/lit/ - Literature

>>14353232
Why does it matter

>>14353234
why does your life matter? kill yourself

>>14353234
based

>>14353232
art is for money non-art is to get laid

My pretentious definition:
>Art is a capsule of human genius, the statement of our species to the universal Void
My non-pretentious definition:
>Art (from latin artis: crafts) is a thing that only top percentile of humans can do. Art, thus, is a creation that vast majority of mankind can only gaze upon but never replicate to the same quality. Art necessarily involves incredibly inborn talent and monumental effort. Therefore, art cannot be effortless, or 'minimalist'. It also cannot be conceptual, so fuck off with your interpretive dances.

Expression through sensory perception

>>14353232
Art is what Grimes does.

art is a lens. anything can be art, you just have to put the lens on and experience it as such

>>14353232
big titty elven fantasy novels = art

>>14353277
Is Elon Musk art?

>>14353232
recta ratio factibilium

>>14353261
is nature art?

>>14353232
What separates art from non-art? An institutional discursive formation which enacts its objects as interior to the art world.

>>14353232
>>14353297
Art must have its meaning in the exterior to be meaningful. "anything can be art", this is the illusioned conquest of the subject, for it is said understanding must be related to ones subjectivity for true knowledge to come as Plato taught. However that understanding must necessarily be of the object.

It is the movement of the subject which drives history, but the object which allows it. Naturally one can see Hegel's dialectic here.

Art achieves a sort of universal realisation, it exists within its own continuum divided from practical value it is the consolation itself. Let us say the ideal of human feeling yet not necessarily separate from rational premise. The total emergent synthesis between subject and object, an easing into an individual wholeness of all factors, and a transcendental 'homecoming' if you will. Existing no longer in self conscious aversion to ourselves but united fully focused on other and a general experience(which implies collective which states tribe which asserts identity).

https://www.osho.com/osho-online-library/osho-talks/objective-picasso-art-21d30da8-634?p=8b3a50620294ae2034499434eed8e0c2

>>14353517
https://www.osho.com/osho-online-library/osho-talks/van-gogh-mozart-brothers-karamazov-a3b2a2fb-9af?p=a60394377c214b6febcd3482372df1ac

>>14353508
>It is the movement of the subject which drives history, but the object which allows it. Naturally one can see Hegel's dialectic here.
Once we bring in the knowledge that we are self conscious the importance of this statement grows.

>>14353381
No because there's no craft to nature. Nature doesn't create things with intent and vision, but through random processes of evolution and natural selection. I guess you could say the the demiurge who made nature was a fine artist, even though we cannot compare his works to the top percentile of other demiurges. Maybe evolution isn't supposed to take a billion years to get to sentience and we live in a sloppy work of a cosmic amateur.

>>14353524
>demiurge
stopped reading there
goddamn schizos

>>14353232
Intention. If you produce something with the intention of doing art, then it will be art, no matter how bad it is.

>>14353536
Please finish the post. You have like 1.5 sentences left to go.

Art is an imitation of divine creation so it must be religious in nature, convey a genuine feeling of the artist, and it must be understandable to the common man. I believe this is the traditional understanding of art which has only degenerated since the introduction of the concept of beauty that is ultimately nonsensical and consequently led to the modern understanding of art as novelty or something to provide stimulation to an elite class.

>>14353554
explain this then

>>14353524
>Nature doesn't create things with intent and vision
Could you explain to me what DNA is without alluding to purpose in any way?

>>14353277
go back to twitter, elon

>>14353508
To expend effort to act or to produce anything inherently requires some form of meaning. Perhaps this meaning is confused and misdirected, but it is still meaning.

>>14353232
Art is an intentionally created/consumed (the latter being more important because that is where its effect lies) object and a specific form of communication (done through language, visuals, nonlinguistic/abstract sound, or some other system), marked by a lack of a concrete object of description, instead directing the receiver of the message towards the totality of his experience and knowledge of life. Roughly put, it is allegorical and not literal communication, provocative rather than informative.

>>14353261
Neither of those things is a definition, they're just further complication.

>>14353657
DNA wasn't created for the purpose of reproduction, you goddamn fuck. I honestly can't believe people still mythologize evolution like this in this day and age. Is the purpose of rain to water plants? Is the purpose of the sun to provide energy for life on Earth? For fuck's sake

>>14353856
I said nothing about creation or evolution, you goddamn fuck. I said you can't define DNA without alluding to some sort of purpose, and this makes the notion that there is no intent or vision in nature false.

>>14353232
>define art
Something that I know when I see.
>what separates art from non art
That I like it and do not dislike it.

>>14353951
>>14353856
Also, don't you realize that our minds are a part of nature? Do you believe that human beings are incapable of acting with intention? Explain how that works.

>>14353232
Art is a label applied to certain products for marketing purposes. It means nothing. If a different label sold those products better, a different label would be applied.

https://youtu.be/sFFpzip-SZk

>>14353955

Hello Wittgenstein

Art is the scar of the eternal formed into beauty. The Muses release us into the custody of the Hours where we await the procession of our death. Iphigenia at peace, Orestes in flight of torment. The body may only find silence in the greatest dream.
https://youtu.be/lu3J0SVgNoY

Art is not what you see, but what you make others see.

>>14353232
Human experience given aesthetic structure. A vision or slice of human reality.

>>14355581

succinctly captures how I feel about it.

>>14353232
>Define art
lol, no.

>>14353232
art is what i like desu

>>14353656
The simpsons?

When we judge the artistic merit of something we judge the wisdom of its creator. Wisdom has, of course, three aspects, namely venerableness, sociability, and judgment, and in a work of art we look for evidence of all three. A work deficient in venerableness is mean or in bad taste; one deficient in sociability is self-indulgent and cliquish; one deficient in judgment is unsound and discordant. The greatest works of art are the pearl of culture precisely because they reflect the highest morality, represent the ideal of society and good will, and finally show extraordinary discernment in theme, content, scope and so forth. Naturally, one would expect to find such works on display as centerpieces, crowns of nations around which people gather solely to admire, enjoy, and celebrate as they would a dying elder expressing his last words to his family and countrymen.

>>14353232
1. It must be human-made.
2. It must be something other than biological offspring.
3. It must be made for the purpose of expressing something.
4. Recognizable technique must be employed for its creation.
5. It must give someone pleasure.

Open to suggestions on how to refine this.

>>14353232
Air, thought and other distances

>>14357793
tb h drop the last one. art can and should at times be uncomfortable instead of pleasurable.

>>14357857
Is there an example where pleasure is completely absent from the experience? I can't think of one. A person reading Poe is still enjoying the glumness, morbidity, and shock of it, for example.

>>14357793
It's clumsy and arbitrary, especially the parts about technique and pleasure, which you probably intend to exclude some modernist art, but they really just cause even more of a mess.

>>14357888
What's arbitrary? Can you be more specific?

Second mention about the pleasure bit. That one is actually derived from Nietzsche's aesthetics. I've yet to find a flaw in his view of Greek tragedy as something that was pleasurable to the Greek. In all instances of both creating and viewing art, there appears to be an underlying joy, otherwise there would be no motivation to persevere.

>>14353232
Art is the crisis of representation. A crisis in that the structure of its origin and by extension its end are presupposed by the metaphysics of presence. What separates art from non-art is the literature around it, the rules of how the represented is designed to efface itself before what would be present, according to what is proper of that metaphysical present. Art simply doesn't exist without this historically contingent justification of why it is separate from craft, everyday life, and nature.

>>14353234
In the secular bourgeois political world art is pretty much the single vehicle for social change. It is essentially the key to unlock whatever social utopia you have in mind by its effect on the rational subject.

>>14353297
Anything can be art but not everything is art.

>>14353381
Art is imitation of nature, or the systems of nature, the rules of ontology, whatever they are.

>>14353418
Pretty much, but it's not as arbitrary as this sounds.

>>14353508
>and a transcendental 'homecoming' if you will.

This is what I mean by metaphysics of presence. You can substitute any metaphysics here, Hegel, Aristotle, Christian, etc.

>>14353524
>but through random processes of evolution and natural selection.

This is basically what art is now - individual systems with minor variation against other individual systems. But now the arbiters of taste don't have a set of metaphysical rules.

>>14353554
pic related

>>14353644
When Renaissance artists were creating religious paintings for private patrons I don't think they had any concern for the common man.

>>14353856
Metaphysics.

>>14356646
Do we? For how long?

>>14357793
>expressing
>something
>recognizable
>technique
>pleasure

Subjective terms really.

Read Lessing. He approaches the limit of what art can do, and works back from there.

>>14358270
Is "subjectivity" a subjective term? If not, why is art not a subjective term? If so, then art is a subjective term too.

>>14353232
I know it when I see it

>>14358620
Art is subjective in that the very long list of rules of art now includes subjective interpretations, due to certain social, philosophical, scientific, political, etc. allowances. The subjectivity is safely regulated by the invisible presuppositions that, for example, make us paint gallery walls white, and that allow us to paint gallery walls purple or pink because there will always be other white galleries as a reference point, and that those presuppositions will never come under the influence of what is being regulated.

A list of criteria for an art object becomes a bit redundant when you can say "it can't be art because it doesn't fit this criteria" yet for some reason it keeps getting put up in galleries and museums.

Art is anything that expresses subjectivity. Therefore, there is nothing that seperates one act or expression as art from another as not art, but every act or expression has a certain degree to how much subjectivity is expressed. The greatest forms of art then, are not the most beautiful, but have the of most what is one's own, and are what is most original.

>>14353232
>art
for itself
>non-art
utility

>>14353720
Obviously I speak of meaning in itself and its conscious expressions, and not the all pervading factor of experience.

>>14358270
>This is what I mean by metaphysics of presence. You can substitute any metaphysics here, Hegel, Aristotle, Christian, etc.
Yes but the experience to all of is unique in itself and universally shared, even if one particular, the Christian, may be superior to the others.

I leave arts definition apart from culture for it is culture which art comes from, and there are many cultures.

>>14359279
Art fits into this, but the definition is too broad for art alone to fit into. Pure mathematics as example.

>>14353232
These days, effort.

>>14353554
I used to have this definition too, but what about people who aren't aiming to produce art, but very clearly are?

Take J.S. Bach for example, his entire musical endeavour is very clearly art, but he wrote SOLI DEO GLORIA on all of his church compositions, and on some others too. His intention in his cantatas was clearly a devout wish to bring glory to God, and not to make art.
You can bring up many other examples of artists who had other goals than making art, but it is still agreed among many that their work is art.

Would you change your definition to fit him and others into your view of art?

art is anything a human makes/does for the maker themselves

>>14358270
>When Renaissance artists were creating religious paintings for private patrons I don't think they had any concern for the common man.
So what? Whether the artist intends his work to be understandable to the common man is irrelevant. That it is understandable to the common man is what is important in considering it an actual piece of art and not just an imitation of art.

>>14358774
>A list of criteria for an art object becomes a bit redundant when you can say "it can't be art because it doesn't fit this criteria" yet for some reason it keeps getting put up in galleries and museums.
But is there anything in any gallery or museum that doesn't fit my criteria? If not, what is redundant about it?

>>14353232
art is that which is made with the intent of not being non-art, or that was made with the intent of being non-art, but that was later repurposed, or, reimagined, to be seen as art.

The wonder and difference you feel within yourself is the art

>>14353232
Art is painting, drawing, etc.
Pseuds co-opted the term and started applying it to their own forms.

Books aren't art
Movies aren't art
Music isn't art
Video games aren't art.

Art is art.

>>14359370
The 'common man' only gained stock in the last couple hundred years and it seems foolish and ahistorical to go back over the past thousand years of art production and recategorise everything based on it.

>>14359541
There's plenty of non-art that fits your criteria. 'Expression' is that vague.