How would you define art?

Very true. Another realm of stuff that gets referred-to as Art that is not Art is the works that draw their significance only from narrative or propoganda. The sculpture of David is only Art when it has actually overwhelmed the little story that set it (the ceative act) in motion. Michelangelo had no interest in merely duplicating for anyone the experience of observing an actual nude youth. SO, so many creative decisions were made in that great piece of work that have nothing at all to do with the mundane reality that is human anatomy, bible stories and youthfulness.

It is yet another thing to be excluded from what we should call Art, objects that resolve themselves in the comfort of mere illustration or narrative. And, of course, mere duplication of form, no matter how manually attentive, is only allowed to amaze a viewer at best...never fortify said viewer's intellect.

A searching question from Joshua:

Which then makes me wonder, would I sit and gaze at a living, naked young man for hours on end (without being forced to)? And if I would...then would that make that young man a work of art?

First I am glad that you enjoyed the statue of David on this abstract level as you describe. I suspect that you have yourself done some sculpting.

I have myself wondered how natural beauty is art,or not art. If I chanced upon a lovely scene of a small waterfall, ferns, smoothed rocks,an overhanging rowan tree, without knowing whether or not some gardener had created the scene artificially, I'd not know whether or not to call it art.However, my appreciation of the natural beauty is not without value, since I will be influencing others about natural beauty. I guess the same goes for a lovely human body. It's said by the faithful that God created lovely human bodies, in which case they are works of art, as is all of God's amazingly fantastic creation. Others believe that lovely human bodies are the products of determinism with no artifice involved, neither God's artifice nor man's artifice. I may say that I am one of the latter sort of believers.

I think your question goes further than this though. Your question also brings in the consciousness of the human participant in an experience, and asks whether or not the human participant, audience or gazer upon David, is an active agent in the status of the artifice as 'art'.

This is rather like the old metaphysical question 'if the tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?'I belive that this depends upon how one defines 'sound' and for the art audience, how one defines 'art'. As far as I'm concerned,since I don't believe that art exists in a vacuum, but is bound up in the life of a society, your participation increases the value of David as a work of art. Likewise your loving appreciation of the real living human body increases that body's value to the model or the lover, and whoever else is concerned.

I do think the human body (in male and female forms) is beautiful, internally and externally. But is it a "work of Art"?

As Belinda alluded to, on the idea of calling something that was not made by a human a "work of Art", the first question that arises for me is - so who is the Artist? God? Mother Nature?

Could one say "the Universe itself is the creator/Artist of the work of Art that is the human body"? Wouldn't it be just as easy to view the Universe itself as a "work of art"? Can Art create Art?

Does a work of Art require an Artist? Could that be part of the definition? A limitation?

on the idea of calling something that was not made by a human a "work of Art", the first question that arises for me is - so who is the Artist? God? Mother Nature?

Me, I'd say that in the case of natural beauty the artist is human consciousness. And that human consciousness arose from nature.What would you say?

Some natural beauty is so amazing that I want to say 'thank you' . There is every reason to express gratitude and there is no necessity to imagine an object of the gratitude.

Perhaps we should choose to consider Art (or the advantaging of the creative impulse) as the original detachment, as the ONLY UN-natural thing a human consciousness has ever manifested, and as the sole artificial and unprovoked act in a drudgerous and repetitive existence of responsing-to-stimuli. Then we have, by an imaginative and uniquely nourishing brand of cunning, done the work of evolution; Instead of bending to nature we have BENT IT . Lets not get it flip-flopped. An ever unaware and ever plodding "Nature" can quite succumb to the seemingly ant-like will of we humans who are, most of us, in posession of an atomless essential that allows for the true determination of "beauty". The ability to consider the possibilities of significant form...and then DO something about it, something magnificently useless, is a more potent than surges of disease, hurricanes, and planet-gobbling black holes.

Me, I'd say that in the case of natural beauty the artist is human consciousness. And that human consciousness arose from nature.What would you say?

If it was allowable within the definition of "Art" for something other than a human being to create Art, then I would say that God is the greatest Artist ever. Note that I believe in God, and that God is the creator (by whatever means; that is unimportant here I think) of all Nature.

But at this early stage in my ponderings, I am leaning towards a definition of Art that demands that Art be created by human beings and human beings only, though Artists may be inspired by anything human-made or otherwise (eg. Nature, God, etc, etc.). So, I would not define anything created by Nature, God, an animal, etc, etc., as Art. If Nature was Art, then why would we need to create Art ourselves? The quality and quantity of Nature around us every day is so great that it is hard to understand why we would bother adding more of our own. Again, take Michelangelo's "David"; if the human body is a work of Art, then why would we be interested in an inaccurate copy of the original? And why would Michelangelo even bother trying to sculpt a copy of something that is all around us all day (i.e. the human body)? So for mine, it is incorrect to look at a beautiful woman and remark "Wow, she's a work of Art!". Also, an elephant holding a paintbrush in it's trunk and hitting it against a canvas is not, in my opinion, an Artist; nor is the resulting paint-covered canvas a work of Art. These are of course just my own thoughts on the topic - I'd be interested to hear other's thoughts on this.

Apeman - I must admit I find your post a little hard to understand, though I believe I at least get the gist of what you are saying there (but sorry if I'm way off!). Do you believe there is a necessary link between the definitions of Beauty and Art? Must Art be beautiful -in at least some way- to at least one person in it's audience? Or is all Beauty just one form of Art? Or neither...or both? I'd be interested to hear anyone's views on this.

Do we appreciate Art because it is natural for us to appreciate Beauty? If not, we could remove the requirement for a thing to be Beautiful to be called Art.

I think if we could work out what Art is not, it may tell us a lot about what Art really is. This may be easier than working out what Art is(?). Granted, it is very unromantic to try and define Art at all, but personally I fear that Art is in a low period at present, certainly compared to some other past eras. If we could use a "true" definition to help point out true, real Art and give this Art greater exposure and relevance in our society, it may inspire us and our future generations to appreciate and create more of this higher quality Art.

I found this little piece for what its worth.

"It is a "right brain" activity which we sometimes call "art". The role of art is to blend proximate imagery with more distant meaning. The melding of parts we understand with those given as new into larger patterns that are hopefully coherent enough to offer some intuition. Art then participates in our struggle to make order out of infinitely varying patterns of nature."

Keith
Surely, if it`s ones "value judgement" then it must only reside in this world, and cannot therefore be metaphysical(?)
My definition is simply, creation greater than the observed, and the sum of its parts. I feel this works equally for everything, both positively and possibly art.

Art is the undefiniable defined.

"Art is the undefinable defined".

Puts derivative works in their place which is not art.
Art then , is a vanguard of consciousness activity. If is is not in the van it is not art. How then can we say that the sacred music of Bach or Poulenc is not art? After all, the sacred was not undefined by previous artists in all media before Bach, or Poulenc. I could say that these composers made authentic works of art (given definitive performances)because of novel interpretations of the sacred. Then each novel interpretation of the human condition defines the undefinable human condition.Therefore the human condition is the undefinable which art defines.

"the main idea of art as a mastery of transferring certain information to the viewer or listener using only one of the three media (graphics, music, or dance) or their combinations (multimedia) – theatre, ballet, opera, and cinema. Literature, as the art of transferring information though writing, starts from the time when writing was ‘invented’ (petrography or other signs scripting were systematised) and widely introduced. In linguistic terms: visual art (including architecture, landscaping, fashion and other graphical genres and elements of graphical presentation in mixed media) – represents an attempt of expression by means of nouns; performing art, dance, pantomime (including elements of movement determined by a technique of a given genre, mixed genres and media) – an attempt of expression by means of verbs; musical art in its diversity – by means of interjections."
Vladimir Breskin
Triad: Method for Studying the Core of the Semiotic Parity of Language and Art
Signs vol. 3: pp. 1-28, 2010

No the main idea of Art is NOT to transfer anything at all to anyone. Art is a singular experience between essence and real-ness. It is the reconciliation of the ghostly with the plastic. Art has been hijacked by civilization to "perform" for it. And so-called artists have been deceived by the notion that they must "communicate" something. The experience and action of asserting a creative impulse that is NOT tainted by application nor function is Art at 100 proof. We have all been accepting watered-down variations. And it neednt be so.

A trick. Evreytime you look at a thing that "they" are calling art, place yourself, best-you-can, in the shoes of the maker; imagine the process. If there is anything worth getting - it will be there. NOT in any narrative or illustrative characterizations ( or titles, texts or newsworthies).

In reply to the title of the op and the thread:

I apologize if this witty remark has been used already, I checked to make sure, but maybe I missed it:

I wouldn't.

That is, I would not define art. A definition is some thing that is not proven necessarily, a definition is simply agreed upon, regardless of its accuracy.

In essence, art is in the eye of the beholder.

Forum members have spent 4 pages talking about a suitable definition of art. How long before we settle for a definition-less word. My guess: till the members see the triviality of definitions and get tired of arguing...

In reply to the title of the op and the thread:

I apologize if this witty remark has been used already, I checked to make sure, but maybe I missed it:

I wouldn't.

That is, I would not define art. A definition is some thing that is not proven necessarily, a definition is simply agreed upon, regardless of its accuracy.

In essence, art is in the eye of the beholder.

I think that if man can produce art, he can also give a definition of it. After all, I don't know of any artist who refused to give a definition of his/her art. And I think that talking about art can be extremely productive and fascinating.

Interventizio,

A definition can be given but that is not the definition.

One can define, what they call a piece of art, that they create, surly. That however does not give them the divine power to state that which is art and that which is not with any objectivity; just their opinion.