How would you define art?

It shouldnt ever be the goal to "define" Art. god forbid it would ever happen. Because the very CONSIDERING of it is life and the "not-any-longer-considering-of-it-by-virtue-of-an-accepted-definition" is death (if we must also speculate over life and death...as we must). Definitions should be reserved for less vital matters that have to do with survival, civilization and culture...all stuff that wouldnt be much different without any definitions or considering. But as the body recovers from another episode of labor against nature the mind can yet still make great progress by worrying over Art (and philosophy). So a perpetually "wrong" intellectual venture here is most desirable.

Apeman,
I don't think anything bad would happen if we did successfully define art. Things that didn't fit in the art category would just be called something else.

Definitions are absolutely vital to convey an idea, think what would happen if none of these words we are writing had set definitions........OH, IDEA!!! Art: conveying an idea using other than conventional definitions. ........Essentially create context and the idea(art) is conveyed through the context, not a definition.

Ha, so I guess definitions are not vital, but I think we can agree they are quite handy.

Of course when I say that we can try to give a definition o art it doesn't mean we will succeed. But then again, it has to be like that, because if the concept of art could be grasped entirely, than it would be logic, not art. The task of art is not to explore logic, but to explore the experience that man has of the world and of himself/herself. Art is (the) experience (of describing the experience), and you cannot explain art more than you can describe and explain a taste or a scent.

The task of art is not to explore logic, but to explore the experience that man has of the world and of himself/herself.

Art is (the) experience (of describing the experience), and you cannot explain art more than you can describe and explain a taste or a scent.[/quote]

Very nice, Intz. That notion is reduced, encompassing and quite serviceable regarding this challenging topic. And its true that we are forced to attempt definitions insofar as we are communicating creatures. Language does the best it can...but it is VERY far from actually being able to relate the goings-on within an individual's consciousness. It will be Art that makes the more significant exchanges between humans (the ones that do not determine survival). And the senses...well they appeal to "reality" which has everything to do with assessing "experience". Art is the bridge between matter and essence. We can be a deluded ghost or a lumbering blob; or the two can arrange an alliance and be niether.

Interventizio,

Logic can't be art?

The task of art is not to explore logic, but to explore the experience that man has of the world and of himself/herself.

Can't the experience of the world a man has of the world be logical?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Apeman,

It will be Art that makes the more significant exchanges between humans (the ones that do not determine survival).

Isn't survival rather significant?

Big mistake. The sooner one realizes that survival is NOT significant the sooner one will be permitting significance. Survival is nature-based; in line with nothing more than whatever any animal or bug possesses. As humans we are MUCH more. So an honoring of everything that is POST-survival is what will be yielding. Art and philosophy are post survival, extra, excessive, post-functional etc, (not science, psychology, mathematics, physics nor any other resolution-sniffing practice).

Apeman,
I made no mistake, I asked a question.

If humans don't survive we can not have art and philosophy.

I think art is that which, when one is experiencing it, one forgets for the moment who, what, and where they are and are transfixed in some sort of unfiltered, untranslated primal response that provokes a sense of personal meaning and affinity, even if undefined at the moment.

Yep Mel, it hinges on the "detachment". With labor asnd fortitude we can overcome the tyrant that is "Survival" for all-too-brief episodes. And this is the reward for existing. Not other things.

Might we consider the origin of The Work of Art: that the artist does create himself as such in his process to the completion of his work.

And now consider what it is the artist has created: that The Work is what he has produced in the multiplisities of his Essence. The fuction of essence, in relation to life, is as counter to it. It is the degree of this counter, and the objective stronghold of life in relation, that holds the definition of the given Work of Art. That art as such is the ability and product to manifest in physical form one's subjective response to the seemingly tumultuous prose of Life and its affect. For the given variable of subjective interpretation, art is what one's ability permits him to create. Art is a matter of manifestation.

But what may be this manifestation? That art is the counter-subject of the idiomatic form of the tumultuous Existence; the effort of the artist toward the intentions of the artist are of such lengths and variables as the multiplisities of his essence, and in that regard, it seems less likely that even the artist knows what his art is for and what it means, and the manifestation thus undefinable. But it can be suspected that what one creates - whether it be a letter, a sculpture, or a fine piece of music - is in due respect to that which one has hitherto overcome in the attempt of creating his Art.

Might we consider the origin of The Work of Art? - That the artist does create himself as such in his process to the completion of his work.

And now consider what it is the artist has created: that The Work is what he has produced in the multiplicities of his Essence. The function of essence, in relation to life, is as counter to it. It is the degree of this counter, and the objective stronghold of life in relation, that holds the definition of the given Work of Art. That art as such is the ability and product to manifest in physical form one's subjective response to the seemingly tumultuous prose of Life and its affect. For the given variable of subjective interpretation, art is what one's ability permits him to create. Art is a matter of manifestation.

But what may be this manifestation? That art is the counter-subject of the idiomatic form of the tumultuous Existence; the effort of the artist toward the intentions of the artist are of such lengths and variables as the multiplicities of his essence, and in that regard, it seems less likely that even the artist knows what his art is for and what it means, and the manifestation thus indefinable. But it can be suspected that what one creates - whether it be a letter, a sculpture, or a fine piece of music - is in due respect to that which one has hitherto overcome in the attempt of creating his Art.

it seems less likely that even the artist knows what his art is for and what it means, and the manifestation thus indefinable.

Right on. (all well-said Stirling)

And it is not necessarily even important that the artist bother with knowing the "meaning"-of or what his work is "about". This is because the product of artmaking is less important than the event that brought it into being. The artifact pales in comparison to the experience. And by this virtue it is subjective and personal enough that only a faint resonance is available in that artifact for the benefit of lookers, readers or listeners. Art is the thing that is least likely to exist and when it does is least likely to be shared. It will require almost as heightened an effort to reap anything from art as it was to have made it.

I was wondering: have you ever noticed how artists usually provide no feedback at all when critics try to judge their work, to grasp their meaning and so on. They could say: "yes you are right", or "No you missed the point: the idea I wanted to express here is...". Nothing. I think the "meaning" of art is more a critics' thing. Artists tolerate those blabbermouths because they are important in the establishment, when it comes to determining one's success. The artist is far more interested in the process of creating art than in the result. It is the "sacred fire" (a strong state of excitement, not sexual of course) that inebriates them when they have an intuition and create around it. They don't begin their work by having something in mind, except for a general subject. Most of the times, the work leads the artist, not the other way around.

To Interventizio:

Unless of course the artist has a specific mood or scene in mind which they're trying to bring across to the audience - critics they all are. Imagine Beethoven's program music, or the Romantic period's intention to best express "feeling"; or an artist who is quite literally trying to "paint" a mood or feeling. Most of the time artists probably have some idea of what they're trying to say, but their accuracy in making their art in relations to their experience is something to question. On the other hand, sometimes artists improvise their art; they simply splash paint on a canvas or they - through some training, granted - just sit at the piano, or sit with their violin, or whatever else, and simply play what they feel at the moment. Accuracy, again, is something to be questioned; but the improvisational method of expression is perhaps one of the purer ways to do it.

Then - for the musician, I'm not so sure of other arts - there is the Brahmsian method of writing, which is similar to a good portion of Beethoven's writing. This method can be called "absolute music," which means the composer writes strictly for the sake of music, having no or little feeling for the piece at all, or perhaps understanding what certain tricks evoke a feeling and thus replicating the emotion without having any actual feeling of it in the time of its composition. This would suggest a piece of music for the audience, emotionally, than for the composer; this allowing for a wide field of subjective response. Though, as it should be understood for most things: the subjective does not preclude a relation to, or the existence of, an objective truth.

To Apeman:

"And it is not necessarily important that the artist bother with knowing the "meaning" of or what his work is "about." This is because the product of art-making is less important than the event that brought it into being [than art-making?]. The artifact pales in comparison to the experience. And by this virtue it is subjective and personal enough that only a faint resonance is available in that artifact for the benefit of lookers, readers or listeners. Art is the thing that is least likely to exist and when it does is least likely to be shared. It will require almost as heightened an effort to reap anything from art as it was to have made it."

Wouldn't you consider, though, that the experience of the process to the completion of the Work is equal to the experience of the completion of the Work? Further, why would the experience of the process necessarily be more important than the experience of the final product? It would seem, rather, that all experience has an innate importance, and not one experience necessarily trumps another. The experience of the process is different than the experience of the final product, wouldn't you agree? Then both experiences have an importance that doesn't negate the other. Neither is one more important than the other for the artist, as both would wholesale increase - one would assume - the ability of the artist, and the emotional yield.

"Art is the thing that is least likely to exist and when it does is least likely to be shared." I don't fully understand this. Are you suggesting that art only exists within a person's subjective emotional response? That the emotional rousing is the thing of art? So, when one sees some arbitrary Work, the actual physical Work isn't then the piece of art but rather the evoked emotions? Elaborate.

I quite do suppose that the artmaking experience trumps other experiences. But we must first identify the "actual" experience as it exists separate and detached from all other experiences. Communication, language and human interaction has come to call many things Art. Most of which is not art at all. So...it is perhaps the case that an individual is most immersed in his "being" when reality is being addressed OUTSIDE of function. There is an inherent "uselessness" to the artifacts or product of the anti-functional task. This uselessness, though, is exactly the thing that makes art the most impactful thing possible. Art communicates, yes, but it is not "for" communication. There is a resounding in the genuinely created object (or event) that unintentionally gives a smidgen of its pertinence to the "audience" or regarder.

As much consuming consideration over what is and what isnt art possible will advance an individual...and perhaps provide him with the motivation to detach himself...and create himself...somehow.

because everything else undertaken is in servitude to necessity, survival, recovery, pass-time and function...all just regular stuff that doesnt improve the lonliness of the consciousness