What is Art?

An intelligent endeavour to inspire original thought in a pleasing or provoking way.....I guess.

Pleasing or provoking? No artist expects to be "pleased" by the making of the work. Nor does any artist expect to "please" anyone. And the provoking is decided later, long after the creative act (that was not witnessed by anyone). Folks will judge a work by means that an artist cant be bothered by. As a viewer, I dont want to be pleased yet I might get inspired, which could indeed mean I was provoked. If an artist designs his/her creative episode for the purpose/utility/function of "provoking"; then they are just more propogandists, documenters and illustrators - and there is never art in those places.

"What is Art?"

Creative expression no matter the forum, type, or quality of content...

Or perhaps I'm reading far too much into things and taking things way too literally.

Having disussed this at length while walking through an art gallery, I (and my brother) came to the conclusion that:

A tree is not art, it is functional, it's purpose is not to look nice, but to live, however a photo, a painting, a model or any human intervention may turn this tree into art.

Art doesn't have to evoke an emotion, I appreciate many artworks but feel no particular emotion towards any of it.Following on from this art is really defined by intention. Whether the art is good or bad is an individual opinion.
There are things which may be created as art and used for a function, while being used it is not art, it is a tool.

Art is anythng created for its form rather than function.

I'm sure there are many little ammendments to this statement to cover things, e.g.that were once created for function but now are only used as art - created being substituted with modified.

I tend to agree with Hegel when it comes to art, to view art as something which is simply sensuous is an outdated notion. There are very few accomplished, modern artists who will create a piece of art simply to look nice.

As Hegel would say, art must point to something beyond itself. This is clearly a function, and to view it as anything else is to misinterpret it.

This is also very similar to Kant, because as Kant says, in our first moment we see something as being beautiful, once we are past this first moment it is no longer beautiful and it turns into something that we see as good. This seems true (at least from a personal stand point) because I rarely focus on art solely on its beauty, almost any philosopher would look past this and ask what is it trying to convey? All this to say that function is a key part of art, the function is to convey something beyond itself.

This is also very similar to Kant, because as Kant says, in our first moment we see something as being beautiful, once we are past this first moment it is no longer beautiful and it turns into something that we see as good. This seems true (at least from a personal stand point) because I rarely focus on art solely on its beauty, almost any philosopher would look past this and ask what is it trying to convey? All this to say that function is a key part of art, the function is to convey something beyond itself.

Why must art "point to something beyond itself" - or have a moral inclination? Must art always, in order to be art, have social affect? I question why it couldn't be that art couldn't be made for the sake of beauty, as, as it were, an agent of beauty? Perhaps art is what beauty does?

I think Kant's belief on peoples' perception of art is - not so curiously - close-minded. It insists that all men interpret art in a fixed order of events: First as beautiful, then as good - that man first sees it as an affect of beauty, then applies a moral valuation to it to give it a, perhaps, more worldly air. And not all art, by that insistence, may be "good." Art may have negative, or bad, intentions, or, as it were, a bad affect. Beauty, I believe, is morally diverse: It may elicit beautiful or disastrous affects, and all such things in between. And indeed a piece of art may exist morally neutral. But whether a good piece of art - that is, well made and catches one's interest, if I may prescribe that definition - is good while it holds no interest morally is beyond one's philosophical interest until one wishes to describe one's interest in describing what a good piece of art would contain.

And for that, one may say that a good piece of art is one that one morally relates to, or one that holds whatever aesthetic qualities - certain mixtures of color, contours, etc. - that one is physically apt to appreciate.

I understand this is certainly not a discussion of Kant, however I’m inclined to believe your interpretation of Kant is flawed. When he describes our moments of experience what he defines as good should not be taken in a moral or ethical way. What he means by good is simply that it fulfills out views of what something should be. If a piece of art strikes us as beautiful we do not dwell in that, we try and see why we feel its beautiful. The good we see in art is what you would attribute to colours, brush strokes and form. Hence the good can be conceptualized
In response to the statement of why can’t art be made for beauty? It certainly can, however by simply making this claim shows a misrepresentation of Kant’s version of beauty and yours. “as it were, an agent of beauty?” The reason I say this is that if beauty – according to Kant – is not able to be conceptualized, how can you make a piece of art strictly to be beautiful.
Therefore I would say that the way you use beauty is more like the good. It is fulfilling a concept that the artist has of what he feels will please people. Therefore, it will point to something, this does not mean a social effect as you said. This means that the work of art is representing something other than “this thing is a painting”

Therefore I would say that the way you use beauty is more like the good. It is fulfilling a concept that the artist has of what he feels will please people. Therefore, it will point to something, this does not mean a social effect as you said. This means that the work of art is representing something other than “this thing is a painting”

Agreed Logic, art is necessarily function-less to be undiluted and untainted. And one's deepest encounters with ones own will can only occur during episodes totally FREE from the hum-drum, the duty and the repetitive chore of accomplishing a goal or fullfilling a need or satisfying a demand or, for god's sake, PLEASING people. There is no pure art involved in any of those kinds of common acts (though there is quite a bit of MISused creativity and borrowed significance among such meandering).

In fact, by the time the "painting" is there, the art is quite OVER. The artifact is no substitute for the act that brought it into being; cant even hold a candle to it. So the next time you're all impressed, inspired, infected, improved, transformed and illuminated by a certain work of art - well, you should have imagined what it was like to have been the artist. And THAT thought should set you going in search of your own absolutely unique, unwanted, unrequired, uncommissioned, unencouraged, uncommunicable, untranslatable and unlikely encounter with the creative haze that is compressed inside your consciousness - hoping that you have the nerve to act upon anything that does not simply get you some food, shelter, rest or amusement. Try it sometime...it is ncesarily painful but transcending.

Biologists, looking at adaptation, see our eye for beauty to be a search for that which enhances fitness. A beautiful person is one that is healthier (More symmetric features, see the research By Robert Trivers), is likelyto produce more and healthier children. A more beautiful scene depicts a habitat where we would have the best luck finding food, shelter, or safety from predators. But, "inspired" art might also try to catch spiritually relevant fitness, truth, say, which spiritually is thought to set us free from spiritual slavery.

I understand this is certainly not a discussion of Kant, however I’m inclined to believe your interpretation of Kant is flawed. When he describes our moments of experience what he defines as good should not be taken in a moral or ethical way. What he means by "good" is simply that it fulfills [our] views of what something should be. If a piece of art strikes us as beautiful we do not dwell in that; we try and see why we feel [it's] beautiful. The good we see in art is what you would attribute to colours, brush strokes, and form. Hence the good can be conceptualized.

In response to the statement: why can’t art be made for [beauty's sake]? It certainly can. However, by simply making this claim shows a misrepresentation of Kant’s version of beauty and yours. “... As it were, an agent of beauty?” The reason I say this is, that if beauty – according to Kant – [can't] be conceptualized, how can you make a piece of art strictly to be beautiful?

Therefore I would say that the way you use beauty is more like the good. It is fulfilling a concept that the artist has of what he feels will please people. Therefore, it will point to something, this does not mean a social effect as you said. This means that the work of art is representing something other than “this thing is a painting.”

Well, I think you're right. I've never been a reader of Kant - except in ethics class. But even then I've been rather averse to him - or rather, his writing.

Anyhow. Following off your interpretation of Kant - which I'm sure is probably right (I'll do my own reading when I get the chance) - I'll give my quick thought on Kant and aesthetics, and of a more general theory.

I would argue against art as being an instrument toward the good - what we understand to be good - that is, our expectations. Art, he says, apropos your description above, is something that can only be identified vie our understanding of the concept "art" - "... our views of what something should be" (my italics). But this strikes me as being, ultimately, very subjective - which is something I find throughout Kant's philosophy (i.e., his theory of deontology), or at least what I know of it.

And by that, one could see any number of things as being beautiful, and hence artful. Art, via one's personal description of beautiful, a definition of art would be universally changeable in that it's definition is variant person to person, subjective response upon subjective response to external stimuli. I find this incredibly problematic - and with deontology, too. Neither does it have any practical value: If the answer to "What is art?" is only identifiable by one's interpretation of beauty, what we think it should be, then we are competently nowhere to finding a real, or objective, definition for art.

But this is assuming that a definition would have to be objective - that it could only be found with the most scientific procedures, perhaps. There is an alternative theory - which I think I posted before - which I'm still wheeling on. Perhaps the objective nature of beauty is singular to our species. As far as I know, there isn't any other species that can conceptualize beauty - and whether birds, in being more "attracted" to other birds who have brighter colors, can conceptualize an idea of "art," or beauty, is debatable. Perhaps the ability to conceptualize something as "beautiful" is unique to us, to our consciousnesses. It's arguable; but if it is, it solves the problem of whether a definition of art must be found objectively or subjectively: Art is a phenomenon recognized solely in our unique capacity to view beauty; and "art" is, by way of that recognition, a qualitative term to describe the bundling of various things that form an object of beauty. That is, perhaps, an answer to the question: "[If] beauty... [can't] be conceptualized, how can you make a piece of art strictly to be beautiful?"

But for that, I wouldn't say that art is something necessarily created to "please people," or please their expectations. Even if we humans have the unique ability to recognize beauty and create things that satisfy that recognition, there still lies the problem of "meaning." Of a group of people, how many will see a piece of art in the same way, or having the same meaning? Other than "this thing is a painting"; attributing meaning to a piece of art must to subjective - that is to say, objective. The objective nature of "meaning" is singular to the thing which attributes meaning to it (and I mean emotional meaning, spiritual, psychological and the like; not that the meaning of the basic equation 2+2 is a potato chip and things like that). That is to say: Meaning in art - meaning in the ultimate product of acquired beauty - comes solely from the individual recognizing the piece of art. Meaning in art is universally subjective - or, objectively subjective.

Just a theory. I'm curious to see what you think of it.

Biologists, looking at adaptation, see our eye for beauty to be a search for that which enhances fitness. A beautiful person is one that is healthier (More symmetric features, see the research By Robert Trivers), is likelyto produce more and healthier children. A more beautiful scene depicts a habitat where we would have the best luck finding food, shelter, or safety from predators. But, "inspired" art might also try to catch spiritually relevant fitness, truth, say, which spiritually is thought to set us free from spiritual slavery.

I've always been curious about the notion of beauty in symmetry. This is a personal opinion, but I don't find very symmetric people particularly attractive; I'm rather overcome by boredom and a sense that something isn't right (I'm referring, of course, to models and people who have, I think, unneeded plastic surgery). Rather, the little differences in the features, the slight variation in contours - these things I find more attractive, more human, one might say. Though I would concede that being healthy is a feature that's particularly attractive.

The same with making this kind of "utopic" world: What's more attractive isn't having everything you need all the time, but always wanting it, always trying to get it. But this is from a subjective insistence for things to always be interesting - and not stagnant.

And I would apply the same to art. At some point symmetry and "proper" structure becomes boring, and then, for me, loses its aesthetic value. There needs to be change, progress, conflicting urges and the like. Ugliness - as it might be typically considered - has more aesthetic virtue than plain beauty does.

Very nice counter Stirling, I believe we are getting closer to the same idea of art. One point I would like to bring up is the idea that art is merely subjective. Your description of only humans being able to notice beauty is very similar to Kant’s; perhaps you took in more than you thought!

However, I think it is too easy to define art as being subjective. Certainly beauty is a different argument, however what we define as good art is very common. I believe that this is a case where for some reason we value everyone’s opinion when we shouldn’t.

If we were to look to Hume, and looked over what he says about this I think it would put a nice spin on this argument. Hume argued that there is in general, a large number that agree on what is beautiful and what is art. He argued that if people have a conflicting view it is because perhaps they are not as experienced with art, or they bring a prejudice to the experience. One must view art in the context the artist intended to view it, and in doing so one is being generous to the artwork.

I have always found it interesting that art is one of the view arguments where the claim that everyone sees it differently holds, when of course everyone’s opinion shouldn’t necessarily be valued.

'Art' may perhaps be understood as a human expression that reflects the nature of God that persists from within.

Very nice counter Stirling, I believe we are getting closer to the same idea of art. One point I would like to bring up is the idea that art is merely subjective. Your description of only humans being able to notice beauty is very similar to Kant’s; perhaps you took in more than you thought!

However, I think it is too easy to define art as being subjective. Certainly beauty is a different argument, however what we define as good art is very common. I believe that this is a case where for some reason we value everyone’s opinion when we shouldn’t.

If we were to look to Hume, and [look] over what he says about this, I think it would put a nice spin on this argument. Hume argued that there is in general, a large number that agree on what is beautiful and what is art. He argued that if people have a conflicting view it is because perhaps they are not as experienced with art, or they bring a prejudice to the experience. One must view art in the context the artist intended to view it, and in doing so one is being generous to the artwork.

I have always found it interesting that art is one of the view arguments where the claim that everyone sees it differently holds, when of course everyone’s opinion shouldn’t necessarily be valued.

Well, it's similar to Kant insofar as the focus of aesthetic recognition is singular to humans. But I believe the reasons why might be different: As far as I can tell, humans are the only animals in nature (I realize what a large stipulation this is; but there's nothing I know of yet that's against this point) that recognize "beauty," and then art; whereas Kant, I believe, takes it as a given.

And, of course, I don't describe beauty and art as being merely "subjective," but rather "objectively subjective" - I do think there is a distinction to be made. If man is the only thing that recognizes beauty, then we are, in nature, animals with the sole ability to objectively recognize what is beautiful and artful; the only variable is interpretation, which is wholly a psychological matter.The forms of beauty and art are man's, as far as I one can tell.

I actually think I take more from Jung on this point: the collective unconscious and the personal unconscious. The collective unconscious "collects and organizes... personal experiences in a similar way with each member of a particular species"; while the personal unconscious takes in all the affects of nature and interprets them in its individual ways. I take this theory to distinguish between what is ultimately singular to each individual of our species, and what's - to maybe even the lightest degrees - universal to it. Though man may have a universal ability to recognize beauty, the way they interpret it is different man to man. So, though we can objectively recognize what beauty and art are, the forms of them, the concept of them in made material, we nevertheless interpret the beautiful and artful subjectively.

In some sense, then, I agree with you that we shouldn't value everyone's opinion on what is beautiful: Certain people make it their duties to specialize in the refinement of beauty; their opinion should perhaps be taken more seriously than those who don's specialize in it. And, besides Hume, I think J.S. Mill would verily agree: he would argue - as he does in his "Utilitarianism" - that what is the good might best be accepted after all the information is available and understood. That is: We can't all understand what is high art, or good art, because we don't all have the qualifying information that we can form such opinions as to recognize, objectively, what that is. But I don't think this precludes an innate ability to at least recognize beauty and art.

And I guess, following from that, the best way to interpret a work is by knowing what the artist meant by it. But, of course, it's not always the case that an artist knows what he means by his work: sometimes the work is made in the motions of passion or other such impulses, and only after does the artist give it some meaning. For that, one might say that the piece of art - after the artist has organized all his beauties - is just as individually interpreted by the artist as it is by the gallery-filler. But I think that, supposing an artist had in mind a specific meaning while he was, there might very well be an objective meaning to the art via the artist.

But there might be a pre-visor on this point: that it does depend on the nature of the art. There is perhaps a difference between an "abstract painting" and a more realistic painting; that there is a difference between a painting that's a mesh of colors (perhaps by Picasso) that forms some puzzle-like thing, and a painting that's especially trying to imitate real life. I would argue that there is more individual meaning in the art by the abstract painter than there is by the imitator. Can we suppose that, in the case of the imitator, there is identical objectivity with the artist as there is with the abstract painter? I don't think so. If the purpose of the painting is to imitate real life, can't it be that - because of the vagueness of real life - the painting would be open to any interpretation, and not just the artists'? I would suppose that real life, even in imitation, would be something for the masses to figure out. Though, perhaps there is a profession of more learned people who would understand that better.

But I ultimately do agree with you: Not everyone's interpretation matters all the time; some people are more educated and capable in interpreting and understanding things.

'Art' may perhaps be understood as a human expression that reflects the nature of God that persists from within.

Do you have an argument for this stipulation?

I call it passage to every man soul. Art is not about the beauty and wonderful creation nor graceful dance and soothing music, there’s more than that. It is the best way for one can express all the feelings and emotions he or she is keeping. In paintings, you can say what the author wanted to convey just by seeing the canvass. Here on art we are able to show other the real us, the person behind that face even we didn’t intend to. This may be done in the form of music, writing, dancing or drawing.
And oh it is a great stress reliever and a good diversion too to skip unwanted things even temporarily.

Surviving is diversion. There are available, though, episodes of significance if one is willing to suffer the pain of departing, temporarily, into a "place" of maximum self-determination; a place where one in not "doing" to solve, resolve, beautify, fix, accomplish or say anything to anyone else. And in that place the "art" occurs by the gains made from the event. If there is an artifact, a song or some maintainable evidence of that event, then it must be understood that THAT is only incidentally (and slightly, by comparison) impactful to any outsiders that may encounter it.

The PEAR researchers believe that they have identified or measured a cosmic consciouness, that art critics seem to suggest suggest is at work in identifying good, or at least timely art. What would be "inspiration" would be sensitivity to some univeral mind, thought or feeling, that the artist brings into focus for us whose artisic vision is not so keen. For example, "artists" making movies after WWII thought, correctky, that we needed a John Wayne approach to good. But after Vietnam, we were more tuned into a Clint Eastwood approach.