What is ART

[BadgerJelly]

I suggest that ART is the expression of the human condition.

Discuss ...

[charon]

A child banging randomly on a piano isn't art.

But if you film the child and call it 'The Human Condition' that's art :)

[BadgerJelly]

A child banging randomly on a piano isn't art.

But if you film the child and call it 'The Human Condition' that's art :)

Isn't that like saying a drawing is not "Art" unless someone else other than yourself obverses it?

I think you have just defeated your own point and confirmed mine in this statement have you not?

[neuro]

It might be a slightly too ample and vague definition.

What about ART being the qualification of human activities (ideas, handcrafts, actions...) which succeed in capturing (possibly communicating? many would disagree!) significant aspects of the human condition?

[BadgerJelly]

It might be a slightly too ample and vague definition.

At face value I see your point and will add more later.

The concept of the word Art itself is not something all agree on. I have my own thoughts on this in regard to linguistics.

[sillysmile]

I'm inclined to have a similar perspective to neuro, and the following quote is something I wrote on a related thread.

Art is the purposeful and often creative expression (usually with the intent of a perfect representation) of a concept through the particular artistic medium (be it music, painting or ball-room dancing). So yeah, this expression conveys meaning to others, and thus qualifies as a communicable language. I guess the rules of the language are: that the concept should be expressed to it's fullest and most perfect capabilities, and that the concept and artwork are able to be understood and to be obvious (to the perceiver/appreciator of the art) that they are to be evidently connected to each other. Another very important rule would be, that the art should be attractive in some way!

[charon]

BadgerJelly

Isn't that like saying a drawing is not "Art" unless someone else other than yourself obverses it?

No.

I think you have just defeated your own point and confirmed mine in this statement have you not?

I don't know what you're talking about.

Someone killing someone isn't art. But if you make a painting of someone killing someone in order to reflect the ugliness or futility of human violence that is art. That's all, it's not an argument. Art reflects society.

[flannel jesus]

I, for one, take a far different approach to this question: I ignore it altogether. If I, for example, tell someone "I like this Mondrian, that Pollock," and they respond with "Hurr Durr, that's not art," I don't sit there and have a semantics/definition argument. That would be a waste of time. I say, "Oh, that's fine. I like it anyway."

[PrayerReason]

Maybe a distinction can be made about collective art and personnal art.
Collective art is a business : use creation and fashion to attribute values on things. These things are art for some people and are not for other. The developpement of this fashion is lead by history and technics. It's a group phenomenon.
Personnal art is a work : you try to do something by your own or to be an essential element of a group. You are aware you satisfied yourself and that you produce something. Something which can be communicated to other people.

[BadgerJelly]

I, for one, take a far different approach to this question: I ignore it altogether. If I, for example, tell someone "I like this Mondrian, that Pollock," and they respond with "Hurr Durr, that's not art," I don't sit there and have a semantics/definition argument. That would be a waste of time. I say, "Oh, that's fine. I like it anyway."

THIS is what I am getting at! :D

It comes back to my favourite word.

COMMUNICATION

Someone killing someone isn't art.

Why not?

Everything we do or say in some way is at least a subtle form of Art.

Art reflects society.

This is the same thing I have heard about education being made to fit society. It is devolution when the truth is we are trying to revolutionise our thinking and understanding every moment.

Anyway back to Art and Communication.

Art is the purposeful and often creative 9Please explain what you mean by creative)expression (usually with the intent of a perfect representation) of a concept through the particular artistic medium (Could this not be literally anything. Where is the line between say cooking and war or painting and building. Do you believe skill and technique to be separate from art?) (be it music, painting or ball-room dancing). So yeah, this expression conveys meaning to others (What about to self?), and thus qualifies as a communicable language. I guess the rules of the language are: that the concept should be expressed to it's fullest and most perfect capabilities, and that the concept and artwork are able to be understood and to be obvious (to the perceiver/appreciator of the art) that they are to be evidently connected to each other. Another very important rule would be, that the art should be attractive in some way (attractive to some not to others or maybe just to the artist)!

We have to express the human condition by communicating it whether it is to others and/or to ourselves. A dog may take a shit in the street and someone could see beauty in this process and call it art but I'm pretty sure the dog if it could think "would give a shit" so to speak :P. I myself just last week found myself looking at the cracked pavement and a piece of dirty litter and found it somehow beautiful in way I cannot express. To me it was Art.

What I am saying is that the simplest interaction with our environment is an art form in itself and how we interpret this and express it is a higher form. Some things are more obviously full of artistry and others need to be looked at more closely. Also the ability to express this well is what makes a good artist. Most superb artists move people in a very primal way because they tap into the unspoken human condition that is genetically human.

Anyway that is VERY basically my opinion on what are is to us as humans.

[charon]

BadgerJelly

'Someone killing someone isn't art'

Why not?

Don't be ridiculous. If you're going to post things at least let it make sense.

[charon]

There are some aspects of art I really don't like.

A sliced up cow in an abattoir is not art. Stick a sliced up cow in a tub of formaldehyde and display it in a gallery and suddenly it's 'art' and worth a million quid.

100% crazy.

[newyear]

I suggest that ART is the expression of the human condition.

Discuss ...

That may be so, but it is the observer of that so expressed that decides if it is an artistic expression or not. And note, that the observer can be the artist.

Art is absolutely anything. However, in order to appreciate the artistic nuances that one comes across, one needs a mind that is able to perceive those particular perceptions from the multitude one is confronted with.

Where I go on summer holiday I get to see some spectacular sunsets. Much like Turner tried to capture in many of his works. However, the works of Turner give a poor example of the real thing (I might add, I like the works of Turner). So, to me, anything has the propensity to be art, and that it is the observer that decides on the matter. Damian Hirst's works that he donated to the Tate Modern are of a pickled cow and calf sliced in half. Isn't he saying that art is anything.......including his canvas with dead flies glued on it.

Although there are huge industries that surround art, this shouldn't undervalue or minimise other forms of art that don't fit in their portfolios for their commercialisation.

There is an old thread in the art forum that asks a similar question that is very pertinent should anyone be interested.

[BadgerJelly]

@ newyear

I'll have a look for that link sometime.

I see little here that is said I can disagree with.

One thing though :

Where I go on summer holiday I get to see some spectacular sunsets. Much like Turner tried to capture in many of his works. However, the works of Turner give a poor example of the real thing (I might add, I like the works of Turner).

In this respect I do not think he was trying to "capture" the image but simply express how it made him feel. For me I suppose in a human way Art is not just about replicating something you see or hear but expressing the feeling or emotion it conjures relative to you being human and part of nature.

Isn't he saying that art is anything.......including his canvas with dead flies glued on it.

Exactly my point in my last post. Even the extreme of murder is art but not exactly socially acceptable. That being said human sacrifice for some societies in the past would surely have been gloried at for its beauty by some just as the Colosseum gladiators were compared to football today. Its a "dance" a visual feast that brings up primal feelings. In relation to our neurology I would consider this an important issue that is stronger and weaker depending upon the circumstances. Never the less we react to the interaction what ever it may be with some form of emotional response I believe.

[mtbturtle]

Anyway back to Art and Communication.

Art is the purposeful and often creative 9Please explain what you mean by creative)expression (usually with the intent of a perfect representation) of a concept through the particular artistic medium (Could this not be literally anything. Where is the line between say cooking and war or painting and building. Do you believe skill and technique to be separate from art?) (be it music, painting or ball-room dancing). So yeah, this expression conveys meaning to others (What about to self?), and thus qualifies as a communicable language. I guess the rules of the language are: that the concept should be expressed to it's fullest and most perfect capabilities, and that the concept and artwork are able to be understood and to be obvious (to the perceiver/appreciator of the art) that they are to be evidently connected to each other. Another very important rule would be, that the art should be attractive in some way (attractive to some not to others or maybe just to the artist)!

We have to express the human condition by communicating it whether it is to others and/or to ourselves. A dog may take a shit in the street and someone could see beauty in this process and call it art but I'm pretty sure the dog if it could think "would give a shit" so to speak :P. I myself just last week found myself looking at the cracked pavement and a piece of dirty litter and found it somehow beautiful in way I cannot express. To me it was Art.

What I am saying is that the simplest interaction with our environment is an art form in itself and how we interpret this and express it is a higher form. Some things are more obviously full of artistry and others need to be looked at more closely. Also the ability to express this well is what makes a good artist. Most superb artists move people in a very primal way because they tap into the unspoken human condition that is genetically human.

Anyway that is VERY basically my opinion on what are is to us as humans.

The inserted red comments, questions is difficult to follow - at least I think the red comments are new, been inserted. It's hard to tell who is who.

[BadgerJelly]

Ok I will stop doing this.

Just trying not to make my posts too long.

[neuro]

I myself just last week found myself looking at the cracked pavement and a piece of dirty litter and found it somehow beautiful in way I cannot express. To me it was Art.

It is not the pavement, the crack or the litter. It is the way you look at them.

it is the observer ... that decides ... And note, that the observer can be the artist.

The point is, I think, that apart from defining art as something and not something else, a crucial property of anything that may be defined artistic is that it must possess a margin or ambiguity, or anyway multiplicity: and the artist must have captured such multiplicity (multiple possible meaning, multiple ways of looking at it, something and the reading of such something, a content and a meta-content).

This is consistent with the idea of relating art to "human condition". Because humans never look at one thing and simply see "the thing", they cannot but add - due to the way their brain is built - any possible cognitive, personal, affective, behavioral, social reading and meaning to the thing...

[newyear]

neuro, you have made a good point, which is what I was trying to make. Art depends upon the sensibility of the observer to appreciate something, or not.

As to Badger's idea about communication, Owleye and myself had a discussion about this subject in the Art forum, last year,(viewtopic.php?f=54&t=17619&p=203213#p203213). In that topic, art is described as anything one has done to 'capture' that which is deemed artistic. That would mean that although a crack in the pavement may seem artistic to the observer, it is not a work produced to communicate. However, the description of the crack is artistic, and communicates.

[BadgerJelly]

Ok nice stuff!

I'll like whoever can to add this underneath the original point :

WHY is Art?

Meaning what is its possible evolutionary benefit? Does it have a benefit?

My line of thinking on this again involving communication/interaction. Think of a bird of paradise, a peacock or even a physically attractive (beautiful) human when considering this.

My idea is that Art has developed from the interaction between two subjects to include a more expressive "self" interaction.

[charon]

BadgerJelly

WHY is Art?

Because people feel the need to say something. They can either just say it straight, like I'm doing here, or they can dress it up by making a poem, painting, or whatever out of it. Sometimes it's easier to say it in, say, a poem than it is outright.

There are those, of course, who feel as if they are simply born to do art, poetry, music, and so on. The ideas come floating out of nowhere, apparently, and it's their 'mission' in life to present them to the public. It's their work, their calling.

I think the raison d'etre of art goes deeper than mere self-expression though. Probably the function of art is to reflect society back on itself, to hold up a mirror so to speak. Take someone like Banksy whose graffiti makes incisive social comment.

It's probably harder to say what is the driving force behind, say, a painter like Constable who mostly did landscapes. Perhaps his joy was simply to produce skillful pictures that people liked to have adorning their walls. The life, vitality, even beauty, in them draws us to them. The same could be said of other art forms such as music, dance, sculpture, pottery, and so forth.

There's also the art that puts a twist on reality, forcing us to look at things in a different way - surrealism, art film, atonal music, all that sort of thing.

The point is that human beings somehow feel the need to take what they see and feel and exteriorise it, immortalise it in words, paint, sound, etc. I don't know why they do that. It may have something to do with capturing the moment rather than letting it pass by, like a photograph or recording. Nothing wrong with that, of course. After all, life doesn't repeat itself.

What others make of it is something else, of course. The art world is notoriously money-minded and can be pompous, utterly false and superficial, and not above exploitation. But that's human nature for you...

Come to think of it, probably, despite all the fuss round it, art is just entertainment :)

[newyear]

Meaning what is its possible evolutionary benefit? Does it have a benefit?

It benefits the individual that creates art. That is, it is a psychological expression. Personally, understanding the self-repression each person is genetically wired with, art can provide a psychological escape from these inhibitions. Others may well appreciate this and benefit in some way, consciously, but in nearly all cases, subconsciously.

It is obvious that as far as evolution is concerned, the human being tries to live as long as possible, so where does art fit into this scenario? Who's willing to take a guess, because here we are guessing. It could be that those that keep the mind active have a possibility to live longer than those that do not.

[AmbivalentOne]

Debates about definitions are always frustrating. While I have some sympathy with the ‘everything is art’ view of Badger, I also think there is no point in having a word whose extension includes every ‘thing’ in the world. Likewise, saying ‘ art is an expression of the human condition’ seems too broad, because expression surely must include every single utterance in a language (what else does language do but describe the human condition?)

But on the other hand, what is a defensible criterion for exclusion from the category of art?

My own ungrounded assertion is merely this: Art is that part of human activity which can’t be accounted for by practical/pragmatic explanations. If a man fashions a basic, functional shovel, it is a tool. If he adds all sorts of flair which add nothing to the usefulness of the shovel, his additional work can be considered an artistic endeavor.

[charon]

newyear

art can provide a psychological escape from these inhibitions

Absolutely. I was going to say that too but the post was getting long. Also, of course, it can act as therapy for those with problems. Many people who are handicapped in certain directions produce very good pictures.

It could be that those that keep the mind active have a possibility to live longer than those that do not

I don't know if they last longer in years but they certainly stay younger in themselves. A lot of show business people are like that.

It all brings up the subject of creativity... :)

[charon]

AmbivalentOne

If a man fashions a basic, functional shovel, it is a tool. If he adds all sorts of flair which add nothing to the usefulness of the shovel, his additional work can be considered an artistic endeavor

Quite so. Like pink wellies :)

[BadgerJelly]

WOW! I have too much to say now I think!

It benefits the individual that creates art. That is, it is a psychological expression. Personally, understanding the self-repression each person is genetically wired with, art can provide a psychological escape from these inhibitions. Others may well appreciate this and benefit in some way, consciously, but in nearly all cases, subconsciously.

Subconscious is a key issue here. It is the part "hidden" if you will but is inherently human and mysterious to us.

It is obvious that as far as evolution is concerned, the human being tries to live as long as possible, so where does art fit into this scenario? Who's willing to take a guess, because here we are guessing.

I am. And I have what I believe to be a solid theory and you are ALL helping me so much to express it :)

Debates about definitions are always frustrating. While I have some sympathy with the ‘everything is art’ view of Badger, I also think there is no point in having a word whose extension includes every ‘thing’ in the world. Likewise, saying ‘ art is an expression of the human condition’ seems too broad, because expression surely must include every single utterance in a language (what else does language do but describe the human condition?)

Obviously I strongly disagree here. Asking the definition is the first step to asking WHY we have a definition in the first place and basically WHY is Art?

"Seems" is the key word you use here. Also try not to think about "language" as words. Linguistics cover the full span of existence.
What else does it do? It interacts with the environment and vice versa.

I have mentioned Evolution and Birds of Paradise for a very good reason. They display in a acutely visual way full of colours and "beauty". What are they really doing if not literally jumping up and down and screaming "HERE I AM! COME GET SOME!". It is all good focusing on the smaller or less "broad" instances of this communication in nature but this can be much more subtle and subconscious.

eg. The scent of a women/man is more pleasant if their antibodies differ from your own. you can literally get the body odour of several people sniff them and then order them according to how "nice" you find the smell and the order will correspond to this difference in antibodies. The "beauty" of the smell is of direct evolutionary, or rather survival, "benefit" if you were to have offspring with this said person/s.

My own ungrounded assertion is merely this: Art is that part of human activity which can’t be accounted for by practical/pragmatic explanations. If a man fashions a basic, functional shovel, it is a tool. If he adds all sorts of flair which add nothing to the usefulness of the shovel, his additional work can be considered an artistic endeavor.

I feel this is not broad enough a view as you may be able to see from the above statements. Philosophy needs to look at what information science gives us and debate the consequences. Just studying one subject is of great benefit to people like me for a better understanding but for the individual not so much. Some of the best ideas come through crossing fields of research or by eureka moments by relating seemingly unrelated things simply by broadening our conceptual horizons.

The above statement to me is like stumbling around in the darkness of a "room" when you can simply step outside of the "room" turn the light switch on then return to investigate ... that said stumbling in the darkness does have its own benefits but if you find yourself repeatedly tripping over things and not coming to a conclusion everyone seems satisfied with maybe a little light on the subject at hand may help?

Anyway this is where I am coming from with my line of thinking.

VERY excited by all these comments and ideas and I cannot thank you enough for sharing.

It could be that those that keep the mind active have a possibility to live longer than those that do not

May be I'll live forever! XD Bloody hope not! Looking forward to death in a way :) You'll rarely find me referring to other philosophers words but I love this one from Socrates :

“Death may be the greatest of all human blessings.”

“To fear death, my friends, is only to think ourselves wise, without being wise: for it is to think that we know what we do not know. For anything that men can tell, death may be the greatest good that can happen to them: but they fear it as if they knew quite well that it was the greatest of evils. And what is this but that shameful ignorance of thinking that we know what we do not know?”

[AmbivalentOne]

Also try not to think about "language" as words. Linguistics cover the full span of existence.
What else does it do? It interacts with the environment and vice versa.

Yes, there are many forms of symbolic communication. Your post was asking about the meaning of a word, so I felt it was safe to confine my comments to words. By the way, linguistics is also primarily concerned with spoken language. Most linguists don't even consider written languages part of their field, although there has been some work on the grammar of sign languages.

I don’t think any language can inter-act with its environment. The actual tree cannot act upon the word (tree), and the word cannot affect the tree. Language is more of a parallel structure, which lies alongside the world but never comes into any direct contact with it. It is a re-presentation of the world.

Since the Greeks, the word 'art' has always carried the implication of a specifically human skill, and has been used since the Enlightenment as an antonym for ‘nature’ (e.g artificial). http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... hmode=none

The industrial revolution further refined our use of the word. Our shovels are now products made by factory assembly workers, rather than artworks made by the local village craftsman. So what remains in the domain of art? Well, I guess answering that question is the purpose of this thread...

Asking the definition is the first step to asking WHY we have a definition in the first place and basically WHY is Art?

I agree. “Why is art” is a much deeper and more interesting question. I have basically a Heideggerian view on this question – our nature is to uncover the existence of things in the world, and the artwork is something that holds some aspect of existence out in the open so it can reveal itself. I like the passivity of this view – we do not actively create and manipulate the world, we are merely the clearing in which being reveals itself.

I believe this is why you claim that dog crap is art. When you see it, it reveals something to you about being in the world. But does this mean that it is itself an artwork? Can you say that in most cases, the community of English language users would ascribe the word ‘art’ to it? I don’t think so. I still think art needs to acknowledge the presence of human workmanship. Pick the crap up and put it in your local modern art gallery, and then you can call it art if you want.

[BadgerJelly]

Ok I have been a bit sneaky with this thread. If you have looked at the other thread I started up about Beauty then you might see where I am going to take this.

As you rightly point out Art is a human concept. What I am saying is that it is not just a human trait I am saying it is a universal trait. As you say about putting a Dog crap in a gallery is the only way to make it art I say that the universe is the gallery and anything there in is "Art".

I still think art needs to acknowledge the presence of human workmanship.

I think the concept of art is merely eluding to something beyond the human experience and hand. Do other animals display and dance to attract a mate like the human animal does? To what end does life develop its complexity if not for the purpose of creating a more diverse range of interactions?

At the human level art is about communication to further understanding of our perceived environment. Any attraction we find in anything in nature is for our benefit. For example lets take something we are all familiar with. Sex.

Sexual attraction is in itself a natural artistry that is defined by the laws of sexual attraction. Some people find some people attractive and others not so much. There is a general consensus as to what makes someone attractive or not attractive physically; for instance 2 eyes, 2 legs, 2 arms etc.. This though is just a purely visual interaction concerning DNA make up, social conditioning and the psychological factors (Body language, presumptions) involved. And remember from your own personal perspective this factors are both external (Object) and internal (Observer). Instantly this is very complex without even starting to consider other sensory interaction of attraction including smell and touch.

All of these elements, and many others, form the universal artistry of existence. The purpose of this artistry is to communicate, understand and increase communication and therefore understanding and so on ...

Just look at bird of paradise, peacocks, football, national pride, religion, ant kills, planets, stars, molecules. There is an underlying universal "pattern" in everything from the birth of the universe and time itself. Science itself is about trying to understand this "pattern" through the use of equations.

The communication/interaction between everything is simply a rational assumption that I doubt anyone can really deny right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fzg1CU8t9nw

18mins in and you might see what I am getting at better. Especially if you like women ;) (Feynman and his artist friend)

[anc0de]

Don't be ridiculous. If you're going to post things at least let it make sense.
...
There are some aspects of art I really don't like.
A sliced up cow in an abattoir is not art. Stick a sliced up cow in a tub of formaldehyde and display it in a gallery and suddenly it's 'art' and worth a million quid. - 100% crazy.

Who gets to decide what qualifies as art? So because it is gruesome, bloody, or possibly deemed "socially unacceptable" - it is instantly disqualified as art? Those aspects, regardless whether we like them or not, is what makes them different and innovative - art. If you think that a butchered cow is not art, how about slicing it up, cooking it, and dressing it between two pieces of bread topped with lettuce and tomato? Is that any better?

Art, in my opinion, reflects life (or the lack of). I do not think it necessarily reflects society. Think of something as dead and abstract as the universe, a proper rendition on canvas or digitally, it can be quite beautiful. As the saying goes, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I believe the same applies to art, in the sense that different people have different ideas about what is art.

I don't sit there and have a semantics/definition argument. That would be a waste of time. I say, "Oh, that's fine. I like it anyway."

Sounds more or less what I'd say without the expletives. :p
But that's the jist, different people different tastes. +1



.

[Watson]

Beauty, and art are in the eye of the beholder. Who determines what is art is more a matter of credentials. A person can go to school and get their B.S. in ART and they are the ones who tell the rest of us what is art. Animal parts displayed in various ways is art because the artist is qualified to say it is.

Clearly there is art, that is the evidence of some talent, and one can appreciate the talent needed to paint or sculpt a particular work, even if that is all you know about the artist. Some art is self-evident.

[anc0de]

... Who determines what is art is more a matter of credentials. A person can go to school and get their B.S. in ART and they are the ones who tell the rest of us what is art. Animal parts displayed in various ways is art because the artist is qualified to say it is.

Clearly there is art, that is the evidence of some talent, and one can appreciate the talent needed to paint or sculpt a particular work, even if that is all you know about the artist. Some art is self-evident.

I agree that some art is self-evident and that even an amateur can clearly see the talent and effort in a particular work. I can't quite wrap my mind on one needing credentials and going to school in order to appreciate what art is. True, some great painters attended art school. But all art school can teach is art form, technique, and art appreciation. I believe that the true nature in art comes from one's own creativity.

I took an art class and while I somewhat improved in my technique, it was a frustrating course. I often found myself short on time and ended up turning in assignments which I thought could've been much better if I had taken my time. Also, we were instructed on what and how to draw – only our final assignment was to draw anything using the taught techniques. Point I am getting to, is that all the technique in the world doesn't make up for personal creativity.

Edit: On the matter of butchered animals, I probably wouldn't think it'd be very innovative – but that is merely a personal opinion and doesn't automatically disqualify it as art. If anything, butchered animals could serve to contrast animal cruelty or consumerism or the carnivorous nature of people and could lead to the appreciation of other living animals.