What Is Art? 2.0

[Thomyum2]

Story is more craft than art. The manner of presentation of story or whatever, a matter of skill, has nothing to do with what art is.

If you are too elitist in your definitions, you will find the amount of art you are able to discuss or consider to be severely limited, I think.

I think that to write, and to tell, a good story is art, just as writing a theatrical play and acting in it are also art. How limited do you want 'art' to be?

1. Doing or creating something on purpose is not art. This applies to cooking, telling story, kite-making, and so on. Call that CRAFT. Don't mix fast food with fine cuisine, not that there is anything wrong with fast food.
2. Art can be incorporated in the product, like dragon or dragonfly painted on the kite.
3. Make a kite not for flying, but to display on the wall. You are creating artwork.
4. You tell me a story. I cannot categorically deny that you are engaging artistic endeavor. Depends on the story's artistic content.
4. Call any endeavor art, and art will be degraded to identify with production. Art deserves its place in the sun.

I think there is some truth to what both of you are saying. Art does require craftsmanship - it's the structure that provides the foundation for art and is what allows it to endure. So an artist must first master their medium: a poet or novelist must have a command of the language and knowledge of the idiom; a musician must develop a skillful technique; architects must understand their materials and know the mechanics of construction; dancers must master the movements of their bodies; etc. Without these foundations, art is temporary - flimsy and unmemorable - it is ignored or disappears in a short time.

But though craftsmanship is necessary, it isn't sufficient. The other aspect of art is that is contains an idea. It doesn't just exist as a functional or decorative object, it also expresses. A work that is just a copy of something isn't art - art must have something original that comes from the artist's experience in life, from their imagination and their unique vision - in other words, art comes from the artist's heart and soul.

So I've always thought that art is more than just a form of enjoyment or entertainment: the essence of art is that it is a form of communication. Like a language, art isn't just meant to be perceived - it's also meant to be understood. To understand it requires a familiarity with the grammar and vocabulary, although with art this often occurs at a subconscious level. Art is always bound to a social and cultural context, and to a time in history, and uses the symbols of that culture and era to speak. Artists will draw from the things they see, compose from the sounds they hear, and write stories that come from the communities and they live in, and those elements that we share will resonate with us and have meaning when we experience their art. Just as we share a language by a mutual understanding of what the words mean, we experience art through a mutual familiarity with its building blocks. What resonates for one person may or may not be meaningful to another, because we all bring our own unique backgrounds with us to the art that we experience. But if we take the time to become familiar with the works and to learn the background, we can partake of the experience of others from different cultures and other times.

To define art (literally to 'set boundaries' around art) i.e. to decide what qualifies as art and what doesn't, or to try to decide what is good art or isn't good art, is in my opinion not a very useful exercise. Since we all experience is differently, we will all set those boundaries in different places. The more interest question is why do we react a certain way to a certain work of art? What is happening in that work that is able to draw of out those feelings from inside us - what does it reveal about ourselves and about the artist who made it?

I think if we want to understand art, there's no substitute for simply investing the time to get to know it - to not just react to it and decide if we like it or not, but to experience it with an open mind and heart, to give it our full attention. It's like getting to know a person - the only way to do that is to spend time with them. It's a lifetime's work, but over time and with the effort, art's ideas and meanings will emerge and reveal themselves to us.

[Thomyum2]

Perhaps, the more restrictive the understanding of art is the more elitist it becomes. The idea of creating something on purpose as not being art is a way of mystifying it. There is the issue of copying and representing in relation to the creative process. However, even the word 'artificial' has art in its prefix, so to remove the aspect of art being created deliberately may be unhelpful in understanding art. It would be removing it from the realm of conscious acts of creation. It could be asked to what extent the creative process is separate or related to the process of gaining awareness in life. To separate creativity from conscious awareness may be a complete muddle.

Yes! Especially as it is often the case that creativity emerges from our minds - i.e. our non-conscious minds too.

It may be that the process of creativity, as expressed in what is expressed in art, is part of the process of understanding mind and aspects which may be not conscious. The representations arising from imagination may give rise to works which may viewed and wondered about in connection with the symbolic and aesthetics, alongside reason, as aspects of appreciation and philosophical understanding of life.

Yes!

I agree with both of you, as I've similarly elaborated in my post above. I may have shared this quote before, from the Wikipedia article on Kant's Critique of Judgment, but I think it's pertinent to what you're both saying here and worth posting again:

The central concept of Kant's analysis of the judgment of beauty is what he called the ″free play″ between the cognitive powers of imagination and understanding. We call an object beautiful, because its form fits our cognitive powers and enables such a ″free play″, the experience of which is pleasurable to us. The judgment that something is beautiful is a claim that it possesses the "form of finality" — that is, that it appears to have been designed with a purpose, even though it does not have any apparent practical function.

[gad-fly]

To define art (literally to 'set boundaries' around art) i.e. to decide what qualifies as art and what doesn't, or to try to decide what is good art or isn't good art, is in my opinion not a very useful exercise.

Your participation has brought discussion to a higher level. I am inclined not to give complicated answer to a simple question. A product is what it serves. A weapon is not a weapon if it does not hurt. Sharp or not is another question. This approach is akin to management by result.

Art should not be confused with artwork. The proverbial JackyDaydream painting is artwork, but is the product art? Not necessarily. Some, not me, may even consider it junk. No offense, even in this respect. Why artwork? Because he creates it expressly for the purpose of creating art. But what is art?

Art is not just some product that will shake you, or some product with its own justification for being. It is not just beauty to be enjoyed. Not just for entertainment. Not just something you buy at auction. It is not even just high-brow (as in proletarian art). What is it? I shall define it in one simple sentence. It is a product that will move most of you spiritually, absent any other thought on your mind, like compassion, being fair, and so on.

[JackDaydream]

To define art (literally to 'set boundaries' around art) i.e. to decide what qualifies as art and what doesn't, or to try to decide what is good art or isn't good art, is in my opinion not a very useful exercise.

Your participation has brought discussion to a higher level. I am inclined not to give complicated answer to a simple question. A product is what it serves. A weapon is not a weapon if it does not hurt. Sharp or not is another question. This approach is akin to management by result.

Art should not be confused with artwork. The proverbial JackyDaydream painting is artwork, but is the product art? Not necessarily. Some, not me, may even consider it junk. No offense, even in this respect. Why artwork? Because he creates it expressly for the purpose of creating art. But what is art?

Art is not just some product that will shake you, or some product with its own justification for being. It is not just beauty to be enjoyed. Not just for entertainment. Not just something you buy at auction. It is not even just high-brow (as in proletarian art). What is it? I shall define it in one simple sentence. It is a product that will move most of you spiritually, absent any other thought on your mind, like compassion, being fair, and so on.

When you refer to my artwork are you referring to my silly
avatar which is a cartoon of me which I drew on my phone. The question of whether this is art or not is a good one as it was about me fiddling around trying to draw on my phone. One of the biggest problems was that images on the phone can only take very small megabytes which gave restrictions in detail. Also, I may have done better if I had got a stylus pen that enables fine drawing on a phone because I drew my avatar with my finger. I apologise for how atrocious it is and may try to create a better avatar image at some point.

So, perhaps my avatar ends up raising the question of what is rubbish and what is art and on that basis it may be that I am declared an antiartist. I do have an art portfolio but would not know how to upload my art onto the site. However, I hope that on the basis of having created the most terrible self portrait ever that I am not disqualified from discussion about what is art.

[gad-fly]

When you refer to my artwork are you referring to my silly avatar which is a cartoon of me which I drew on my phone.
So, perhaps my avatar ends up raising the question of what is rubbish and what is art and on that basis it may be that I am declared an antiartist. I hope that on the basis of having created the most terrible self portrait ever that I am not disqualified from discussion about what is art.

I am referring to what you have said below:
When I joined a watercolour painting class, I found myself in a group in which people were wishing to paint vases of flowers and still life. I was wishing to paint scenes like punks in Camden Town. The tutor seemed a bit baffled by me. It ended up being a compromise with me doing some still life and she did set some exercises to give me scope for my ideas.

That proverbial painting of yours is just a referral which may apply to any painting, which may be art, trash, or something in between, but definitely artwork. Hence "proverbial". My statement is never meant to be personal attack against your artistic talent. Sorry if I have offended you. No. You are never disqualified. Banish the thought.

It is about time to make a break. The decision cannot be blamed on anyone but myself. I shall exit this post after Page 3 is filled. Thanks for long-suffering viewers like you to endure me.

[LuckyR]

To define art (literally to 'set boundaries' around art) i.e. to decide what qualifies as art and what doesn't, or to try to decide what is good art or isn't good art, is in my opinion not a very useful exercise.

Your participation has brought discussion to a higher level. I am inclined not to give complicated answer to a simple question. A product is what it serves. A weapon is not a weapon if it does not hurt. Sharp or not is another question. This approach is akin to management by result.

Art should not be confused with artwork. The proverbial JackyDaydream painting is artwork, but is the product art? Not necessarily. Some, not me, may even consider it junk. No offense, even in this respect. Why artwork? Because he creates it expressly for the purpose of creating art. But what is art?

Art is not just some product that will shake you, or some product with its own justification for being. It is not just beauty to be enjoyed. Not just for entertainment. Not just something you buy at auction. It is not even just high-brow (as in proletarian art). What is it? I shall define it in one simple sentence. It is a product that will move most of you spiritually, absent any other thought on your mind, like compassion, being fair, and so on.

What do you call a piece that moves one person spiritually, absent any other thought in his mind? How about 10 people? Or a thousand?

The difference you are trying to describe between a phone created avatar and the Mona Lisa as artwork vs Art, I would describe as two pieces of art, one of which is of poor quality (low to absent artistic merit) vs a masterpiece.

[Pattern-chaser]

Personally, I prefer Kandinsky, or the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. But that's the thing about art. There are no right answers. There is no art that everyone likes ... and that's not a problem for anyone. We are free to like what we like, for any reason, or for no reason at all. There are no rules concerning art. Art is art if it is presented as such, or if I care to see it as such. My choice. That's what makes art so great, and so inclusive - you can take it or leave it as you wish.

</rant>

[gad-fly]

[
What do you call a piece that moves one person spiritually, absent any other thought in his mind? How about 10 people? Or a thousand?

The difference you are trying to describe between a phone created avatar and the Mona Lisa as artwork vs Art, I would describe as two pieces of art, one of which is of poor quality (low to absent artistic merit) vs a masterpiece.

Art is what moves people spiritually. Different for different piece of art, and different for different people. The variation in intensity is what distinguishes phone-created-avatar from Mona Lisa. Say you have painted another smiling lady, and you claim it better than the Mona Lisa, but thousand others say No. Fine, but your artwork is less valued, artistically, because it moves people less, in volume as well as in degree. If it moves none, including you, then it is not art. I would not comment on whether yours is good or bad art.

[LuckyR]

[
What do you call a piece that moves one person spiritually, absent any other thought in his mind? How about 10 people? Or a thousand?

The difference you are trying to describe between a phone created avatar and the Mona Lisa as artwork vs Art, I would describe as two pieces of art, one of which is of poor quality (low to absent artistic merit) vs a masterpiece.

Art is what moves people spiritually. Different for different piece of art, and different for different people. The variation in intensity is what distinguishes phone-created-avatar from Mona Lisa. Say you have painted another smiling lady, and you claim it better than the Mona Lisa, but thousand others say No. Fine, but your artwork is less valued, artistically, because it moves people less, in volume as well as in degree. If it moves none, including you, then it is not art. I would not comment on whether yours is good or bad art.

Got it. In that case, we are in complete agreement.

[gad-fly]

Got it. In that case, we are in complete agreement.

The post: "Good or bad arts?" in May 2018, spreads over 5 pages. Wrong question. My feeling of art not being good or bad is clear. Would you like to create a new post on art being intensive or shallow, mind-blowing or numb, and so on? I can do it if you like.

[JackDaydream]

Got it. In that case, we are in complete agreement.

The post: "Good or bad arts?" in May 2018, spreads over 5 pages. Wrong question. My feeling of art not being good or bad is clear. Would you like to create a new post on art being intensive or shallow, mind-blowing or numb, and so on? I can do it if you like.

The idea may work but it may be that you need to read up on art theory in order to do this. You may need to be able to understand aspects of the history of art, especially the movement of postmodernism. I am not saying that you have not read on art at all but to write a thread on depth as opposed to the shallow you need to be able to talk about it in a critical and analytical way. In some ways, I thought your thread was good but it would have been better if you had been able to go beyond your own opinion, because that was the main weakness which I saw with your thread. That is only my opinion though, and the thread may get more replies, even if you don't reply to them because you wish for a break..

You are not saying that you will necessarily write the thread and have even suggested that someone else might write it. Also, it may be possible that the question which you have raised about shallowness and depth could be pursued in this thread now that you have raised it. This thread could be developed further even though it has gone from the front page, especially as arts threads get buried in that section less easily as there are less threads. I know that you said you only wished for 3 pages but that is short. There is a big difference between those of 3 pages and those of 50 or more.

[gad-fly]

The idea may work but it may be that you need to read up on art theory in order to do this. You may need to be able to understand aspects of the history of art, especially the movement of postmodernism. I am not saying that you have not read on art at all but to write a thread on depth as opposed to the shallow you need to be able to talk about it in a critical and analytical way.
it may be possible that the question which you have raised about shallowness and depth could be pursued in this thread now that you have raised it.

You may be right about the need to read up. I am inclined to take the pedestrian/layman angle.

This site caters for brief and summary discussion. I would normally leap and skip if a post or reply is over 20 lines or so. Hence it would be a waste of time to delve into analysis and debate in depth. Take climate change. I can write 10 pages, but the reply may be : what is wrong with being hot?

In most cases, after the first few pages, discussion will move away to side issues until one cannot recognize the title. it labors to keep track, like fishing from the sand.

I would like to keep the topic neat and tidy, and to raise a new post even though it may be related. By the way, you can do it too. Just let us know in advance.

[JackDaydream]

The idea may work but it may be that you need to read up on art theory in order to do this. You may need to be able to understand aspects of the history of art, especially the movement of postmodernism. I am not saying that you have not read on art at all but to write a thread on depth as opposed to the shallow you need to be able to talk about it in a critical and analytical way.
it may be possible that the question which you have raised about shallowness and depth could be pursued in this thread now that you have raised it.

You may be right about the need to read up. I am inclined to take the pedestrian/layman angle.

This site caters for brief and summary discussion. I would normally leap and skip if a post or reply is over 20 lines or so. Hence it would be a waste of time to delve into analysis and debate in depth. Take climate change. I can write 10 pages, but the reply may be : what is wrong with being hot?

In most cases, after the first few pages, discussion will move away to side issues until one cannot recognize the title. it labors to keep track, like fishing from the sand.

I would like to keep the topic neat and tidy, and to raise a new post even though it may be related. By the way, you can do it too. Just let us know in advance.

I may do some post on the arts but probably not the visual arts. I would like to do one on fiction and philosophy in the near futbut I am trying not to keep creating them too soon because people will get entirely
sick of me coming up with endless threads.

It is hard to know how long to make introductions and how much theory to include. It is probably because people come from such different perspectives. I tend to waffle on at times because I want to go into some depth. I also like reading, so do like some detail in replies I receive but not so much that it is a page with no white spaces. Sometimes, more can be said in less words, but not always. Being concise is an art but it may be that depth requires more analysis.

Also, writing a thread in the philosophy of the arts may be not simple because it is not the most popular section. The philosophy of the art or the arts may be a neglected area within philosophy itself. The arts themselves draw on philosophy though, especially literary theory, which is why I mentioned postmodernism. Phenomenology is also central, although it is hard to know to what extent these areas are what readers and writers on this particular forum are interested in.

[Pattern-chaser]

Fine, but your artwork is less valued, artistically, because it moves people less, in volume as well as in degree.

The end of this chain of reasoning says that some art is 'better' than some other art. I don't think this is a defensible position. I think it compromises and devalues "art" as a concept as well as a reality.

[Thomyum2]

Fine, but your artwork is less valued, artistically, because it moves people less, in volume as well as in degree.

The end of this chain of reasoning says that some art is 'better' than some other art. I don't think this is a defensible position. I think it compromises and devalues "art" as a concept as well as a reality.

I agree. De gustibus non est disputandum.

The world has plenty of room for all kinds of art.