.

Artificiality is doubtless a necessary condition of being a work of art, but it's not a sufficient one, because we want to distinguish between arts/artworks in the narrow sense and "mere" crafts/craftworks, both of which are artificial creations or products. But how is this distinction to be defined? Is it to be defined in terms of practical function or utility (rather than "beauty for the sake of beauty"), with craftworks defined as tools or instruments and artworks as non-tools or non-instruments? But, for example, what about works of architecture, i.e. buildings? Isn't a beautiful Gothic cathedral both a work of art and a work of craft with a function (= place for religious ceremonies)?

(By the way, Marcel Duchamp once suggested (tongue in cheek) to use a Rembrandt painting as an ironing board.)

Note that when I say that artificiality is a necessary condition of artworks, I don't mean to say that the (raw) stuff (matter or materials) used for creating an artwork must be non-natural or man-made. To use my above example, the pebbles found in a riverbed are natural, non-artificial things; but the stack or vertical arrangement of three of them made by me is non-natural, artificial. A single pebble found on a riverbed isn't a work of art. (Would it become a work of art if it were shown at an art exhibition? Would it there have to have a metaphorical title so as to become a work of art, such as "my heart of stone"?)

For more on this tricky issue, see:

The Definition of Art: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/

[Consul]

Artificiality is doubtless a necessary condition of being a work of art, but it's not a sufficient one, because we want to distinguish between arts/artworks in the narrow sense and "mere" crafts/craftworks, both of which are artificial creations or products.

…called artifacts. All artworks are artifacts, but not all artifacts are artworks (in the narrow sense of this term).

QUOTE:
"Both Aristotle and his contemporary descendants are primarily concerned to distinguish artifacts from objects that occur naturally, without any human intervention.
On this standard definition, artifacts must satisfy three conditions. They must be intentionally produced, thus ruling out unintended by-products of intentional actions, such as the shavings that result from woodcarving, as well as all naturally occurring objects, such as salamanders and stars. They must involve modification of materials, thus ruling out naturally occurring objects even when used intentionally for a purpose, such as sticks thrown to amuse your dog. And they must be produced for a purpose. This rules out intentionally modified objects that are nevertheless not intended to accomplish any further goal, such as the scraps produced when you intentionally, but for no particular reason, tear up a piece of paper before throwing it away. Presumably, then, these three conditions are intended to be individually necessary and jointly sufficient to distinguish artifacts from naturally occurring objects."

Artifact: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/artifact/
:QUOTE

As for the "modification of materials" condition: My (imaginary) artificial(ly created) stack of three pebbles (meant to be a work of land art) didn't result from a material modification of the natural pebbles, but only from my spatial rearrangement of them; so that condition must be interpreted generously, so that artistic spatial arrangements or configurations of intrinsically non-modified materials or objects are subsumable under "modification of materials".

[gad-fly]

Artificiality is doubtless a necessary condition of being a work of art, but it's not a sufficient one, because we want to distinguish between arts/artworks in the narrow sense and "mere" crafts/craftworks, both of which are artificial creations or products.

…called artifacts. All artworks are artifacts, but not all artifacts are artworks (in the narrow sense of this term).

QUOTE:
"Both Aristotle and his contemporary descendants are primarily concerned to distinguish artifacts from objects that occur naturally, without any human intervention.
On this standard definition, artifacts must satisfy three conditions. They must be intentionally produced, thus ruling out unintended by-products of intentional actions, such as the shavings that result from woodcarving, as well as all naturally occurring objects, such as salamanders and stars. They must involve modification of materials, thus ruling out naturally occurring objects even when used intentionally for a purpose, such as sticks thrown to amuse your dog. And they must be produced for a purpose. This rules out intentionally modified objects that are nevertheless not intended to accomplish any further goal, such as the scraps produced when you intentionally, but for no particular reason, tear up a piece of paper before throwing it away. Presumably, then, these three conditions are intended to be individually necessary and jointly sufficient to distinguish artifacts from naturally occurring objects."

Artifact: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/artifact/
:QUOTE

As for the "modification of materials" condition: My (imaginary) artificial(ly created) stack of three pebbles (meant to be a work of land art) didn't result from a material modification of the natural pebbles, but only from my spatial rearrangement of them; so that condition must be interpreted generously, so that artistic spatial arrangements or configurations of intrinsically non-modified materials or objects are subsumable under "modification of materials".

Compare the two terms: Art and beauty, both nouns. The corresponding adjectives are beautiful and artistic, not artful which means cunning and tricky, or artificial which means created by man but not occurring naturally.

The innate difference is clear. Man and nature can create work of beauty, but only man can create work of art. Put another way, work of art must be artificial, but artificial creation is not necessarily work of art. Most, like tools, are not. In this connection, even a tool that turns out to be artistic is not a work of art. On the other hand, if a tool is deliberately created to exhibit artistic value/quality, then it it is a work of art, whether it has attained such consequence or not. Why? Because artistic, like beautiful, is in the eye of the beholder.

To clarify further, on the example of stacking three pebbles together. Do it on the course of playing game or signposting, no work of art is created. Do it as architecture or sculpture, you can claim it as a work of art, even if I find that ugly. Stack, color, or cut the pebbles? It makes no difference.

[Consul]

Compare the two terms: Art and beauty, both nouns. The corresponding adjectives are beautiful and artistic, not artful which means cunning and tricky, or artificial which means created by man but not occurring naturally.

The innate difference is clear. Man and nature can create work of beauty, but only man can create work of art. Put another way, work of art must be artificial, but artificial creation is not necessarily work of art. Most, like tools, are not. In this connection, even a tool that turns out to be artistic is not a work of art. On the other hand, if a tool is deliberately created to exhibit artistic value/quality, then it it is a work of art, whether it has attained such consequence or not. Why? Because artistic, like beautiful, is in the eye of the beholder.

Does a tool become a work of art simply by having a beautiful or elegant design? – I don't think so—unless any good-looking work of craft is regarded as a work of art.

For example, what about Marcel Duchamp's ready-made object titled "In Advance of the Broken Arm", which is an industrially made snow shovel that wasn't "deliberately created to exhibit artistic value/quality"? How did that snow shovel become a work of art? How did Duchamp manage to turn it into a work of art, given that he didn't modify it in any way? Why is Duchamp's snow shovel a work of art and all its duplicates (resulting from the mass production of them) are just works of craft? Is presenting a thing in an art gallery or at an art exhibition a sufficient condition for being a work of art? Is giving it a (metaphorical) name or title sufficient?

[Consul]

Compare the two terms: Art and beauty, both nouns.

It is often said that aesthetics is about beauty, "the sublime", and taste. Well, in 1853 the German philosopher Karl Rosenkranz wrote a book titled Die Ästhetik des Hässlichen (Aesthetics of Ugliness). Arguably, an artifact's being beautiful isn't a necessary condition for its being an artwork, is it?

[gad-fly]

[ Arguably, an artifact's being beautiful isn't a necessary condition for its being an artwork, is it?

Correct. Being beautiful isn't a necessary condition. Indeed, a work of art does not have to be beautiful. Conditions:
a. It has to be created.
b. It must be unique, not duplicated, repeated, or copied.
c. Its creation arises from the desire to exhibit an idea, but not to serve a function in the first place.

Take paintings of war, rape, destruction. etc. You cannot call them beautiful, even if you can recognize them as works of art.

[Consul]

Correct. Being beautiful isn't a necessary condition. Indeed, a work of art does not have to be beautiful. Conditions:
a. It has to be created.

Consider the following argument:

1. Some artworks are (ontologically) abstract objects.
2. All (ontologically) abstract objects are uncreated (uncreatable).
3. Therefore, some artworks are uncreated.

For example, if you think this argument is sound, then if Beethoven's 9th symphony—the symphony itself, not any printed score of it or any of its performances!—is an abstract object, it is not (literally) true that Beethoven created it, with "to create" meaning "to bring into existence".
If this strikes you as blatantly implausible, you can reject that argument by rejecting premise 1 or premise 2, and accepting its negation: All artworks are (ontologically) concrete objects, or some artworks are both (ontologically) abstract and created.

My point is that this a contentious issue among philosophers of art, so it is not obviously or trivially true that all artworks must satisfy the creation condition by definition.

See: Platonism and its critics: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art- ... /#PlatCrit

b. It must be unique, not duplicated, repeated, or copied.

I'm not so sure:

"Many debates over monism and rivals to that position have hinged on the question of reproduction and multiple instances, the thought being that in the case of at least some works, adequate technologies of reproduction yield more than one instance of an artistic artifact, and therefore of the work (an entailment that does not go unchallenged, as we shall see below). For example, it would be highly implausible to contend that Henri Cartier-Bresson’s famous photographic work, “Behind the Gare Saint-Lazare, Paris” (1932), consists in the negative used to make prints, or in the first or any other single print of this picture. Multiply instantiated works form one major category, then, while singular or non-reproducible ones form another."

Multiple vs. singular artistic items: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art- ... ngArtiItem

Given the distinction between (abstract) types and (concrete) tokens, one could argue that—provided this distinction is meaningfully applicable to it at all—an artwork qua type is necessarily unique (non-reproducible, non-repeatable), but there can be many reproducible or repeatable tokens of it. To use the above example, one could argue that Cartier-Bresson's photography “Behind the Gare Saint-Lazare, Paris” is a unique artwork-type that can have many printed tokens.

Unfortunately, given this line of argumentation, you have the ontological problem that Cartier-Bresson's photography thereby becomes an abstract object—and how could he have created an abstract object? Note that the film negative he doubtless created is not itself an abstract object, but a concrete, material one!

Type-token distinctions: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art- ... peTokeDist

Types and Tokens: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/types-tokens/

c. Its creation arises from the desire to exhibit an idea, but not to serve a function in the first place.
Take paintings of war, rape, destruction. etc. You cannot call them beautiful, even if you can recognize them as works of art.

What if an artist creates a scary sculpture and puts it in his garden for the main purpose of deterring evil spirits? Here function comes first!

[LuckyR]

Compare the two terms: Art and beauty, both nouns. The corresponding adjectives are beautiful and artistic, not artful which means cunning and tricky, or artificial which means created by man but not occurring naturally.

The innate difference is clear. Man and nature can create work of beauty, but only man can create work of art. Put another way, work of art must be artificial, but artificial creation is not necessarily work of art. Most, like tools, are not. In this connection, even a tool that turns out to be artistic is not a work of art. On the other hand, if a tool is deliberately created to exhibit artistic value/quality, then it it is a work of art, whether it has attained such consequence or not. Why? Because artistic, like beautiful, is in the eye of the beholder.

Does a tool become a work of art simply by having a beautiful or elegant design? – I don't think so—unless any good-looking work of craft is regarded as a work of art.

For example, what about Marcel Duchamp's ready-made object titled "In Advance of the Broken Arm", which is an industrially made snow shovel that wasn't "deliberately created to exhibit artistic value/quality"? How did that snow shovel become a work of art? How did Duchamp manage to turn it into a work of art, given that he didn't modify it in any way? Why is Duchamp's snow shovel a work of art and all its duplicates (resulting from the mass production of them) are just works of craft? Is presenting a thing in an art gallery or at an art exhibition a sufficient condition for being a work of art? Is giving it a (metaphorical) name or title sufficient?

How? Because it was named then hung on the wall of his studio. When it was in a crate at the hardware store it wasn't In Advance of the Broken Arm.

[gad-fly]

Compare the two terms: Art and beauty, both nouns. The corresponding adjectives are beautiful and artistic, not artful which means cunning and tricky, or artificial which means created by man but not occurring naturally.

The innate difference is clear. Man and nature can create work of beauty, but only man can create work of art. Put another way, work of art must be artificial, but artificial creation is not necessarily work of art. Most, like tools, are not. In this connection, even a tool that turns out to be artistic is not a work of art. On the other hand, if a tool is deliberately created to exhibit artistic value/quality, then it it is a work of art, whether it has attained such consequence or not. Why? Because artistic, like beautiful, is in the eye of the beholder.

Does a tool become a work of art simply by having a beautiful or elegant design? – I don't think so—unless any good-looking work of craft is regarded as a work of art.

For example, what about Marcel Duchamp's ready-made object titled "In Advance of the Broken Arm", which is an industrially made snow shovel that wasn't "deliberately created to exhibit artistic value/quality"? How did that snow shovel become a work of art? How did Duchamp manage to turn it into a work of art, given that he didn't modify it in any way? Why is Duchamp's snow shovel a work of art and all its duplicates (resulting from the mass production of them) are just works of craft? Is presenting a thing in an art gallery or at an art exhibition a sufficient condition for being a work of art? Is giving it a (metaphorical) name or title sufficient?

How? Because it was named then hung on the wall of his studio. When it was in a crate at the hardware store it wasn't In Advance of the Broken Arm.

An industrially made tool is not a work of art; never is; never will be, period. To say so is flattery, shoe-shining, or stupid. Some may like to follow the maddening crowd. You should be sane.

[Consul]

An industrially made tool is not a work of art; never is; never will be, period. To say so is flattery, shoe-shining, or stupid. Some may like to follow the maddening crowd. You should be sane.

You may deny that Duchamp's ready-mades are genuine works of art, but then you have to deal with the sociological fact that they are regarded as such by nearly all people in the contemporary artworld (artists, philosophers of art, art gallerists, directors of art museums, and the art audience). Are they all insane? Are they all labouring under "bad taste"?

[Consul]

How? Because it was named then hung on the wall of his studio. When it was in a crate at the hardware store it wasn't In Advance of the Broken Arm.

So all you have to do in order to create an artwork is to take something whatever, give it a name or title, and exhibit it in an artist's studio, an art gallery, or an art museum?

[Consul]

So all you have to do in order to create an artwork is to take something whatever, give it a name or title, and exhibit it in an artist's studio, an art gallery, or an art museum?

This would mean that names/titles and institutional contexts decide whether something is a work of art or not. Then, for example, a car named Porsche 911 could become a work of art simply by being moved from a car dealer's showroom into an art museum. How plausible is that?

[LuckyR]

How? Because it was named then hung on the wall of his studio. When it was in a crate at the hardware store it wasn't In Advance of the Broken Arm.

So all you have to do in order to create an artwork is to take something whatever, give it a name or title, and exhibit it in an artist's studio, an art gallery, or an art museum?

That's part of it. You forgot: finding an audience who is moved enough by it's statement to declare it "art" (as you demonstrated in your previous post).

[Consul]

The big problem is to formulate a general definition of "art(work)" which covers all kinds of art and historically everything from cave paintings to Duchamp's ready-mades, from traditional naturalistic&realistic art to abstract art and conceptual art.

Kinds of art (with "art" and "craft" not used synonymously):

1. architecture
2. cinema
3. conceptual art
4. culinary art/art of cooking (haute cuisine) [ordinary cooking is just a craft]
5. dance
6. drawing
7. fashion/art of clothing (haute couture) [the ordinary making of clothes is just a craft]
8. literature
9. music
10. opera
11. painting
12. performance art (happenings)
13. photography
14. printmaking [e.g. lithography and woodcut – ordinary printmaking such as the printing of newspapers is just a craft]
15. sculpture
16. theater
17. video art