Grunth wrote:Not any further forward from........conversation?Spraticus wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
Everything is subjective, in the solipsistic sense; all opinions, feelings, expressions of ideas, views of the world, etc., so we are not any further forward. The concept of art that we are asked to define needs to have some sort of existence outside of the individual or it's not worth discussing. There need to be some features of the phenomenon that allow us to identify it, which is why so many of the effusions so far are pointless. I prefer to go back to what art was when the idea first appeared, artisanship; an artist was an artisan. The romantic nonsense of tortured souls came much later with the Victorians and then Hollywood. (Some artists have obviously been troubled people but most haven't)
Think in terms of how well the artisan is creating their object or event and all the rest becomes superfluous. Ask what they are trying to achieve, where it fits into the world and how well it is done or how beautiful it is. Each of these questions will of course raise others, but the result will be an understanding of what art is.
Art, being a practice in subjectivity, makes it therefore a conversation. Some may consider it a 'high' form of conversation, but of course, that too being subjective, merely continues the conversation.
The furthermost one may get from conversation is, I suppose, isolation. So, in effect, we are 'not any further forward' towards isolation.......which is probably ok.
I don't see the logical link that justifies the use of the word "therefore".