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

[gad-fly]

"most of the things that we call "art", such as sculptures, paintings, fiction, poetry, music, dances, movies, etc, are no more than devices that help us engage in surrogate activity via imagination."

A very common mistake is to categorize painting, sculpture, etc., as art. Not necessarily so, I say. What about copying, sketching, etching, taking photos, and so on. Is the product of any creative activity art?

Take that rice bowl in my kitchen. Compare with that jade bowl in an art gallery. Is the bowl art because it is jade? Likely, but not necessarily, even though it may be priced many times more.

What makes a piece of art is that it transmits a sublime message beyond physical value, and beyond the reach of time. The message may be strong or weak, lasting or temporal, soothing or disturbing, benign or malevolent, beautiful or ugly, and so on. How? let me give you two bowls, one clay, and one jade. Hold each one in turn, and tell me the difference, not because you value jade more than clay, but because clay can be more art than jade.

Another common mistake is to take art to be fine, delicate, delicious, exquisite, and so on. Those were the days, when we would relegate pre-civilization scratching on rockface as barbarian past-time.

[Angelo Cannata]

Art is what people, over time, decide to consider art.
This has some consequences:

some productions can be considered art by some people, not art by other people, art in certain period of time, not art in another period.
Maybe a product is considered art by one person only in the world. Well, this does not mean that it is not art, it just means that it is art for just that person. People can also change ideas: today something can be considered art, the same people won’t consider it art tomorrow.
In a word, art is defined by history. If we want to learn what art is, we just need to learn what people, along history, which includes the present as well, considered or consider art.
Art is always relative. You can’t say “This is art, this is not art”. We can only say “This is art for these people”, “this was not art in that period”, “this is art according to the criterions of that person” and so on. We can try to understand how is better to consider art today. It would be a good job, a wonderful research, but we won’t anyway end up finding any ultimate definition of art.
This means that there is a problem with the question written in the title of the thread: it doesn’t relate art to anything, not to any people, not to any time.

[gad-fly]

Art is what people, over time, decide to consider art.

This evasive approach to answer applies to Science, Religion, politics, truth, and almost everything under the sun. Better unsaid than said. Over time? Not me, as far as my appreciation of art is concerned. i may feel so strongly that it hurts.

I would say: art is what many of us, or society in general, would regard as art. How can we have art gallery if not. But this is a side issue here, which is more concerned about how the artistic aspect of a product/article can be established.

[Magnus Anderson]

Is the product of any creative activity art?

You will have to define the word "creative" in order to be able to answer that question.

If creativity is the ability to find solutions to problems that weren't solved by anyone before, then a creative activity would be one that solves a previously unsolved problem.

Mathematicians, for example, are quite creative in this sense of the word, but their products are obviously not those of art.

I would also go so far as to say that one does not have to be creative / original in order to produce a work of art.

What makes a piece of art is that it transmits a sublime message beyond physical value, and beyond the reach of time.

I am not sure what you mean by "physical value". I do agree that works of art "transmit a message" but I disagree that this message must be transmitted beyond the reach of time. That this message must be "sublime" also doesn't say much other than that it must be highly valued. The real question that needs to be answered is what is exactly being appreciated / valued; what is it that the message conveys that people find valuable?

By the way, I suggest rewriting your opening post to make it clear that you quoted a forum member from another thread (specifically, this post of mine.)

[Pattern-chaser]

What makes a piece of art is that it transmits a sublime message beyond physical value, and beyond the reach of time.

Your statement, considered as art, is entertaining.

But as a definition or explanation, it is a valueless conceit, I suspect.

Everyone knows what art is; they don't need telling.

[gad-fly]

Is the product of any creative activity art?

You will have to define the word "creative" in order to be able to answer that question.

If creativity is the ability to find solutions to problems that weren't solved by anyone before, then a creative activity would be one that solves a previously unsolved problem.

Mathematicians, for example, are quite creative in this sense of the word, but their products are obviously not those of art.

I would also go so far as to say that one does not have to be creative / original in order to produce a work of art.

What makes a piece of art is that it transmits a sublime message beyond physical value, and beyond the reach of time.

I am not sure what you mean by "physical value". I do agree that works of art "transmit a message" but I disagree that this message must be transmitted beyond the reach of time. That this message must be "sublime" also doesn't say much other than that it must be highly valued. The real question that needs to be answered is what is exactly being appreciated / valued; what is it that the message conveys that people find valuable?

By the way, I suggest rewriting your opening post to make it clear that you quoted a forum member from another thread (specifically, this post of mine.)

Creative in dictionary: characterized by originality of thought or inventiveness ; having or showing imagination.

Distinguish Creative from Productive and Problem-Solving. Tackling mathematical problem from a fresh angle is creative. simply giving the correct answer is not.

Distinguish between Sublime and Valuable. The former cannot be quantified. Not in money terms, and not in how worthy. Sublime is elevated from physical, like heaven and Earth.

ART is beyond the reach of time, beyond boundary, beyond race, . . . Indeed, beyond almost everything. It cannot be taught and sold. Am I flattering Art like a goddess? Not really, but I guess appreciation of art is in everybody's genes, more or less.

Work of art can be produced, but before that, it must be original, like Adam and Eve.

The message. What message? If sometimes you do not get it, I may not be able to transmit it to you, try as I may. Sorry to say: Too Bad.

Sorry for my oversight to miss mentioning you as source of the quotation.

[Magnus Anderson]

Creative in dictionary: characterized by originality of thought or inventiveness ; having or showing imagination.

Alright, you define the word "creativity" the same exact way that you define "originality". I also take it that you define the word "originality" as the ability to be different; more specifically, as the ability to come up with a thing T that belongs to some class of things C that has the lowest degree of similarity to every thing that belongs to some set of things S. An example of a test of originality defined this way would be showing someone a number of animals and asking them to come up with an animal that is completely different from the shown ones.

Distinguish Creative from Productive and Problem-Solving. Tackling mathematical problem from a fresh angle is creative. simply giving the correct answer is not.

What if finding the correct answer entails the use of the above mentioned ability?

Distinguish between Sublime and Valuable. The former cannot be quantified. Not in money terms, and not in how worthy. Sublime is elevated from physical, like heaven and Earth.

Sublime merely means "highly valuable". I'm also of the very strong opinion that everything can be quantified provided that one knows how to do it.

ART is beyond the reach of time, beyond boundary, beyond race, . . . Indeed, beyond almost everything. It cannot be taught and sold. Am I flattering Art like a goddess? Not really, but I guess appreciation of art is in everybody's genes, more or less.

We are in disagreement when it comes to the question of whether or not art can be taught and sold. I think it's not at all difficult to teach and to sell art. As much as I like art, I don't think it's something special or something that is far above everything else. It's just a form of entertainment, which is not to say it's worthless, merely that it isn't something special. It's a product like every other, the only difference being its function.

[gad-fly]

Everyone knows what art is; they don't need telling.

Are you sure? Please Tell me what art is, in 1 to 10 sentences. Then you check if at least 10 people agree with you.

[Tegularius]

In a world where anything seemingly goes, art is whatever one's warped brain says it is.

[LuckyR]

In a world where anything seemingly goes, art is whatever one's warped brain says it is.

You're half right. From the audience's perspective, opinions resulting from consuming the potential art make the call. From the artist's point of view, it is the process of making the art that is germane.

[Pattern-chaser]

Everyone knows what art is; they don't need telling.

Are you sure? Please Tell me what art is, in 1 to 10 sentences. Then you check if at least 10 people agree with you.

Yes, I'm quite sure. Art is something that we all understand, but we each appreciate it in our own way. There is no One and Only Definition of "art", nor should there be. It is too diffuse a subject to nail down in that way. Art is difficult to describe because it's different for everyone, and there's nothing wrong with that. On the contrary, that's how it must - and should - be. Art is different for each and every person. But we all still know what it is.

If this topic, like the ones before it, is intended to determine and define what art is, in a precise manner, and in a way that applies universally, I think you're wasting your time.

[Tegularius]

In a world where anything seemingly goes, art is whatever one's warped brain says it is.

You're half right. From the audience's perspective, opinions resulting from consuming the potential art make the call. From the artist's point of view, it is the process of making the art that is germane.

I sometimes think there's more art in craftsmanship than in those who claim to be practicing what they call art.

[gad-fly]

[
We are in disagreement when it comes to the question of whether or not art can be taught and sold.

Some have mixed up Art with Work Of Art. 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.

We are born different, and cultured differently. Some are tasteless. Some manage to assimilate and acquire, some never, and some can only count in dollars and cents, which is fine too.

[LuckyR]

In a world where anything seemingly goes, art is whatever one's warped brain says it is.

You're half right. From the audience's perspective, opinions resulting from consuming the potential art make the call. From the artist's point of view, it is the process of making the art that is germane.

I sometimes think there's more art in craftsmanship than in those who claim to be practicing what they call art.

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.

[gad-fly]

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.