Yes, but when you say there was the art of hunting, of war, of making swords, the word art is used in a different sense as an activity to which learned skill has been applied. Art as examined in this thread has a different connotation, one more specialized. Art in that sense cannot be used in just any context as an "art of" this or that denoting a simple measure of skill.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑April 10th, 2020, 10:22 pmNow we're getting closer. In the ancient world, the difference between art and technique was almost nonexistent, and so there was the art of hunting, of war, of making swords, etc.Jklint wrote: ↑April 10th, 2020, 6:53 pm
The skill of representation whether it be in sound, sight or words to whatever point it may strive or be capable of. Without imagination and the ability to render it, art wouldn't exist. I think we can agree on that. Art is a fusion of imagination and ability externalizing what is initially subjective into the objective. After that it's the consensus of each generation which gives it its value...more or less. Also, "acts of necessity" are limited by it's nature. Art has no such limitation.
Also when you say In the ancient world, the difference between art and technique was almost nonexistent, I think that's a good point. A perfect example of that would be the Greek vase or urn. Though Keats wrote a great ode to it, though not one of my favorites, the creators of these objects would have thought he was nuts. They regarded themselves and by everyone else as the lowest kind of artisan and simply did it for the pleasure of decorating and competing with each other. What these containers were used for had much more value than what was painted on its exterior. Of course the consensus has long been that these are one of a kind not simply in its skill but in its depictions of Greek life as well. In fact, they feel close to modern art as if it could have inspired the likes of Picasso.