Philosophy Discussion Forums

In Argumentative Philosophical Forums, "Philosophy of the Arts and Philosophy in the Arts" is the last among seven categories. It would be more direct to have it titled as "Philosophy of Art", like the category before it titled as "Philosophy of Science".

Very appropriately, Scott has raised the New Topic from the very beginning: "What is Art?" This fundamental question must be answered by anyone as necessary qualification before enter discussion on the Philosophy of Art, to show he understands what he is talking about, but not what has nothing to do with Art.

The topic "What is Art?" has 795 posts spreading over 53 pages. The last but one post is dated Nov 15 2020. Apparently the task of going through the cobweb is too daunting for any one to meet the challenge. The latest post dated Jan 29 2022 has hardly made a stir.

What a pity! It is high time to revive the titled topic. I would like to initiate it as "What is Art? 2.0. To answer the question:

Art, like Science, is a subject matter which does not require justification, ratification, rationalization, ramification, and so on. To put it simply: It Is.

Different from Science, Art is not endowed by Nature. It is entirely aligned and associated with human creation for mental satisfaction. In the process, Art may be a side product or side effect in physical creation, whether deliberate, ingenuous. or accidental. ART cannot be blamed for good or evil, right or wrong, help or hinder, and so on. Art is available for the enjoyment and torment of all without prejudice. Finally, we should be thankful for there being art. It colors up our life.

LONG LIVE ART.

gad-fly wrote: ↑March 27th, 2022, 4:06 pm In Argumentative Philosophical Forums, "Philosophy of the Arts and Philosophy in the Arts" is the last among seven categories. It would be more direct to have it titled as "Philosophy of Art", like the category before it titled as "Philosophy of Science".

Very appropriately, Scott has raised the New Topic from the very beginning: "What is Art?" This fundamental question must be answered by anyone as necessary qualification before enter discussion on the Philosophy of Art, to show he understands what he is talking about, but not what has nothing to do with Art.

The topic "What is Art?" has 795 posts spreading over 53 pages. The last but one post is dated Nov 15 2020. Apparently the task of going through the cobweb is too daunting for any one to meet the challenge. The latest post dated Jan 29 2022 has hardly made a stir.

What a pity! It is high time to revive the titled topic. I would like to initiate it as "What is Art? 2.0. To answer the question:

Art, like Science, is a subject matter which does not require justification, ratification, rationalization, ramification, and so on. To put it simply: It Is.

Different from Science, Art is not endowed by Nature. It is entirely aligned and associated with human creation for mental satisfaction. In the process, Art may be a side product or side effect in physical creation, whether deliberate, ingenuous. or accidental. ART cannot be blamed for good or evil, right or wrong, help or hinder, and so on. Art is available for the enjoyment and torment of all without prejudice. Finally, we should be thankful for there being art. It colors up our life.

LONG LIVE ART.

I am amazed that a title 'What is art?' got so many replies because it is so vague. Perhaps, the more vague a question will get more replies rather than one which is specific. Part of the ambiguity is around the subjective vs nature of what is good or bad in art. Some may see certain classic works as being art, such as that of Michselangelo, or van Gogh and dismiss art like postmodern installations. This may be asking what is good art really.

In that way it is about aesthetics and some may see certain standards of beauty. It may involve specific views about techniques and skill. In some ways such an emphasis may be important in understanding quality but the danger is that it involves some elitism. Also, it involves the therapeutic aspect of art making, especially in the development of art therapy as a profession which uses art as a way with working with psychological issues in depth..

Even the term art is vague, because it is often used to speak of the visual arts but can be applied to the arts in general. If anything, art may get overlooked a lot in philosophy. That is because often the big debates seem to rest on science. However, art involves the understanding of images and symbolism. These overlap with religious perspectives but the emphasis on art is more about imagination rather than seeing symbolic truths so literally. Of course, science incorporates imagination and aspects of art, just as art may draw upon science in research and technique as forms of expression. Sorry, I have gone on so much, but that was how I responded to the question of what is art which may evoke feelings as opposed to just rationality.

Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

I think that a proper fruition of art happens when you compare it with your art of living, your art of existing in this world.

LuckyR wrote: ↑March 28th, 2022, 2:11 am Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

A safe bet on a question is to escape, or to provide a circular answer by begging. "Art is what you want it to be." "Art is what you can recognize." "Art is reflection in the mirror."

Alternatively, take a long tour before finding yourself again in square one. It is too complicated. You want an answer? First you advise on these various points. I bet you will be exhausted before long.

JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 27th, 2022, 6:55 pm Part of the ambiguity is around the subjective vs nature of what is good or bad in art. Some may see certain classic works as being art, such as that of Michselangelo, or van Gogh and dismiss art like postmodern installations. This may be asking what is good art really.

Years ago, I came up with this: art is art if the artist says it is. There is no good art, and no bad art. There is art that you like, and art that you do not like; there is art that I like, and art that I do not like. And so on.

This offers a simple way to understand art that avoids "that's not art, it's rubbish!" tit-for-tat arguments.

JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 27th, 2022, 6:55 pm
I am amazed that a title 'What is art?' got so many replies because it is so vague. Perhaps, the more vague a question will get more replies rather than one which is specific. Part of the ambiguity is around the subjective vs nature of what is good or bad in art. Some may see certain classic works as being art, such as that of Michselangelo, or van Gogh and dismiss art like postmodern installations. This may be asking what is good art really.

In philosophy, we go beyond the infantile concept of good guy and bad guy. Hence I would avoid good or bad in art. Some art makes me happy; some sad; some pleases; some annoys. Art it is for me, if it shakes me, moves me, stirs me, shocks me, and so on, spiritually. Say you go to an art gallery. Let me ask you: What for? Don't say you want to meet or please someone, or to kill time. Give me a direct answer, which would be sufficient here.

"What is art?" must be a difficult question, too challenging for some to hide behind a fomented screen. With due respect, I would not welcome irrelevant reply which may be taken as measure of success of this topic, which is never my target in the first place.

gad-fly wrote: ↑March 28th, 2022, 6:23 pm

JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 27th, 2022, 6:55 pm
I am amazed that a title 'What is art?' got so many replies because it is so vague. Perhaps, the more vague a question will get more replies rather than one which is specific. Part of the ambiguity is around the subjective vs nature of what is good or bad in art. Some may see certain classic works as being art, such as that of Michselangelo, or van Gogh and dismiss art like postmodern installations. This may be asking what is good art really.

In philosophy, we go beyond the infantile concept of good guy and bad guy. Hence I would avoid good or bad in art. Some art makes me happy; some sad; some pleases; some annoys. Art it is for me, if it shakes me, moves me, stirs me, shocks me, and so on, spiritually. Say you go to an art gallery. Let me ask you: What for? Don't say you want to meet or please someone, or to kill time. Give me a direct answer, which would be sufficient here.

"What is art?" must be a difficult question, too challenging for some to hide behind a fomented screen. With due respect, I would not welcome irrelevant reply which may be taken as measure of success of this topic, which is never my target in the first place.

Do you do any art yourself? I used to, mainly people and street scenes, but I haven't done so for a couple of years. I do hope to do so in the future but find it hard to do so in my room. However, the reason why I ask is that making art throws such a different perspective on the making of art. It is so different from viewing art and can also affect the perception of art of others.

There is the thinking of art as the finished object and the process of doing art. Often, the emphasis is on the finished art as displayed in galleries or camera ready for some means of display. I studied art therapy although I did not complete it to the point of becoming a registered art therapist. In training and in my job in mental health nursing, I did facilitate groups in hospital settings and the use of art in this way is certainly not on the finished artwork, although the people making the art may wish to make 'good' art.

When making art it is hard not to think of quality at all. Many adults are reluctant to draw or paint because they are fearful of their lack of ability. Some are willing to experiment, and for some it is possible to communicate feelings and ideas which cannot easily be put into words. Also, the discussion of the art which is made can enable the process of verbal expression and thinking as well. Perhaps, art making can also be useful in philosophy itself as another way of developing ideas in the form of images, in order to enable clarity and creativity in the thinking or reflection process, or in the original quest of 'knowing oneself'.

JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 29th, 2022, 7:55 am
Do you do any art yourself? I used to, mainly people and street scenes, but I haven't done so for a couple of years. I do hope to do so in the future but find it hard to do so in my room. However, the reason why I ask is that making art throws such a different perspective on the making of art. It is so different from viewing art and can also affect the perception of art of others.

There is the thinking of art as the finished object and the process of doing art. Often, the emphasis is on the finished art as displayed in galleries or camera ready for some means of display. I studied art therapy although I did not complete it to the point of becoming a registered art therapist. In training and in my job in mental health nursing, I did facilitate groups in hospital settings and the use of art in this way is certainly not on the finished artwork, although the people making the art may wish to make 'good' art.

When making art it is hard not to think of quality at all. Many adults are reluctant to draw or paint because they are fearful of their lack of ability. Some are willing to experiment, and for some it is possible to communicate feelings and ideas which cannot easily be put into words. Also, the discussion of the art which is made can enable the process of verbal expression and thinking as well. Perhaps, art making can also be useful in philosophy itself as another way of developing ideas in the form of images, in order to enable clarity and creativity in the thinking or reflection process, or in the original quest of 'knowing oneself'.

Do I do any art? In the narrow sense, No. Not any painting, sculpture, and so on. In the wider sense, Yes. When I take photos, i often do it more than for the purpose of recording. I frame, and I even soften to make it less real, so to speak.

Art is a subject matter. Say you make a dish out of clay to contain food, the product is functional. if you incorporate flower pattern on its surface, the dish is artistic. If you make the dish exclusively for display and appreciation, it is a artwork. Your artwork may be worse than a plain dish, but that is not the point. In the process of making the dish. you may struggle to make it more enjoyable than merely functional. That is your philosophy of art.

I hope replies on this topic would not extend to cover more than three pages. With due respect, your reply is always valued and welcomed, but it is essential to keep the topic discussion in manageable proportion and functional. Imagine what if the discussion expands to 50 pages. Your contributed reply will be buried in the dustbin of history. So please be considerate. Please skip statements like "I like Art" and "art is what I call art".

gad-fly wrote: ↑March 28th, 2022, 11:25 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑March 28th, 2022, 2:11 am Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

A safe bet on a question is to escape, or to provide a circular answer by begging. "Art is what you want it to be." "Art is what you can recognize." "Art is reflection in the mirror."

Alternatively, take a long tour before finding yourself again in square one. It is too complicated. You want an answer? First you advise on these various points. I bet you will be exhausted before long.

It isn't a circular answer. To my way of thinking "art" is an object that makes a person feel an emotional intensity. So if I make an emotional connection to Warhol's soup cans, they're art to me. If it leaves many others cold, it's not art to them. The object cannot qualify as art in the absence of an audience to appreciate it as art (not dissimilar to trees falling in lonely forests).

LuckyR wrote: ↑March 30th, 2022, 4:26 am

LuckyR wrote:
Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

It isn't a circular answer. To my way of thinking "art" is an object that makes a person feel an emotional intensity. So if I make an emotional connection to Warhol's soup cans, they're art to me. If it leaves many others cold, it's not art to them. The object cannot qualify as art in the absence of an audience to appreciate it as art (not dissimilar to trees falling in lonely forests).

It is then an universal answer. If art applies, so does science, love, philosophy, politics, and so on. It is not what you find not, which, in the final analysis, remains a good answer.
May I suggest we discontinue discussion along this line.

gad-fly wrote: ↑March 27th, 2022, 4:06 pm It is high time to revive the titled topic. I would like to initiate it as "What is Art? 2.0. To answer the question:

Art, like Science, is a subject matter which does not require justification, ratification, rationalization, ramification, and so on. To put it simply: It Is.

Different from Science, Art is not endowed by Nature. It is entirely aligned and associated with human creation for mental satisfaction. In the process, Art may be a side product or side effect in physical creation, whether deliberate, ingenuous. or accidental. ART cannot be blamed for good or evil, right or wrong, help or hinder, and so on. Art is available for the enjoyment and torment of all without prejudice. Finally, we should be thankful for there being art. It colors up our life.

LONG LIVE ART.

You write of a "question", but I see only a short political manifesto. You ask us not to focus on defining art - even though your chosen title for this topic is "What is Art?" - but you don't really say what it is you hope to discuss. You have 'revived' this topic, and asked us not to try to define art, but the 'question' you ask is an extended and personal definition of art.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 30th, 2022, 11:19 am

gad-fly wrote: ↑March 27th, 2022, 4:06 pm It is high time to revive the titled topic. I would like to initiate it as "What is Art? 2.0. To answer the question:

Art, like Science, is a subject matter which does not require justification, ratification, rationalization, ramification, and so on. To put it simply: It Is.

Different from Science, Art is not endowed by Nature. It is entirely aligned and associated with human creation for mental satisfaction. In the process, Art may be a side product or side effect in physical creation, whether deliberate, ingenuous. or accidental. ART cannot be blamed for good or evil, right or wrong, help or hinder, and so on. Art is available for the enjoyment and torment of all without prejudice. Finally, we should be thankful for there being art. It colors up our life.

LONG LIVE ART.

You write of a "question", but I see only a short political manifesto. You ask us not to focus on defining art - even though your chosen title for this topic is "What is Art?" - but you don't really say what it is you hope to discuss. You have 'revived' this topic, and asked us not to try to define art, but the 'question' you ask is an extended and personal definition of art.

My second paragraph: Art is a subject matter. Third paragraph: It is entirely aligned and associated with human creation for mental satisfaction.

Agreed? Dissent? Say it out. Elaborate. Take another angle. I have asked you not to define art? Correction. It is never the intention. The title is clear.

Thankful for art. color up our life. That is not political manifesto. You do not agree? Fine. Your inclination is respected. Now tell me: What is art?

gad-fly wrote: ↑March 30th, 2022, 12:17 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 30th, 2022, 11:19 am

gad-fly wrote: ↑March 27th, 2022, 4:06 pm It is high time to revive the titled topic. I would like to initiate it as "What is Art? 2.0. To answer the question:

Art, like Science, is a subject matter which does not require justification, ratification, rationalization, ramification, and so on. To put it simply: It Is.

Different from Science, Art is not endowed by Nature. It is entirely aligned and associated with human creation for mental satisfaction. In the process, Art may be a side product or side effect in physical creation, whether deliberate, ingenuous. or accidental. ART cannot be blamed for good or evil, right or wrong, help or hinder, and so on. Art is available for the enjoyment and torment of all without prejudice. Finally, we should be thankful for there being art. It colors up our life.

LONG LIVE ART.

You write of a "question", but I see only a short political manifesto. You ask us not to focus on defining art - even though your chosen title for this topic is "What is Art?" - but you don't really say what it is you hope to discuss. You have 'revived' this topic, and asked us not to try to define art, but the 'question' you ask is an extended and personal definition of art.

My second paragraph: Art is a subject matter. Third paragraph: It is entirely aligned and associated with human creation for mental satisfaction.

Agreed? Dissent? Say it out. Elaborate. Take another angle. I have asked you not to define art? Correction. It is never the intention. The title is clear.

Thankful for art. color up our life. That is not political manifesto. You do not agree? Fine. Your inclination is respected. Now tell me: What is art?

I am a bit unsure what you are trying to ask. You say that you are not looking for a definition and I looked at Scott's original outpost and that is what he is asking. Also.your post above gives your view of art which is not necessarily shared by everyone. For example, you say that art cannot be blamed for good or evil, which is disputable because it could be argued that artists have responsibility for their what they create. For example, think of artists In the advertising industry. Should they not think about the way art affects people subliminally. Art may have many aspects ranging from emotional expression to protest and consciousness raising. Perhaps, art can be used for thinking about matters like climate change.

The question, 'What is art?' is extremely wide, so may be answered in unique ways and apart from definitions may need to allow for a certain amount off free association, in the spirit of creativity itself

. Also, I don't understand how it works to ask the exact same question unless you are wishing to develop it in a different way. It is unclear to what extent it relates to the original thread which is especially confusing as it is next to that one at present. It seems like someone who is not Pink Floyd coming along and calling an album 'Dark Side of the Moon 2' and putting it beside the orinal. Of course, the questions of philosophy are recurring but it is unclear what discussion you are trying to open up. In addition, you even suggest that you don't want too many replies in spite of the original having over 50 pages. As far as I see it the process of creating threads is like a project or experiment and even though you may have ideas of direction, the growth of threads cannot be predicted exactly, because it is a collaborative process of discussion on the forum. It depends who joins in.