What is Art?

[Sy Borg]

Art is whatever you think it is, if one thinks of such things at all. In life, we are presented with stimuli that we can interpret it in a range of ways. If we engage the stimuli creatively, then we might perceive in a way that art is perceived, even if the stimuli is ostensibly not art, eg. pareidolia when observing clouds or rock formations.

What we call "art" tends to engage creative consumption more than that which we don't usually label art. For example, few will look at a painting and focus on the type of wood used in the frame, the types of chemicals that might be used in the paint or the precise measurements of the work while completely ignoring the subject matter.

[Robert66]

That which is produced by artists.

Forget attractive, or beautiful; form, function, aesthetics. None of these make a jot of difference.

I think Arthur Danto tried that and he was criticized, deservedly, for being a circular definition. What comes first, the artist or the art? Can I be an artist if I never produced anything?

Two answers:

The artist, and no.

and a question:

How can you be, and never produce anything?

[Jklint]

That which depends on imagination to whatever point it may strive to, however extensive that may be, by whatever medium humans normally express themselves in along with the corresponding ability to recreate it. It presupposes a chromatic entity in being able to see, hear and feel to any distance one is capable of. The keynote and half notes of perception should extend as far or nearly so as its progenitor had in creating it. It's in this where all the differences occur.

[Count Lucanor]

I think Arthur Danto tried that and he was criticized, deservedly, for being a circular definition. What comes first, the artist or the art? Can I be an artist if I never produced anything?

Two answers:

The artist, and no.

That's an obvious contradiction. The artist coming first implies that he can be identified as such without a single work of art ever made, but your second answer denies that possibility.

and a question:

How can you be, and never produce anything?

That's the problem with the circular definition. It seems obvious that I must have produced works of art to be called an artist, so art must be defined first, before those who make it are recognized as artists.

[Count Lucanor]

That which depends on imagination to whatever point it may strive to, however extensive that may be, by whatever medium humans normally express themselves in along with the corresponding ability to recreate it. It presupposes a chromatic entity in being able to see, hear and feel to any distance one is capable of. The keynote and half notes of perception should extend as far or nearly so as its progenitor had in creating it. It's in this where all the differences occur.

The approach to many practical problems depends on imagination. Your definition would make any invention a work of art.

[Jklint]

That which depends on imagination to whatever point it may strive to, however extensive that may be, by whatever medium humans normally express themselves in along with the corresponding ability to recreate it. It presupposes a chromatic entity in being able to see, hear and feel to any distance one is capable of. The keynote and half notes of perception should extend as far or nearly so as its progenitor had in creating it. It's in this where all the differences occur.

The approach to many practical problems depends on imagination. Your definition would make any invention a work of art.

One difference being that invention is usually an act of necessity while art is not. Another thing, imagination serves many purposes both discretionary and non-discretionary; strictly disciplined or free-ranging. As mentioned...

It presupposes a chromatic entity in being able to see, hear and feel to any distance one is capable of. The keynote and half notes of perception should extend as far or nearly so as its progenitor had in creating it. It's in this where all the differences occur.

...this is not a definition that applies to mere invention. Used generically, imagination applies to every kind of human activity in the process of creating or inventing anything whether it be a scientific theory, designing the large hadron collider or a toothpick, a symphony or a poem. Here we're talking about art.

[Robert66]

That's an obvious contradiction. The artist coming first implies that he can be identified as such without a single work of art ever made, but your second answer denies that possibility.

And you imply that the vital point here is the identification of the artist, when the real question is "What is art?"

That's the problem with the circular definition. It seems obvious that I must have produced works of art to be called an artist, so art must be defined first, before those who make it are recognized as artists.

Here we are again. The point is not the recognition, or being called an artist. How could that be so, when one would describe Duchamp as a prankster who relocates urinals, while another calls him a revolutionary of modern art ?

[Sculptor1]

If The Fountain is art, then art is deception of the weak minded

[Count Lucanor]

The approach to many practical problems depends on imagination. Your definition would make any invention a work of art.

One difference being that invention is usually an act of necessity while art is not. Another thing, imagination serves many purposes both discretionary and non-discretionary; strictly disciplined or free-ranging. As mentioned...

It presupposes a chromatic entity in being able to see, hear and feel to any distance one is capable of. The keynote and half notes of perception should extend as far or nearly so as its progenitor had in creating it. It's in this where all the differences occur.

...this is not a definition that applies to mere invention. Used generically, imagination applies to every kind of human activity in the process of creating or inventing anything whether it be a scientific theory, designing the large hadron collider or a toothpick, a symphony or a poem. Here we're talking about art.

But then you have just talked about imagination "to whatever point it may strive to", including acts of necessity. But specifically, what is it that makes imagination art?

[Count Lucanor]

That's an obvious contradiction. The artist coming first implies that he can be identified as such without a single work of art ever made, but your second answer denies that possibility.

And you imply that the vital point here is the identification of the artist, when the real question is "What is art?"

No, I haven't implied such a thing. To the question "what is art?", you answered art is what the artist makes, but that's redundant. What's a car? "What a car maker does" is not the answer.

That's the problem with the circular definition. It seems obvious that I must have produced works of art to be called an artist, so art must be defined first, before those who make it are recognized as artists.

Here we are again. The point is not the recognition, or being called an artist. How could that be so, when one would describe Duchamp as a prankster who relocates urinals, while another calls him a revolutionary of modern art ?

According to your definition, Duchamp is an artist (because he made art) and Fountain (signed R. Mutt) was a work of art (because it was made by an artist).

[Sy Borg]

That which depends on imagination to whatever point it may strive to, however extensive that may be, by whatever medium humans normally express themselves in along with the corresponding ability to recreate it. It presupposes a chromatic entity in being able to see, hear and feel to any distance one is capable of. The keynote and half notes of perception should extend as far or nearly so as its progenitor had in creating it. It's in this where all the differences occur.

The approach to many practical problems depends on imagination. Your definition would make any invention a work of art.

Internally, anything can be perceived as a work of art, whether intended or not. By contrast, externally, defining something as "art" is a matter of marketing.

[Jklint]

One difference being that invention is usually an act of necessity while art is not. Another thing, imagination serves many purposes both discretionary and non-discretionary; strictly disciplined or free-ranging. As mentioned...



...this is not a definition that applies to mere invention. Used generically, imagination applies to every kind of human activity in the process of creating or inventing anything whether it be a scientific theory, designing the large hadron collider or a toothpick, a symphony or a poem. Here we're talking about art.

But then you have just talked about imagination "to whatever point it may strive to", including acts of necessity. But specifically, what is it that makes imagination art?

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.

[Count Lucanor]

The approach to many practical problems depends on imagination. Your definition would make any invention a work of art.

Internally, anything can be perceived as a work of art, whether intended or not. By contrast, externally, defining something as "art" is a matter of marketing.

I'm not sure what is meant by internally and externally. Art, it seems, has always referred to something that shows up in society, a social praxis. If we individually perceive it as art, it is because we have learned it.

I think it's important to understand exactly what is our "terminological pointer" directed to when we're trying to ask the question. If we have in mind the art gallery right down the corner or the latest artist showcased in Artsy, we have already narrowed the definition to modern conceptions of art, but even from our current point of view, I think we can try to answer the question of what is art in general, so that it applies to prehistoric cave paintings, as well as Rothko.

[Count Lucanor]

But then you have just talked about imagination "to whatever point it may strive to", including acts of necessity. But specifically, what is it that makes imagination art?

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.

Now 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.

[Sy Borg]

Internally, anything can be perceived as a work of art, whether intended or not. By contrast, externally, defining something as "art" is a matter of marketing.

I'm not sure what is meant by internally and externally. Art, it seems, has always referred to something that shows up in society, a social praxis. If we individually perceive it as art, it is because we have learned it.

You can look at clouds in the sky and see art. That is internal.