What s Art? 3.0

[Pattern-chaser]

The original question asked was “What is Art”and one must stay on point.

Yes, but it is starting to look like the question was posed with one particular answer in mind; with one particular answer expected.

[tjjt1936]

I am sure my posts answered both. Is there one answer and are there many. The original question has been exhaustingly dealt by several distinguished professors, art critics and philosophers in articles and journals published during the last 50 or so years. This thread cannot answer the question adequately.

[gad-fly]

What don’t you understand? One cannot define art absolutely. It is an open concept. As for the artist’s response, the Minimalist claimed to have the final answer with their works. For them art is simply order, abstract order structures with all other content removed. Of course their response was limited as have been all the attempts stated in the replies submitted. The original question asked was “What is Art”and one must stay on point.

The title is not meant to define art absolutely. Yours should not be an attempt to outdo the dictionary or google search on the definition of art.

The Minimalist claim is as good as what others claim. Some are born tasteless, and some sensitive and artistic. It takes all sorts. Most have some taste. Hence public opinion is generated on what a specific work of art inspires, and what not. For the tasteless, art is no more than a tradable and valueless commodity. To them, the market for art is established by the appetite of fools. For the sensitive and appreciative, art, unlike food, is beyond satiation, like paradise.

There are different levels of art appreciation. Some levels can be very exquisite. How and why would be difficult to explain. You can be born artistic, and you may even be influenced, to some degree. If you are dumb and numb, and you do not care, that is fine.

[tjjt1936]

Question: What is Art? Answer: if one tries to define art, he would include some while excluding others. There is no absolute definition that is all inclusive. So if one believes they can define it they are delusional. Your last comments were irrelevant to the question. I am not sure what your intentions are. Do you wish to expand knowledge about defining art or are you looking for an entertaining thread going nowhere because no one will stay on one necessary point, which is concerned with defining art.

[gad-fly]

Question: What is Art? Answer: if one tries to define art, he would include some while excluding others. There is no absolute definition that is all inclusive. So if one believes they can define it they are delusional. Your last comments were irrelevant to the question. I am not sure what your intentions are. Do you wish to expand knowledge about defining art or are you looking for an entertaining thread going nowhere because no one will stay on one necessary point, which is concerned with defining art.

What is beauty? What is What is inspiration? What is taste? 'There is no absolute definition that is all inclusive." Agreed. It is futile to bother about art if you have never come across it in you life. Just stay satisfied.

[tjjt1936]

Beauty is not popular today. Taste may not be worth the time, but questions regarding the artwork could be a good issue. One could talk about the origin if inspiration or the genesis of an artwork or is the difference between the artwork and a utilitarian work or a design work. One I believe needs experience with art making, but there are mental functions associated with the making of things. Philosophy has these issues as part of art criticism, aesthetics and art making. May I remind you? One should have years of experience to be involved with ideas not commonly discussed. Without the background one can have difficulty separating and making distinctions to clarify their thoughts.

[Thomyum2]

The title is not meant to define art absolutely. Yours should not be an attempt to outdo the dictionary or google search on the definition of art.

The Minimalist claim is as good as what others claim. Some are born tasteless, and some sensitive and artistic. It takes all sorts. Most have some taste. Hence public opinion is generated on what a specific work of art inspires, and what not. For the tasteless, art is no more than a tradable and valueless commodity. To them, the market for art is established by the appetite of fools. For the sensitive and appreciative, art, unlike food, is beyond satiation, like paradise.

There are different levels of art appreciation. Some levels can be very exquisite. How and why would be difficult to explain. You can be born artistic, and you may even be influenced, to some degree. If you are dumb and numb, and you do not care, that is fine.

I have always taken the position that one should steer clear of making claims that try to rank art or assert that one work or body of works somehow occupies a 'higher' level than another. Art is multidimensional, so a work that excels in one aspect may not in another. If one is in the position of judging a competition or selecting work for an exhibit or concert, one will need to pick works that fit certain criteria, but beyond that function I think that the activity of assigning a rank or level of the quality to any artist or work of art is arbitrary and easily and often devolves into snobbery. As for what is 'tasteful' or 'tasteless', I would cite the phrase that often comes up in discussion of aesthetics: de gustibus non est disputandum. While tastes and preferences may make for interesting discussion or argument, they are not really relevant or useful tools, and my experience has been that too much emphasis on them can actually impede one's ability to get to know and understand new art as they really only serve to close one's mind.

Asking 'what is art?' is liking asking 'what is life'. The diversity is so broad that definitions become more hindrance than help to understanding. I would say, if you want to understand art then you just have to get to know art. Like getting to know a person, it is a process of developing a relationship more than it is attaining an object of knowledge. To know art, you have to live with it, spend time with it, study it, learn about it's history and background, discuss it with others, let it become a companion to you and a part of your community. Understanding art is a process that is ever growing and evolving - there's never a point that we arrive at where we have an answer and can say 'now I know what this is'. This is why I say that art is like a living creature. I think there's a reason that the Greeks embodied the spirit of art in the Muses - living beings that represented the living spirit of the arts.

[gad-fly]

I have always taken the position that one should steer clear of making claims that try to rank art or assert that one work or body of works somehow occupies a 'higher' level than another . . . While tastes and preferences may make for interesting discussion or argument, they are not really relevant or useful tools.

Asking 'what is art?' is liking asking 'what is life'. The diversity is so broad that definitions become more hindrance than help to understanding. . . This is why I say that art is like a living creature.

It appears you are still stuck with definition, making claims, and valuation of art in general. By nature we make comparison in every walk of life. Your portrait by a 5-year old, and the Mona Lisa. Would you compare his strictly with other kid sketches, to avoid the risk of being called snobbish? Fair to say to the kid: Great artwork. A future Picasso.

Art and life are different realms. Life has to be experienced, and to live through in a lifetime. Art inspires, and that inspiration is beyond your grasp. Art touches, shakes and shock you before you know. Make no difference on age, wealth, education, race, and so on. Compare art with taste. How do you explain to someone who has no taste? Better allow him to call you snobbish, than to be fair to all.

[Magnus Anderson]

What don’t you understand? One cannot define art absolutely. It is an open concept.

I don't know what an open concept is. If you're saying that the meaning of the word "art" changes through time then my response would be that it's irrelevant since we're not talking about the future. If you're saying that the meaning differs from one person to another, my response would once again be that it's irrelevant because we're focusing on all or some of the ways in which the word is defined. Either way, it doesn't seem like you're bringing anything substantial to the table.

Yes, but it is starting to look like the question was posed with one particular answer in mind; with one particular answer expected.

Yes, the so-called right answer. That's why people ask questions in the first place. Otherwise, what's the point of questions? What's the point of questions if every answer is as good and as bad as every other?

Question: What is Art? Answer: if one tries to define art, he would include some while excluding others. There is no absolute definition that is all inclusive. So if one believes they can define it they are delusional.

If you know how to do it, you will do it [define art, completely or partially]. If you don't, you won't. It's all about how capable one is in terms of discovering and verbally describing what words mean. I say let people try. Yours seems to be "It's impossible, so don't even try". I say "It's not impossible, so give it a try". And you don't have to define words completely i.e. by specifying the full set of conditions. Partial definitions are a perfectly good start. It really seems like you are against this particular subject and you just want to shut it down. "Don't bother with it, it's futile!"

Asking 'what is art?' is liking asking 'what is life'. The diversity is so broad that definitions become more hindrance than help to understanding.

I completely disagree. In fact, I would say that this tendency to avoid definitions is quite anti-intellectual. And if you're not interested in definition then what exactly are you doing in this thread?

The concept of art already exists in people's minds (yours too.) All that is asked is for people to look at that concept and verbally describe what they see. That's certainly not impossible -- it's not even that difficult -- and it's certainly valuable.

I would say, if you want to understand art then you just have to get to know art. Like getting to know a person, it is a process of developing a relationship more than it is attaining an object of knowledge. To know art, you have to live with it, spend time with it, study it, learn about it's history and background, discuss it with others, let it become a companion to you and a part of your community. Understanding art is a process that is ever growing and evolving - there's never a point that we arrive at where we have an answer and can say 'now I know what this is'. This is why I say that art is like a living creature. I think there's a reason that the Greeks embodied the spirit of art in the Muses - living beings that represented the living spirit of the arts.

So you're saying "Do everything except for one thing: never ever dare to define the word art".

[Thomyum2]

I have always taken the position that one should steer clear of making claims that try to rank art or assert that one work or body of works somehow occupies a 'higher' level than another . . . While tastes and preferences may make for interesting discussion or argument, they are not really relevant or useful tools.

Asking 'what is art?' is liking asking 'what is life'. The diversity is so broad that definitions become more hindrance than help to understanding. . . This is why I say that art is like a living creature.

It appears you are still stuck with definition, making claims, and valuation of art in general.

I have no idea how you reached that conclusion based on my post.

By nature we make comparison in every walk of life. Your portrait by a 5-year old, and the Mona Lisa. Would you compare his strictly with other kid sketches, to avoid the risk of being called snobbish? Fair to say to the kid: Great artwork. A future Picasso.

Art and life are different realms. Life has to be experienced, and to live through in a lifetime. Art inspires, and that inspiration is beyond your grasp. Art touches, shakes and shock you before you know. Make no difference on age, wealth, education, race, and so on. Compare art with taste. How do you explain to someone who has no taste? Better allow him to call you snobbish, than to be fair to all.

It's true that by nature we make comparisons, and there's nothing wrong with doing so, and I actually think that's an important part of understanding art. But that's not what I said nor what I meant - I'm saying that we should avoid the tendency to rank everything - to always be applying the judgment of what work is 'better' than another or which artist is 'greater'. Every work, and every person's interaction with a work, is individual and unique - it's an entire world in and of itself. I find that if my mind is focused on trying to decide how 'good' something is - whether or not it measures up to some standard I have in my head - then I risk missing the meaning and the spirit of what is right in front of me. One's mind should be fully present to the art being experienced at the moment. If you're looking at your 5-year-old's portrait but thinking about how much better the Mona Lisa is, then you're going to miss the essence of the child's creation. Now if the child wants to improve his or her skills, then there's much to be learned a Leonardo or Picasso as they were masters of their craft. But no, the child shouldn't try to be a 'future Picasso' - they can only reach their full potential by finding their own authentic expression - not by trying to be 'as good' as someone else.

Regarding 'the risk of being called snobbish' - I think you've missed my point here as well. I have no special desire to avoid being called a snob (I've been called that before, and sometimes deservedly so), but I do try to avoid being one. When we start thinking that we know better than others what is good in the way of art, then we can easily slip into thinking that we are superior to others because of our own artistic preferences. When we say a person 'has no taste', we're not usually saying that they don't have any tastes at all, but rather are implying that their tastes are inferior to our own. I've been as guilty as anyone of thinking along these lines at times, but I believe that it's wrong and that it also closes our minds to the potential for understanding new forms of art.

There's a story about the composer Charles Ives that I find inspiring, about something his musician father taught him while growing up. According to one biographer: One of his father's most resonant pieces of wisdom came when he said of a stonemason's off-key hymn singing: "Look into his face and hear the music of the ages. Don't pay too much attention to the sounds--for if you do, you may miss the music. You won't get a wild, heroic ride to heaven on pretty little sounds." This resonates for me too because I've found that, as wonderful as perfect technical and master skill may be, the real spirit of art isn't to be found in those, but in the soul and spirit that artists put into their work.

[Thomyum2]

Asking 'what is art?' is liking asking 'what is life'. The diversity is so broad that definitions become more hindrance than help to understanding.

I completely disagree. In fact, I would say that this tendency to avoid definitions is quite anti-intellectual. And if you're not interested in definition then what exactly are you doing in this thread?

The concept of art already exists in people's minds (yours too.) All that is asked is for people to look at that concept and verbally describe what they see. That's certainly not impossible -- it's not even that difficult -- and it's certainly valuable.

What am I doing in this thread? - that's a question I ask myself more and more often on this forum.

But seriously, I'm here because I'm interested in the discussion. I'm not opposed to or trying to avoid definitions, nor am I trying to be anti-intellectual. And sure, it is valuable to articulate and discuss our ideas about these things, and what I'd call 'working definitions' have their place and are useful within contexts. But I just do happen to feel that nature of art makes it impossible to formally define in a way that works universally.

Perhaps I have a different understanding of 'define' than you are using - in my mind, asking someone 'to look at a concept and verbally describe what they see' is not the same thing as defining it. To define is, literally speaking, to set limits or boundaries - in the case of the question 'what is art?' - it's to determine where the lines are between what is and isn't art. In my experience, the question can't be answered because the nature of art - its diversity, its cultural context, and its state of perpetually change - is such what is art to one person or to one culture or one era is often not art to another. It seems to always eventually lead to the statement (which has also appeared here on these threads) that art is whatever we think art is. And I don't think that's a very useful definition.

Personally I think a better model for understanding art, rather than reaching for a definition, is something along the lines of Wittgenstein's concept of 'Family Resemblances' where (I quote from Wikipedia here) "things which could be thought to be connected by one essential common feature may in fact be connected by a series of overlapping similarities, where no one feature is common to all of the things." I think this is true of art, which exists on such a wide spectrum, that there isn't a single way to identify it - it's indeed like an extended family that encompasses many different forms and means of expression, some of which are radically different from others. Which is why, going back to my previous post, I argue that the best way to understand what art is it to just begin getting to know specific instances of art and grow from there, just as to get to know any 'family', you have to start by getting to know the individuals within that family.

So you're saying "Do everything except for one thing: never ever dare to define the word art".

No, not saying that at all, I'm just offering my thoughts on the question. But I'm open to hearing how others define the word and ready to be persuaded how it can be done.

[gad-fly]

It's true that by nature we make comparisons - I'm saying that we should avoid the tendency to rank everything - to always be applying the judgment.

but rather are implying that their tastes are inferior to our own. I've been as guilty as anyone of thinking along these lines at times, but I believe that it's wrong and that it also closes our minds to the potential for understanding new forms of art.

the real spirit of art isn't to be found in those, but in the soul and spirit that artists put into their work.

Agreed that to compare and rank are normal and frequent, though not every time, in which case it would be mean.

What is wrong implying some has inferior or no taste? Risk closing our mind to his potential? It would be nice to respond every time with: Great, Wonderful, Fantastic, and so on. Saying Hmm . . . may invite disappointment. Saying No will provoke. Better to flatter than to annoy. We all know that. But let us go back to the subject matter. Art is one of the few things you enjoy in life. Some may even say it is what makes life worth living for, but not how to make friends and influence people. I would say art is one of the rare place where you can be true to yourself, not minding how others do. If you are serious about art, you should be be bold enough to say: this elevates me; this is rubbish.

On the last point, I suggest that the spirit of art should be on art rather than on the artist.

[gad-fly]

I argue that the best way to understand what art is it to just begin getting to know specific instances of art and grow from there.

The best way to art is: Hate what you hate, like what you like, and enjoy it most. Don't spoil it with diplomacy, politics, social activity, definition, knowledge, and materialism.

[Pattern-chaser]

What is wrong implying some has inferior or no taste?

Perhaps the fact that my taste is not inferior to yours, but only different to yours?

[gad-fly]

What is wrong implying some has inferior or no taste?

Perhaps the fact that my taste is not inferior to yours, but only different to yours?

If that is how you feel, fine. Carry my due respect for you as a person, even with no tase, and even if you are not moved by art, spiritually.