How would you define art?

What is art?

What makes it so beautifull to us ?

And what is the purpose of art in evolutionary sense ?

whatever that invoke emotions

whatever that invoke emotions

Then life itself is art.

The early Greeks defined art very, very broadly. Art was the human act of producing products as well as processing anything. Art was the action: work of art was the product. Artists were the producers and (cooperative) processors . They were painters and sculptors and craftsmen, and farmers, etc. Plato often spoke of cookery as art. There was good art and there was bad art, but both were art.

The distinctions began with classifications and divisions. There are fine (beautiful) arts versus useful arts, and liberal arts versus servile arts. The work of fine art has three qualities: individuality, originality, and it says something.

So, how do I define art? I can’t do it in a few words. Maybe no one can. But the little I know and have expressed above might provide a basis for further study and cooperative discussions leading to a common understanding.

excuse me for my english, it isnt my mother language

I think the beauty of art lies in three aspects:

The beauty of the art itself. Someone who is a good with words, will make more easily beautifull art in this medium.
The emotion that is passed from the creator to the observer.
The pad that the observer makes from not-understanding to understanding. I think that the mysterious side of art is what makes it beautifull. Just an emotion is not art, but when we put that emotion in a box, so that the observer has to think about it, and little by little, he will get a glimpse of what the creator wants to say, then it becomes beautifull.

What is art?

What makes it so beautifull to us ?

And what is the purpose of art in evolutionary sense ?

Art is direction. It leads us into something we were not aware of before.

It doesn't have to be beautiful.

In an evolutionary sense, it helps us widen our consciousness-- for good or bad.

"Art is the selective re-creation of reality, according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgements."
--Ayn Rand.

Still the best definition I've come across in 43 years...

Art is the word for that part of life which considered from the perspective of the ordinary person would be insane, criminal, perverse, etc. It is a way of protecting the alive from the sheeple.

Nothing in my life experience or in my feelings about art allows me to understand this definition in Post #8. But I’m intrigued. I would like to understand.

What is the reasoning or other evidence that led you to this conclusion? It would also be helpful to know more exactly what an “ordinary person” is and what “the alive” and the “sheeple” are.

Just an emotion is not art, but when we put that emotion in a box, so that the observer has to think about it, and little by little, he will get a glimpse of what the creator wants to say, then it becomes beautifull.

Kasper.

Then art is enhanced and much more effective communication.
I think is it.

Dewey commented about the Greek notion of art. It's perhaps still current as when someone says, about for instance an economical car ,"this model is a work of art".Etc.So this is 'work of art' which is a way of praising something, but it's not these days a philosophical definition of what art is.

By what may an object be art as such? The initial presence of inspiration, from what the artist is able to produce his art, comes from his environment: all to suggest that natural things are emotionally invoking things; and that society is itself emotionally invoking (that's not to say that society isn't a natural thing). If art is merely an emotionally invoking thing, then we must consider mountains and plains art, as well; then we must consider society itself as art, though that may have some merit. Even so, we might as well add emotion as art since it is often a thing to invoke further emotion whether in oneself or another. Or even further, we might consider thoughts as little pieces of art, as they do invoke levels of emotion. But I think that a definition of art must be more precise.

Do you think that, if something may be considered a piece of art, that the creator of the object must have the intention of calling it that, or does the audience of the object, say, the critics of it, have the authority of entitling it that?

Audience/viewers/society/community/the human race has nothing to do with the deciding of what is and isnt Art. Since the Art exists in its making, the process, and NOT in the artifact or sustainable representation that may or may not get the attention of anyone, then the Art is singularly for the advancement of the INDIVIDUAL that is executing it. The "do-ing" is everything. Without this isolated and detached act there would be no intellectual development in us possessors of elevated awareness. This ACT of unrequired, uncommissioned, un-patroned and quite un-called-for creativity is exactly what bleeds out into the minds (incidentally) of masses of humanity...irrepairably improving them a little bit at a time.

Audience/viewers/society/community/the human race has nothing to do with the deciding of what is and isnt Art. Since the Art exists in its making, the process, and NOT in the artifact or sustainable representation that may or may not get the attention of anyone, then the Art is singularly for the advancement of the INDIVIDUAL that is executing it. The "do-ing" is everything. Without this isolated and detached act there would be no intellectual development in us possessors of elevated awareness. This ACT of unrequired, uncommissioned, un-patroned and quite un-called-for creativity is exactly what bleeds out into the minds (incidentally) of masses of humanity...irrepairably improving them a little bit at a time.

The human race has nothing to do with discerning what art is, you say? Not of the audience? Is it not by a self-reflective pursuit that something may be created as art and is hence given that title? That is, isn't the artist an audience member to his own physical construct of his emotions? But, of course, I imagine you're talking in a very strict sense of that word. But what of the human race?

Admittedly, it at least takes an artist for there to be art, does it not? How could there be one without the other? In creating his work of art he does so create himself as an artist, does he not? If it is the case that one is required for the other to exist as their respective titles inform, then it is utterly necessary that members of the human race have something to do with "art."

Since art requires an artist, it could easily be said that anything created by man has a level of artistry in it - hence, the work or product of man's labor may be called "art."

For whom the art may prosper depends on who sees, hears, uses or tastes it. If the work of art has no audience, then its prosperity is, at least so far, solely for the person who created it - the artist. If the work has many admirers, it is a prosperous piece of work which not only has meaning for its creator but for its audience as well.

The work of art is just that in its finished form, I think. The process to its completion is an arbitrary thing. Indeed, though, the act to creating can be an alleviating thing - certainly something therapeutic and self-enhancing, psychologically in any case.

Unless you mean that the art is only that for the person who goes through the process of creating it... That doesn't seem like it could be right. Any onlooker could see it as a work of art. Whether they find the exact emotions the artist had is a more tense question. Of course, when an artist makes something that represents something of his own sadness, another onlooker, an audience member, could see it as something utterly joyful. This, I think, could be due to previous experiences: depending on what the work of art is, its properties and form could represent within each individual a different emotion relative to an experience they relate it to.

Do you think that, if something may be considered a piece of art, that the creator of the object must have the intention of calling it that, or does the audience of the object, say, the critics of it, have the authority of entitling it that?

(Stirling)

I think that the maker of the work may define it as art, but has no authority to do so. An audience, or readership, who are experienced in that particular art form are those who have the authority to call it 'art'. The maker and the viewers/readers may evaluate the thing similarly, but the maker on his own is still not the ultimate authority on his creation.

Performing arts are different from permanent arts with regard to definitive performances or authoritative performances. A conductor of an orchestra may give a definitive performance. But a composer, even although he is not such a good conductor as the professional conductor gives the authoritative performance when he conducts his own work.

Or a playwrite may act a part in his own play and may give an authoritative performance, as who else can have the authority to say what the part means? But the producer almost invariably gets a professional actor to play the part in order to give a better or, in the case of a great actor, a definitive performance. The playwrite's authority is consulted by the producer and the director.Same goes for filmplays.

Here's an example of both words in the same sentence:
[(Googled)
... Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003 A Guide to your Rights Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003 A Guide to your Rights This booklet is intended as a short guide for individuals on their data protection rights and on the data protection obligations of those who hold and process personal information. It is not an authoritative or definitive interpretation of the law. If, after reading this booklet, you require further information, please consult the Data Protection Commissioner's website www.dataprotection.ie ...

I suppose that the best and "most-real"art occurs by a departure, a willful separation, a pursued entanglement with a stubborn, cantankerous and resisting medium. The "pleasantness" of the product of this brouhaha neednt be bothered-with til the dust settles; when there might (or might not) be a looker or a listener besides the artist himself.
All human consciousness has a taste for art (some folks are hungrier than others) so as artmaking gets experienced during those oddly-accessed ventures - language and communication, necessities for human survival, will allow a spreading or infection - albeit a slow one - that has always proven to allow a greater and greater amount of individuals access to his own elevated fulfilling. So fear and worry get replaced by self-determination. When one knows "where" to go to wrestle some wider wonder out of an ever unsuspecting yet ever formidable, inanimate yet far-from-lifeless "medium", there is purpose without meaning.
Meaning, solution, answers, resolutions are the required endings of "problems"...but in Art one begins with the limp "deadness" of the meaning and then raises it to a problem...that singularly serves that particular encounter and will not need any resolving...you know you're done when you're spent. And so you drag your sorry ass back home, and eat a dinner or something.