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

[TigerNinja]

(Forgive me, I still use bing)

Is this art: https://www.bing.com/images/search?view ... ajaxhist=0

Is this art: https://www.bing.com/images/search?view ... ay&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?

[Eduk]

They are both clearly art? What you seem to be asking is if they are both good art?

[Burning ghost]

I would say intent and perspective.

By this I mean that we can view something with an "artistic eye," yet by doing so we do not strictly "produce art." I wouldn't conflate "beauty" with "art" either, because art can be ugly and still be art - if someone wishes to disgust with their artwork and does so they've done "good" art.

I've already expressed my opinion about "conceptual art," so you know how I feel about that.

As for language I was tempted to comment on that thread, but I have to draw the line somewhere. If we're going to start to call all means of communication art then we may as well stop using the term if we're willing to spread it so damn thin across every category of human life - there are aesthetic and emotional qualities embedded in all parts of human life, but I don't think that makes all human life about "art," but if you're an extremely artsy person, and particularly eccentric, then you may well insist that EVERYTHING is "art" - to me that would be nothing more than a semantic befuddlement; albeit one I could sympathize with to a reasonable degree.

Emotion is in everything, that is how we "see it." Art is generally the craft of tapping into that in some way or another.

[LuckyR]

(Forgive me, I still use bing)

Is this art: https://www.bing.com/images/search?view ... ajaxhist=0

Is this art: https://www.bing.com/images/search?view ... ay&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?

[Name Is Unnecessary]

Art is art when there is someone to evaluate it. Someone may evaluate a hole on a piece of paper. Matter of interpretation.

[Gertie]

They're both art. Under what criteria wouldn't they be?


And who cares, except people trying to monetarise people's creativity?

[ThomasHobbes]

(Forgive me, I still use bing)

Is this art: https://www.bing.com/images/search?view ... ajaxhist=0

YES

Is this art: https://www.bing.com/images/search?view ... ay&first=1

NOT AS MUCH.

If art is the emotionally expressive manipulation of materials to produce a physical representation of an image, then the first picture is art. If it is genuinely the work of a child then it is honest art, if an adult it is about deception.
The second image may not involve much human interaction, and it only art to the degree that a person is engaged in the creation of the image.

[Spraticus]

I would agree that the child's drawing is fine, if it's real. The second image could be regarded as art but it's trivial art.
Your definition of art, (a subject beaten to death at great length elsewhere) would exclude much conceptual art.

[ThomasHobbes]

I would agree that the child's drawing is fine, if it's real. The second image could be regarded as art but it's trivial art.
Your definition of art, (a subject beaten to death at great length elsewhere) would exclude much conceptual art.

I think its a good place to start as I value the actual labour of art. For me, art is more about the process than the goal. I enjoy making art, but once I've completed it, the object is something to gather dust.

Do you have an alternative definition?

[Spraticus]

I've never come up with, or seen a completely acceptable definition of art. Many people have tried but there is usually some problem. If you try to keep it brief and snappy you lose too much of the complexity, and if you include everything possible it becomes woolly or so hopelessly inclusive that everything becomes art.

[Georgeanna]

I would agree that the child's drawing is fine, if it's real. The second image could be regarded as art but it's trivial art.
Your definition of art, (a subject beaten to death at great length elsewhere) would exclude much conceptual art.

I think its a good place to start as I value the actual labour of art. For me, art is more about the process than the goal. I enjoy making art, but once I've completed it, the object is something to gather dust.

Do you have an alternative definition?

I agree it is a subject beaten to death but what isn't in philosophy.
I have the view that art, like philosophy, is for all.
I see both as forms of learning, therapy and creativity involving the self exploring the world.
For some, there is an innate talent and the end product can be for sale or own pleasure. Sometimes you just gotta preserve a treasure and if that means framing or dusting, so be it.
Like anything, there is a scale or standard - the value of a product depends on context.

[Spraticus]

I would pretty much agree with that.

[Georgeanna]

I would pretty much agree with that.

Thanks. Lovely to receive positive feedback.

[3uGH7D4MLj]

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.

Art isn't an undefinable thing. It's a clear category of objects. No mystery. Everyone knows what art is. Ask that kid who drew that picture.

[cavacava]

To me neither picture in the OP are art.

Art is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."

The flower is not a human creation and I found neither beauty nor emotional power in the child's work.