What is Art?

Art: The presentation of works that challenge the senses as expressions through visual, audible, and written forms for observers to experience for the purpose of communicating a concept, feeling and ideas that excite, stir, even provoke, feelings that would not other wise have been experienced.

Not all communications are pleasant.

just by reading all the posts here, i have come to the conclusion that to know what art is we mmust first know waht defines it. to know what defines it we must know what art is. it seems to me you just have to make tour own assumption of it or not ask at all. i could be completely rong. if i am let me know and tell me why.

it seems to me you just have to make your own assumption of it or not ask at all

I couldn't agree more

well without reading any previous replies, i reply to this question as this:

it is purely subjective what art is and what is not,, but again, coming back to give you this answer, seems a little lazy,

i thin there really is something that makes art differentiated from anything absent of it. and to define it would take a whole study of it and unfortunately there so far is no one that i have found is thought to legitimately have the answer to it.

art critics have all their different opinions though... ah . i dont want to finish writing this... good night

Scott was not merely asking what art is, but rather what the difference is between run of the mill art and high art.

It is a mixture of many things... great skill, symbolism and visual metaphor, an ability to 'reach' most people intellectually and emotionally without utilizing entertainment value, choice of subject matter, unique creativity, the flow or consistency contained within the subject matter... and I'm sure a number of other qualities.

It can be plays, paintings, sculpture, multi media instillations, tapestry, bone china, music, metal works, furniture, architecture... indeed the mediums in which high art is found is only as limited as the human imagination.

The "What is Art?" question is exactly parallel to the "What is life?" question. The one-sentence dictionary answers are all vacant, sterile and quite laughable. Language and written phrases wont be able to address this sufficiently nor will exchanges of debate (limited by those very methods of intellectual trade).

So it is not ever going to be the case that a definition is given. BUT...by the unfathomable labors of tireless thought and activity the "sensation" of what art "is" can bee held. Whether or not a speck of this absolutely unique internal acquiring is ever shared or "communicated" is not the problem or responsibility of the beholder.

Yet advanced folk have felt it not only necessary but vital to execute discourse over the matter of art forever. As a species who has learned to survive by the support of their own kind, we also hope to derive support from our kind in matters that actually dont require that support. Art only need ONE consciousness to exist, and only needs to be accomplished by the possessor of that consciousness as a being NOT belonging to, beholden or in service to anything required.

It is quite the case that art, the most impactful thing imaginable, must also be the most "useless" thing imaginable. It is to be experienced first and best as functionless process and action, and secondarily as a distant window into some other detached individual's "useless" labors.

We neednt call things "art" so much anymore, as the term has been throttled and thinned by the ravages of metaphor. There is an "art of" everything. So we must simply work hard and train ourselves to be able to identify it when we sense it (hear, see, read, feel).

Its an important question though; one that everyone should bother with as much as possible. The mere asking may generate exchanges between folks that push the limitations of language, IMPROVE it by the bending of the meanings of words, and in the end stimulate amongst each other a deeper consideration about the most significant thing that can cross our minds.

I often think that there is an art to doing things, for example there is an "art to living well", what this gets at is how one must refine their technique which is aimed at living well. Further it helps to think of this as a performance which can be critiqued.

So what does an art critique keep in mind when he or she critiques a peice of art and thinks to him or herself... is this art? Has the technique the would be artist employed to make the art been refined? Was his actions, reasonings behind the piece a performance? Is this piece meant to be critiqued? Is it self expression through attractive symbolism??? for me this definition is nice... it kind of gets to the point where the artist expresses his or herself though the portrayal of something in his or her life... though I think it needs to be said that in the portrayal of something in the artist's life the subject gets refined and it becomes art where as once it was simply nature or reality. How this portrayal takes place is called a performance and importantly one which can be (and was designed to be) critiqued or judged.

puddy

This is a very long-running thread.

I say we refer the arguments to Wittgenstein whose comment on words like 'art' is that they cannot be defined except arbitrarily. Such words therefore form a family of meanings so that each meaning of , say, 'art' resembles some other meaning of the word, but there is no overarching defining attribute that defines 'art'.

I take intentions seriously when it comes to art. If someone instills labor that pertains to artistic motive, and produces x, I would say that is an art; It doesn't matter whether I can sympathize with the art created though, simply because I am not arrogant enough to claim that my aesthetic taste is the truth.

I think you can distinguish posers from real artists with this definition but it is difficult to prove whether the person created x for an artistic reason, or a commercial reaon.

I am aware that my definition of an art can make anything ridiculous as art, at least on the surface. If you spit on your shoe with an artistic intent, I would still consider that as a form of art.

Art is the emotional equivalent of science. We all perceive our environment differently, and science gives us a rational way to describe our environment that is consistent across all people. Similarly art evokes emotions and allows us to know that we are not alone in the universe in experiencing these sensations.

Art is definitely in the eye of the beholder, but I take great pleasure in knowing that I am not alone in seeing the beauty of Van Gogh's Irises or the passion of Stevie Ray Vaughn's guitar or the icredible subtlety of a great bottle of wine.

I believe art is any beautiful in the eye of the beholder. Although technically to be art, it has to be man made. Although I believe Socrates said:
By means of beauty all beautiful things become beautiful. For this appears to me the safest answer to give both to myself and others; and adhering to this, I think that I shall never fall, but that it is a safe answer both for me and any one else to give — that by means of beauty beautiful things become beautiful.

You are thinking of a certain frase in Plato's "Phaidon", where he introduces his theory of forms through the mouth of Socrates. So it is not to be seen as a definition of art. It simply means that that which is beautiful is beautiful precisely because it takes part in the form of beauty. And that is not a very safe thing to say - it is a widely contested view, actually.

Back on topic@ it is very hard to give an adequate definition of art. The concept "art" denotes such a vast field of human activity and products. But it is pretty safe to assume that we can spell out at least some conditions for a thing to be called art. For instance, as heliocentrism points out, that the thing is man-made. From here on it gets tougher, since many pieces of arts have features which makes them art, but other pieces of art have different features that makes them art, and it is not always true that if the one had some of the others features it would still be art.

We do have some robust pieces of art that I consider paradigmatic. Just think of the works of some of the great artists from each periode. This is a good starting point for our analysis. We have most of Leonardi Da Vincis known works. From newer time we have Van Gogh (representing expressionism and painted art in general), and we have Picasso, who also made paradigmatic paintings and sculptures. The larger we make the set of paradigmatic cases of art, the easier it is for us to evaluate new pieces of human activity are to be considered art. We could look at the aestethics, but also on the intentions behind the pieces of work. But every evaluation is unique. The piece of art must, however, bear resemblance to earlier pieces of art. It must be intelligible as a continuation of our arthistory. This is how we normally go about when we consider what is art and what is not. Of course there is a great deal more to be said, and this is only a very rough scetch of how we could begin a characterization of art like.

Hope it makes sense. I could expand on my thoughts if anyone wants me to do that. But I hope it will suffice for now.

Art is the product of a human decision to make something called ''art'' or to name something as ''art.''

I have two pieces of twig. One looks like a cat, the other a dog. They are works of art, but nature did the work. I ascribed.

Art has nothing to do with beauty even though much art is beautiful. Much that is not art is beautiful. Beauty is contingent not necessary.

Art may not be morally good. It can be pernicious, malicious, malign.

Art may change meaning for meanings are not only invested, they are ascribed. Meaning is a variable not fixed to the art. The art is independent of its meaning.

The artist, the writer may not know the meaning of their works. Others see more than they do. And what is seen is always changing. ('Thank goodness.' cry critics to come).

Much human art aims to do something, in religion, morality, aesthetics, tale-telling, amusement, amazement. It is purposeful. Is all art purposeful? I think so. This does not mean we can always easily put into words the purpose of a work.

As the individual may ascribe to any object any thing, the definition of art, anything may be art.

Art's just a concept. I follow the Wittgensteinian approach in that we associate certain traits with it and the term is, like all words, purely defined by its context and use.

The artworld debate makes sense if you exclude the concept that it can exclude certain pieces from being considered art. It is a good example of how the term can be stretched to fit new pieces but it cannot define the term, just influence its use.

Scrolling back up, I imagine Belinda probably feels similarly.

One would have to first expose the difficulty of this issue - defining something that has predominantly been considered purely subjective - and must realize and make understood what humbleness and consideration need be included in stipulating the vastness, the history, of this problem. And further, to finding such qualities that one might categorize one piece of art - whatever that is - from another: Why, for instance, are the works of Beethoven considered so much more highly than, say, the works of Mendelssohn? why Goethe than Patterson? why Monet than Dix? and so on. Why might one generation completely deny the works of an artist, like van Gogh, and another find it to be one of the most extraordinary feats in the history of art? or the reverse: why might one generation admire and revere the works of an artist, like Salieri, and another deny them and throw it into obscurity?

Let’s deal with the latter question first. – This first brings about the task of deciding what acts could be included in the term "art," or what things a person might do that "art" might be thrown about in relation to it. The typical activities people have done that often excite noting "Oh, now! What a piece of art!" have often traditionally been: Painting beautiful pictures of what have you; composing or preforming music, respectively; writing stories and essays; sculpting statues; designing and building cathedrals and the like. (There are assuredly more; however, for the sake of this post, this list of preponderantly artist actions seems sufficient enough for the time being.) Why do these things appear more “artistic” than, say, doodling, screaming, taking notes, making an ash tray, and building a tree house?

It would seem, from observing various relating objects – using the first example, painting – that there is an ever-growing, ever-changing tier, a spectrum from what is a simple doodle to what is a piece of art. That is to say, we onlookers, we listeners, make value judgments, placing one piece and another on one part of the tier and another on another part of the tier. This is all well and obvious. But the issue resides on the problem of individual sensibilities, sentiments – on one’s “training,” as Twain might say.

And there is some merit to that. The difference between one man likening to – in music – the works of Tupac and another man finding fullness and cleverness in the works of Shostakovich would, perhaps, be rooted in (1) what his parents listened to, what he grew up with, and later finds nostalgic; (2) what he necessarily finds alleviating, maybe countering the culture and bringing-up an uncomfortable childhood, a catharsis at the end of a tragedy; (3) traumas or pleasures found at any one time; or (4) what he finds, maybe in his studies, to be more interesting – though this would be more to the interests of a different, more childlike, maybe neotenous, abnormally spongy look into the things in life that make one happy (as I would suppose most art would do, supposing that one found an art one liked). I think it would be a naiveté to think that an appreciation for what is traditionally called art has nothing to do with how one is brought up, what experiences one has had hitherto his seeing an object his history would relate to the infamous term we’re talking of here. For that, I will always call on psychology, juxtaposed with philosophy, to find a solution to these problems; and I like to think that that is a much more pragmatic approach than staying with any one field, harboring there in simple and base comfort.

Then there is the historic approach which can’t ever be ignored or forgotten. There is a kind of subjectivism that permeates through history. In every generation, artistic sentiments change; artists, if we may call them that, like to do different what their teachers did before them, to make themselves more known, recognizable; so too does the glorified public change their feelings about art every generation: high art becomes low, boring art; low art becomes the new high art, a member of the popular zeitgeist. For this, there is a perpetual sense of revolution, reversals of values in artistic sensibilities – and example might be the change in appreciation at one time from Washington Irving to Mark Twain; or Dickens to Wilde to Huxley and Orwell; etc. (In another context, in politics, we might well find, more recently, a sudden difference in attention and appreciation from Gore Vidal to Christopher Hitchens.)

And for that, we might well discover that what is “art” – even what changes and is newly invented – is something inherited. That is to say, whatever our definition, it will most likely be one of an inherited subjectivism. However well and great it would be to break the bonds of the subjective chains we have to all our lives sensual ventures and find a universality, an objective truth to what we see, an absolute ground truth pervade and shimmering up into everything we see and hear; it doesn’t seem likely that we could hold onto any kind of honesty if leaving the bounds of subjectivism – though we can hope and make great efforts that our fellows and ourselves will stay or become increasingly critical that we could at least say, corroborating with that old maxim on wisdom, that “We don’t know; but let us think about it.”

Because of the ever-changing tier of high and low arts, it is safe to think that at any time – though a change might be subtle, or might be in a far off time – what is high could be hat is low; that is, what is high right now for you is inevitably low for another. However, there are pieces of art that stay prevalent to the appreciation of the field in which it is a member. For instance, Tounesols (Sunflowers), by van Gogh, is a forever studied piece. Or, more familiar to my area of study, Mahler’s Ninth Symphony (similar to Beethoven’s and Dvorak’s ninths) is one that will always be studied and admired; or, maybe even more important, Schoenberg’s theories on atonality. They are basic to theory and the growth of those entering into the field of music. What they represent and what makes them eternal in the fields they are a part of is what technical things were utilized in them which made the ultimate product, and then what influenced generations upon generations after them – to ultimately make better music, or so one can hope. Bach and Beethoven shouldn’t be forgotten in this similarly: both were revolutionaries – though more so the latter – in their own regards.

One might be able to create an objective tier of art depending on what influence a work had on works after its exposition and study. But that would be tedious and time-consuming, not appropriate for this thread.

In determining why people find certain arts more appealing at one time than another, we might very well create a tangible definition for what art-proper is. We could say that, because so many generations have found, for instance, Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony to be a piece of art that things like might be art as well. And why not? The ninth is a feat of extraordinary power and understanding of music theory. Shouldn’t, then, Bruckner’s Fourth Symphony, “Romantic,” also be a piece of art? And the same with Beethoven’s late string quartets: things after it, sharing similar qualities, are probably, if not assuredly, art as well. Of course, Beethoven and Bruckner aren’t starting points: art didn’t first appear with them. But what they, or rather there works, represent is an undertaking which brought about a reflection and the ability to say, in unison, that that work is artful. We could suppose that works before it, which influenced it, are also works of art – this leading back to a time when art was perhaps not even considered, but mere enticements, just entertainment.

But what is it to say that art is something like Beethoven’s Ninth? That’s kind of silly. But rather, what did Beethoven do that makes us think it’s art? Principally, if we go back far enough to the days before “art,” and find cave paintings which tell a story and remind us of fateful events of the past, singing and banging on drums as a way to justify life (Campbell), telling stories to the children to try and instill a sense of morality and sense, making statues to please the gods or commemorate events, building structures to ward off the harsh weathers of nature, we might find that what is universal is most things traditionally called art is the want to always be entertained and/or comforted: art is a break from the difficulties in life.

This makes us think of art as a psychological issue, and a man exclusively a philosopher might think of it as being “parochial.” But what philosophy has ever been grounded in something besides the bonds of humanity?

So, if we might go further, art is something, firstly, that entertains us. But we must suppose that it is a special kind of entertainment – otherwise playing with a paperclip while on a binge of boredom would suffice it an inclusion by our definition (though, I would suppose that the paperclip would be something we play with while one daydreams). The entertainment by art, if I may stipulate the abilities of various pieces of art I’ve witnessed, have excited emotions – undoubtedly due to my past experiences with anything, excited all sorts and kinds of emotions – from anger to humility to comedy, and all making me consider things in the past, or things that I expect in the future to happen. I imagine, knowing that we lot aren’t all that different from one another, that many people have the same happen to them, if only subconsciously. But often, depending on one’s situation, art might affirm what we feel about what we’ve done, what we’ve seen; art might make us feel better after some tragedy, of whatever scale; or art might; or art might just be some side attraction to get us through the day, keeping our interests up, our curiosities satisfied, inspiring us to do something interesting.

Another aspect would be its ability to teach us, to live differently. But I don’t see that as a unique qualifier for art. Maybe it is. Art assuredly does teach us something, but only insofar as it makes us think about the past, consider the future. I would think that part of its wont to comfort us. But this is, I’m reminded, entirely dependent on how’s psychological situation: What said here couldn't be turned on its head?

Why, for instance, are the works of Beethoven considered so much more highly than, say, the works of Mendelssohn? why Goethe than Patterson? why Monet than Dix? and so on. Why might one generation completely deny the works of an artist, like van Gogh, and another find it to be one of the most extraordinary feats in the history of art? or the reverse: why might one generation admire and revere the works of an artist, like Salieri, and another deny them and throw it into obscurity?

Because you read that in books. Popular culture and popular opinion, ESPECIALLY in the arts, is the worst way forone to make their OWN assessment of what is "good" art and what ...isnt art at all (because it should be said that there is no "bad" art; there is only that other stuff that gets put-upon a viewership - often in established art contexts - that is not art at all). Generations, because of this profound diluting of subjectivity (in the academic interest of arriving at a mere commonality) have the worst angle on the problem of defining art. Reverence has nothing to do with the experience. If a certain viewer is lackadaisical enough to align with the art that is generally considered worth reverence, then they have no hope of "getting" what art has to offer. History is simply decided by the druthers of historians - and thats an untrustworthy lot.

Why do these things appear more “artistic” than, say, doodling, screaming, taking notes, making an ash tray, and building a tree house?

They dont at all. doodling, screaming, taking notes, making an ash tray and building a tree hous can ALL quite set-into-motion the artistic process...as ANYTHING can. Again, most of the things you have been told are art, are not art at all.

This is all well and obvious. But the issue resides on the problem of individual sensibilities, sentiments – on one’s “training,” as Twain might say.

You nailed it there Stirling...but it is a SELF-training. It is an interior matter of being able to scrutinize the stuff put to you as art...and most importantly being able to dismiss (as quickly as possible) that which ISNT art. Every human possesses the said "sensibility" to execute this; but we are too-much stifled by the flaw of our gullibility (willingness to be herded).

I think it would be a naiveté to think that an appreciation for what is traditionally called art has nothing to do with how one is brought up, what experiences one has had hitherto his seeing an object his history would relate to the infamous term we’re talking of here. For that, I will always call on psychology, juxtaposed with philosophy, to find a solution to these problems; and I like to think that that is a much more pragmatic approach than staying with any one field, harboring there in simple and base comfort

If one is reaching back into the comfort zones of their past and their education to identify art, they will likely miss very much of it. A solid and momentum'd and improving regarder of art will be responding to the unpredicted, the unusual, the never-before-experienced, and the provoking. Art regarders who indulge in their already-experienced tastes and "comfortable places" are merely classic rockers. I love that ol' Inna-Gada-Davida tune, and quite look forward to listening to it again soon, but it has NO chance of improving me ever again.

artists, if we may call them that, like to do different what their teachers did before them, to make themselves more known, recognizable; so too does the glorified public change their feelings about art every generation: high art becomes low, boring art; low art becomes the new high art, a member of the popular zeitgeist. For this, there is a perpetual sense of revolution, reversals of values in artistic sensibilities – and example might be the change in appreciation at one time from Washington Irving to Mark Twain; or Dickens to Wilde to Huxley and Orwell; etc. (In another context, in politics, we might well find, more recently, a sudden difference in attention and appreciation from Gore Vidal to Christopher Hitchens.)

The quality of "real" art does not exist within an era, a historical context nor any assimiltion of popular culture. It (the Art) does not care about its "when" at all......even if it seems to illustrate a "when".

inherited subjectivism

There is no "high" and " low" art. There is art (what one has laboriously decided that to be) and there is everything else.

Art is never for entertainment, even if your (popular) culture puts in up on the stage for you (perhaps that stuff on the stage isnt art at all....maybe its just entertainment). No function, no pleasure, no joy.......but THRILLING, yes.

This makes us think of art as a psychological issue, and a man exclusively a philosopher might think of it as being “parochial.” But what philosophy has ever been grounded in something besides the bonds of humanity?

Art must be as real as it is fantasy (50% - 50% ?). Therefore the pschyological and philosophical approaches (both fantasy/aerated notions within the ghostly areas of consciousness) can only get you part of the way to getting whats to be got out of applying/regarding stuff under theself-imposed travail of aesthetic consideration. In this manner, philosophy and psychology are SUB categories of aesthetics. ("aesthetic philosophy" is a redundancy). And yes, "humanity" is likely the most "binding" thing there is. An individual, though, by the constant considering of (but not necessarily the sharing of) ones place as a being whose most valuable and propelling ability is his ability to execute actions that transcend mere survival and function (thinggs instinctual and animalistic) is en route to a growing sensation of significance. And THAT arrives by art, and nothing else. Thought alone cant do it.