/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12544186]

Define art.

PROTIP: You can't.

[Anonymous No.12544194]

>>12544186
art Dictionary result for art
/ärt/Submit
noun
1.
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

[Anonymous No.12544205]

>>12544194
fpbp

[Anonymous No.12544221]

>>12544186
an empty box

[Anonymous No.12544286]

>>12544194
weasel-worded non-definition.

[Anonymous No.12544312]

>>12544186
Beautiful human creations.

[Anonymous No.12544330]

>>12544186
When you show a drawing to your mother, and she appreciates it

[Anonymous No.12544335]

>>12544312
Define beautiful

[Anonymous No.12544352]

>>12544335
That which creates a strong feeling of admiration when perceived.

[Anonymous No.12544353]

>>12544186
Why should I?

[Anonymous No.12544364]

>>12544352
One can admire a human creation without it being beautiful and without it being art.

[Anonymous No.12544371]

>>12544364
>One can admire a human creation without it being beautiful
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.12544401]

>>12544286
No you are just a pretentious faggot.

[Anonymous No.12544405]

>>12544371
No, admiration is not exclusive to beauty

[Anonymous No.12544410]

>>12544401
No, it's a non-definition because it keeps using 'or' trying to cover its bases but still as a definition of art it cannot be uniformly applied to everything people have justifiably called 'art' in its history. It does not adequately describe any quality of 'art-ness'. I don't know what the point in adding 'primarily' is either

[Anonymous No.12544415]

>>12544405
It is when we're talking about human creations.

[Anonymous No.12544425]

>>12544415
If you mean objects, one can admire functionality or how a problem can be solved. If you mean to include constructs as well, one can admire one's national history. It is too ambiguous a definition

[Anonymous No.12544427]

The agreement between one person or group, to manipulate the emotions of another person or group.

[Anonymous No.12544435]

>>12544427
Shooting someone can manipulate their emotions

[Anonymous No.12544443]

>>12544425
>It is too ambiguous a definition
Okay then, here's a new one: Art refers to the highest quality members within a pre-defined category of human creations.

[Anonymous No.12544446]

>>12544435
Sure, but generally it is not agreed upon between parties in any way, could be art, generally no.

[Anonymous No.12544463]

>>12544446
The point is that 'manipulating emotions' is too vague and not limited in the scope of human activities. One could argue most of human existence is about manipulating others, in which case agreeing with others to do it would be the only qualification for it to be art. But even then agreeing with others is also too vague (how many others?) when I assume you're talking about the 'art world' in general all having an idea of what constitutes art. But there would have to be an agreement prior to the agreement that agreements are the first step in defining art.

[Anonymous No.12544466]

>>12544186
A product of human labor that is aesthetically appreciable.

Unfortunately this punts the problem of definition onto aesthetics and beauty as other anons have noted.

This seems to be a fairly reasonable definition of beauty I think: "Beauty is a property or characteristic of an animal, idea, object, person or place that provides a perceptual experience of pleasure or satisfaction"

Inb4 "human labor! But what about muh machines, muh AI, muh bird nests!?!": Viewing and experiencing is part of the labor. Human viewing and experiencing which we know can be aesthetic. Other things may be experiencing aesthetic pleasure but we don't know. You could replace "human" with "aesthetic experiencing thing placeholder" but that's really already in the definition and may not be separable from humanness anyway.

[Anonymous No.12544471]

>>12544443
Art is a category in which there is varying quality. There can't be an 'art of art' that refers to only the highest quality of works produced within the category of art

[Anonymous No.12544478]

>>12544466
Important not to conflate aesthetics with beauty. Aesthetics does concern beauty but it is not limited to it. There can be art without beauty of which aesthetics is still suited to its discussion. The key here is to think beyond beauty and what it represents

[Anonymous No.12544487]

>>12544471
>Art is a category in which there is varying quality.
Art is not a category. It refers to the highest quality members of other categories of human creation. There is the "Art of War," for example, which was intended to provide the highest quality military strategies and tactics known at the time.

[Anonymous No.12544493]

>>12544487
If someone says "I'm going to make some art" they're not referring to making the highest quality members because likely they know they do not have that kind of skill. 'Art of War' is a misnomer in any case (its the English title, not a direct translation) and refers to military methods that have otherwise been surpassed

[Anonymous No.12544504]

>>12544493
>If someone says "I'm going to make some art" they're not referring to making the highest quality members because likely they know they do not have that kind of skill.
What kind of a response is this? Who cares about the term's usage by some unskilled idiot?

>and refers to military methods that have otherwise been surpassed
They were intended to be the best at the time and were regarded as such when given that title. I said this in my post already. Besides, it still gets my point across. You understand its usage in that title. That is how art as a concept and term has been used historically.

[Anonymous No.12544509]

>>12544410
>producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power
There's your quality of art-ness. That is what it boils down to. People create things that serve no other purpose but to have an emotional impact.

The "primarily" part is because art does not need to have any kind of function outside of evoking emotion, but when it comes to something like a finely engraved chair made by a skilled artisan craftsman, there is both a functional element, you can sit on it, and an aesthetic element, the engravings can evoke emotion. But where does the artistic aspect of the chair start and the functional element end? Even a soft fluffy couch can be seen by art simply because it evokes comfyness, so the art is the function.

The dictionary definition is sparse, but that is part of the problem of definition where nothing can be defined completely, since definitions assume a context but don't explicitly state it, and the scope of context can always be expanded to include the entirety of reality. If that definition of art is a non-definition, then isn't every definition a non-definition? What you are talking about is not a non-definition, just a non-complete one. But complete definitions are impossible, so we tend to settle for shorter pragmatic definitions that focus first on the core conceptional elements and then expand on it with lesser important aspects as desired until satisfied enough with the understanding to move on.

I have started rereading "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" by Robert M. Pirsig, last read it about 15 years ago so I can't remember it too well, but it does talk about this problem of defining art in some parts, you might be interested.

Besides, the challenge of the thread was to define art, not that said definition has to be complete or even correct.

[Anonymous No.12544512]

>>12544186
A is for animation
R is for reading
T is for trans-friendly

[Anonymous No.12544514]

>>12544478
That is a pointless distinction. What is your definition of aesthetics that doesn't rely on a concept of beauty?

I can see a point in that beauty mostly refers to visual pleasure and any good definition of aesthetics should include all experience. However you need to rely on something like pleasurable or satisfying surely. Beauty is a shorthand for those things although it certainly comes with some ugly modernist baggage

[Anonymous No.12544529]

>>12544463
>But there would have to be an agreement prior to the agreement that agreements are the first step in defining art

No, I just defined it.

What exactly are you trying to say, you explain why neither manipulation or agreement on their own but do not combine, which was my whole deffinition.

You are grasping, at least form a decent argument with an example of it properly applied where it fails.

[Anonymous No.12544533]

>>12544504
>The book was translated into French and published in 1772 (re-published in 1782) by the French Jesuit Jean Joseph Marie Amiot. A partial translation into English was attempted by British officer Everard Ferguson Calthrop in 1905 under the title The Book of War. The first annotated English translation was completed and published by Lionel Giles in 1910.

At the dawn of the first world war I don't think 5th century BC Chinese war methods were considered the most advanced.

Like I said, its a misnomer. 'Art' in the way you are using it is used in this way sometimes to refer to things outside the fine arts that have some degree of planned design or scientific reasoning. The term is borrowed from the category of art though, which precedes it. "The art of ___" occurs relatively late, after the idea of 'fine arts' had already been established in the 18th/19th centuries.

But since we are talking about historical use of the term, the point here is to define what about the objects such as painting, etc. (not all of which were the highest quality within painting but still none-the-less was known unambiguously as art) qualifies them as 'art' and, for example, not 'craft', etc. What is the continuity between Renaissance ideas of art, Academic ideas of art, Modernist ideas of art? What is this 'art-ness' that each broad period shares, where it can be essentialised and applied to human activities outside the creation of 'art objects'? It can't just be design.

[Anonymous No.12544568]

>>12544533
>At the dawn of the first world war I don't think 5th century BC Chinese war methods were considered the most advanced.
And you would be completely wrong. It was still considered one of the finest compilations of military tactics there was, because war hardly ever changes. But if you think you're right, go ahead and explain what you think the title was supposed to mean.

>the point here is to define what about the objects such as painting, etc. (not all of which were the highest quality within painting but still none-the-less was known unambiguously as art) qualifies them as 'art'
But I've already done that and what I'm telling you, which you seem to not care about, is that many works which have been called art throughout history were actually not art at all. This is the conclusion of my definition (which is the historical one; my one example isn't the only example) and I fully embrace it. It wouldn't be the first time people misuse terms. You can't find a definition that suits everything and you never will for this reason, because some of the things currently labeled under art simply do not belong there. You will always have trouble defining a set if the set contains members that don't belong in it.

>What is this 'art-ness' that each broad period shares, where it can be essentialised and applied to human activities outside the creation of 'art objects'?
It's in the quality. What unites all creative works regarded as art across all time periods and cultures is the quality of it. Art is the highest quality members of a pre-defined category of human creations - that is the definition.

[Anonymous No.12544580]

>>12544509
>Besides, the challenge of the thread was to define art, not that said definition has to be complete or even correct.

Sure yes then I can leave someone defining art as 'a fart' unchecked.

The problem with 'emotion' is that there are many things that evoke emotion that are not art, even if it is the result of creative skill/imagination. 'Typically in visual form' doesn't do much to help this. I assume you agree that literature and poetry are art. Music? It is typical to say these are art and often they evoke 'emotion'. Are we talking positive emotions only? Are we only talking emotions 'proper' to the experience of art, thereby begging the question? The 'to be' is another wrinkle, in 'to be appreciated'. So if an artist intends a work to be appreciated but 100% of the people who experience it think nothing of its beauty or emotional power, it is still art? Doesn't this suggest that the artist decides on what is art or not?

Few would consider a chair, no matter how beautiful, as a work of art in any rigorous definition. The exception is, for example, de stijl, when another quality is introduced: the production of rational societies of human subjects. Evoking emotional power or beauty are justified in art but they do not define it.

I agree that nothing can be defined completely, but we will find the definition of 'chair' is not lacking nearly as much as 'art'. The point is that copy-pasting the definition of art from Google as though it is adequate and does justice to the full history of art and aesthetics is lazy and attempting to defend it just because it's there as the status quo does not do it justice either. It is though this definition was written in the 19th century.

[Anonymous No.12544591]

>>12544186
something pretty that you do for money

[Anonymous No.12544606]

>>12544514
It is not pointless if we can talk about the aesthetics of a work without discussing beauty

[Anonymous No.12544609]

>>12544529
It wasn't a good definition because of its ambiguities. You didn't answer any of my questions.

[Anonymous No.12544611]

An expression of human genius that embodies a universal quality of experience

[Anonymous No.12544616]

>>12544568
>many works which have been called art throughout history were actually not art at all.

Effectively your argument is the same as if I had claimed all art contains the colour blue and any art that doesn't is "actually not art at all"

The problem with your definition is that the historical category of art precedes its application outside of the fine arts to 'highest quality members'. It's an ahistorical and idiosyncratic definition, not a true one. You ignored this in my last post.

[Anonymous No.12544631]

>>12544611
>universal quality of experience
Do you mean universal ... experience? I'm not sure what this means.

[Anonymous No.12544657]

>>12544616
The etymology of the word art, actually, has everything to do with the perfection of a creative discipline, i.e. skill developed towards a craft.

[Anonymous No.12544670]

>>12544657
Yes and the perfection of it, its repeatability as a model, is its ideal, i.e. it is a quality that precedes the actual object that forms as an example of 'highest quality members'; the quality can only be judged in accordance with the ideal of perfected craft. What legitimates that ideal or perfection? What is the point in learning how to craft a work in order to evoke emotion, look beautiful, etc.? For its own sake? Where does human imagination work in this? Why do we need creative imagination in creating beautiful objects?

[Anonymous No.12544863]

>>12544186
Artefact

[Anonymous No.12544868]

>>12544186
I can't.
If I had to try I'd just say it's a creative project which expresses emotion

[Anonymous No.12544946]

>>12544609
You did not really ask any questions, you demonstrated why neither agreement nor manipulation are not enough of their own, never combined the two, asked one question that looks rhetorical by all accounts and then made a ridiculous comment regarding why it fails because there would have to be an agreement to make an agreement that agreements are the first step to defining art.

You missed the point completely, the agreement is not a contract, it is buying a ticket or just going to the venue or so many other things. When you go somewhere to consume art you are going for the sake of having an emotional response, if you are making art you are doing so to elicit an emotional response. That is the agreement.

And of course it is vague, art is vague, there is room for interpretation, just like this definition.

[Anonymous No.12544954]

What sciences describes about an idea in theory, art gives a living form, a gestalt to that which science described.

[Anonymous No.12545000]

True it can the defined 100% and thats why hardworking artists are getting screwed over and high brow "fartists" get millions with minimal effort. So for me art is an idea expressed in a creative way and exposed to the world as food for thought and entertainment

[Anonymous No.12545005]

>>12545000

*Can't be defined 100%*

[Anonymous No.12545039]

>>12544186
There are those who believe that it is still relevant to define the essence of things.

[Anonymous No.12545048]

>>12544186
Ok

[Anonymous No.12545134]

>>12544946
Two people making an agreement to shoot someone is not art, sorry. You cannot address my points, you may as well not respond at all.

>And of course it is vague, art is vague, there is room for interpretation, just like this definition.

No. You're not writing the rules for art, you're trying to succinctly and adequately explain what links all artistic practice. It's not a question of interpreting the definition, it's the definition that is supposed to interpret the practice.

[Anonymous No.12545182]

>>12544670
>i.e. it is a quality that precedes the actual object that forms as an example of 'highest quality members'
This is incorrect. Ideals don't precede "actual objects" and vice versa; they are both part of eternal dance growing simultaneously off of one another. There are no first things.

>What legitimates that ideal or perfection?
Taste, which is a matter of perspective. i.e., great objects (which is to say, great individuals possessing great taste) legitimate great ideals.

>What is the point in learning how to craft a work in order to evoke emotion, look beautiful, etc.?
Pleasure. We like and want pleasurable things, because it empowers us. Pleasure becomes harder to come by as we refine our taste; therefore we require the creation of more refined objects to acquire it, hence the development of the various arts.

>Why do we need creative imagination in creating
The question seems redundant to me.

[Anonymous No.12545196]

>>12545134
>Two people making an agreement to shoot someone is not art, sorry.
I never said it was, and to even be applicable, it would have to be one person agreeing to be shot by another. Just because an act meets the requirements of my definition does not mean it is defined by it and it is asinine to expect that.

>You cannot address my points, you may as well not respond at all.
I did address them, twice, you are the one who has yet to address my points.

>No. You're not writing the rules for art,
Correct, I am not.

>you're trying to succinctly and adequately explain what links all artistic practice.
Sure, with a definition.

>It's not a question of interpreting the definition, it's the definition that is supposed to interpret the practice.
You can not possibly understand a definition without first interpreting it, ultimately all definitions have room for interpretation since few words have single, unchanging, concrete meanings, something many writers exploit to great effect.

[Anonymous No.12545216]

>>12545182
>Ideals don't precede "actual objects" and vice versa
The form reflects the idea, yes. The 'imagined' idea comes before the work is attempted.

>Taste
What legitimises taste? Don't just answer the questions at face value. A full system developed to explain and define art isn't just a couple of answers off prompts.

>therefore we require the creation of more refined objects to acquire it, hence the development of the various arts.
Egyption art for example had little to no variation for thousands of years, so obviously refining it because pleasure was harder to come by is out of the question. To Vasari the arts developed to more accurately render nature. If you argue that the refining of technique to this point in the High Renaissance is to suit pleasure you'd need to address that the pleasure isn't simply pure, and that there is more justification behind why art should look a certain way other than to be pleasurable. 'Emotion' and 'pleasure' etc are cop-outs.

>The question seems redundant to me.
Think harder. What's the connection between imagination and beauty?

[Anonymous No.12545226]

>>12545196
Is English your second language or something? You're not paying attention to the intention or the argument, only the words. I would actually like to respond to you but if you're just going to come back with rhetoric I won't waste my time.

[Anonymous No.12545252]

>>12545216
>The 'imagined' idea comes before the work is attempted.
And there's no imagined idea until some work has been attempted.

>What legitimises taste?
I already explained that in my post. The explanation boiled down to: power. Power does not need legitimacy, like how the universe does not need legitimacy, since it's all there is.

>so obviously refining it because pleasure was harder to come by is out of the question.
Or it's due to the Egyptians not knowing how to refine it further, i.e. not knowing how to become more refined further.

>To Vasari the arts developed to more accurately render nature.
This is not a testament against what I'm saying.

> If you argue that the refining of technique to this point in the High Renaissance is to suit pleasure you'd need to address that the pleasure isn't simply pure, and that there is more justification behind why art should look a certain way other than to be pleasurable.
What does pure even mean here? Something that has nothing to do with what I'm saying, no doubt. Everything is tied to perspective, I've already explained this. Even Renaissance art was a pursuit of pleasure.

>Think harder. What's the connection between imagination and beauty?
This sounds like you aren't dedicated to the conversation and want justification for a premeditated stance. But my answer to your vague question is perspective, i.e. power.

[Anonymous No.12545258]

>>12545226
Well, if you want to view my responses as rhetoric, there is not much I can do.

[Anonymous No.12545292]

>>12545252
>And there's no imagined idea until some work has been attempted.

Are you joking? There is a whole history of artistic development that forms the ideal of art, from which the artist borrows. Maybe you misunderstand what I mean by 'precedes'; the imagination and its consideration of the ideal is a condition of possibility for the work to exist. The work 'embodies' this ideal, the express intention of the artist. To want to create something to be beautiful or to evoke emotion requires understanding what those things are first.

>I already explained that in my post.
You hadn't, not fully. Taste is often justified, not an expression of power. We would not need the field of aesthetics if taste were that simple, nor would we need to increasingly refine some arbitrary medium if the root of pleasure was experiencing one's own sovereign power as taste. There wouldn't be a distinct, continuous history if it were simply the tastes of the powerful.

>Or it's due to the Egyptians not knowing how to refine it further
So if you don't know, or hadn't thought of it, it complicates an holistic idea of 'art' then.

>Everything is tied to perspective
What justifies the perspective? Why do people have a certain perspective? Why are certain perspectives continuous in certain cultures? Why do they differ in others? There are rules for why some things are allowed in art and some things are not. There are rules for certain expressions of power. There are reasons why ugliness is allowed in art. There are reasons why art can exist without being an object.

No the connection between imagination and beauty isn't power. That makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.12545299]

>>12545258
You could try to actually argue the point (is the point). Somehow you've managed to do it again. I'll give you an example from your last post:

>You can not possibly understand a definition without first interpreting it

It was completely pointless going into this line of argument as I had just said it is NOT a question of interpreting the definition.

[Anonymous No.12545320]

>>12544186
this post is art

[Anonymous No.12545326]

>>12545320
This thread is art since people are agreeing to come here and argue because they find it pleasurable.

[Anonymous No.12545352]

>>12545292
>the imagination and its consideration of the ideal is a condition of possibility for the work to exist.
And likewise for the reverse. How can you imagine an ideal if there is nothing to reflect upon? The self exists because the world is there to be reflected against it, and vice versa. These things come into existence together during childhood psyche development. Like I said, there are no first things; the universe does not even have a beginning as we understand beginnings according to physicists today.

>There wouldn't be a distinct, continuous history if it were simply the tastes of the powerful.
Yes, there would be. Power shifts around, it doesn't stay in one place, or in one culture for long.

>So if you don't know, or hadn't thought of it, it complicates an holistic idea of 'art' then.
Define "holistic idea".

>What justifies the perspective?
I already went over this.

>Why do people have a certain perspective?
Because people are entities we define in the universe, which means they are only a part of the universe.

>Why are certain perspectives continuous in certain cultures?
They aren't ever perfectly continuous, but some appear to survive more than others due to memetics, and due to art, which is imbued with the values of a perspective or set of them; the species doesn't change so rapidly that only a few thousand years will render all previous perspectives and art totally inaccessible to us.

>No the connection between imagination and beauty isn't power. That makes no sense.
For further clarity, a perspective is an expression of power, and a certain perspective interprets and gives rise to both those concepts in the world. The connection between them is a question of the power of the individual perceiving them. The concepts don't outlive the individuals who perceive them.

[Anonymous No.12545368]

>>12544186
definitions are for criminals and black people. you cant define art, but you can tell from just looking at da vinci's paintings that it's art. when you look at a three year old's drawing or a picasso you can tell that it isnt art...its purely based on intuition but EVERYONE can tell the difference. You listen to vivaldi and you're like..hmm yeah that's some ART right there. then you hear a drake song and you're like...huh, well that's music but it sure as fuck aint no fucking art LMAO! you see what i mean? you can't define art and any attempts to do so are laughable pseud drivel yadda yadda "MUH EXPRESSION AND EMOTION LMAO" fuck off kid.

[Anonymous No.12545402]

>>12544186
Art is the artificial creation of beauty.

Beauty is an ideal, so it can vary with the 'beholder' whom the eye belongs to. We tend have similarities in how we process faces, sounds, colours, etc. so that there is significant overlap in what is considered beautiful -- but there can be considerable divergence as well.

I would argue that classical music is a superior form, as it is more sophisticated, nuanced and dynamic in its expression of beauty than other music tends to be. It takes a requisite level of intelligence and musical sensitivity to fully process and appreciate it, so I am tempted to say it is an objectively superior ideal. Of course, a patron of worldstar is unlikely to agree with me, and might even reject heightened intellectual capacities as universally preferable.

So, it seems that the initial question of "What is art?" is surprisingly trivial... The more salient question being "What is good art?" A degree of subjectivity seems inescapable here, so I would suggest embracing it and circling the wagons around the ideals which you venerate and which others may not even be capable of appreciating.

[Anonymous No.12545427]

>>12545352
>The self exists because the world is there to be reflected against it, and vice versa.
>vice versa
The world exists because the self is there to be reflected against it? In any case this is far from the point. The 'ideal' in this case is that which is allowed by the aesthetic systems that are taught and embodied by works of art/the literature surrounding them e.g. the history, theory, etc. The justification for their appearance.

>Yes, there would be.
Not if "the self exists because the world is there to be reflected against it". The self picks up ideas, whether subconsciously or taught, for example, from education, culture, philosophy, etc., that form the tastes. The tastes do not issue forth from a powerful individual alone. It is not coincidence that the powerful have had similar tastes and that in writing about aesthetics have managed to convince others.

>Define "holistic idea".
A definition of art that is equally applicable to all art practices. That means not excluding inconvenient examples.

>The connection between them is a question of the power of the individual perceiving them.

This is outside the scope of the original question. The question concerns the role of imagination and beauty in art, not in power. The point I was getting at was it is the concept of the metaphysical ideal (any ideal, the transcendental ideal) that precedes beauty, truth, and all that; for the art that does not concern itself with beauty it does however concern itself in some way with the ideal as it relates to the development of the human subject (the world reflected against the self). Craft is less important in contemporary art because it does not correspond well with immediacy, which is something valued in Western society as 'natural' or 'expression' or 'presence', etc. and in the history of art has been a shortcut for universality. Consider the idea of the 'autonomous artwork' which is art for its own sake rather than for beauty's sake, e.g. Now we've bridged the gap between traditional and modern arts we can start to formalise an understanding of art -in general-

[Anonymous No.12545534]

>>12545427
>The world exists because the self is there to be reflected against it?
Correct. There's no one without the other; before them both, there is nothingness, where no lines can be drawn. You draw a line, they both appear at once.

>The tastes do not issue forth from a powerful individual alone.
Of course not. You also need the world with which to reflect upon. The world builds the individual and vice versa, simultaneously.

>A definition of art that is equally applicable to all art practices.
This is a bit recursive. My definition of art as the highest quality members of pre-defined categories of human creation is clearly a holistic one then, since it also defines what "art practices" entail.

>Consider the idea of the 'autonomous artwork' which is art for its own sake rather than for beauty's sake, e.g.
It doesn't matter for what's sake it is for. The artist's motivation and feeling has no bearing on whether their creation is art. One could have made art even if the motivation was merely a paycheck. What determines the art is its quality, which is understood within the framing of the pre-defined category, and perceivable only via refinement of the self, through the trial of fire set forth by said category.

[Anonymous No.12545551]

>>12544186
It is something someone makes to make someone else feel something.

[Anonymous No.12545559]

A revelation. The only pursuit for the truth in he whole world.

[Anonymous No.12545578]

>>12544568
>It was still considered one of the finest compilations of military tactics there was, because war hardly ever changes.

Someone hasn't actually read the Art of War, I see.

[Anonymous No.12545587]

>>12545578
Explain.

[Anonymous No.12545617]

>>12545534
>My definition of art as the highest quality members of pre-defined categories of human creation is clearly a holistic one then

No, since before you said that some things we call art "actually isn't art". It's not a useful definition at all.

[Anonymous No.12545701]

>>12545617
This is why I said it's a bit recursive. According to your definition of holistic, anyone's definition of art is going to be holistic.

[Anonymous No.12546005]

>>12544186
The material expression of a culture

[Anonymous No.12547324]

Bumping thread because it is on the last page and I still haven't had a chance to reply to >>12544580 and I think I stumbled on to an interesting take on this.

[Anonymous No.12547406]

>>12545402
>Art is the artificial creation of beauty.
What's a "real" creation of beauty and how is it discernible from the artificial?

>So, it seems that the initial question of "What is art?" is surprisingly trivial... The more salient question being "What is good art?" A degree of subjectivity seems inescapable here, so I would suggest embracing it and circling the wagons around the ideals which you venerate and which others may not even be capable of appreciating.
I agree with this to a certain extent; however, nothing is purely subjective in this world. There is some form of underlying structure to everything, that we perhaps invent, but is nonetheless there, otherwise we couldn't even have a conversation together about anything at all, because none of us would ever know what anyone else was talking about.

Consider what Fred Ross, founder of the Art Renewal Center, defined a work of art as:

>A work of art is the selective recreation of reality for the purpose of communicating some aspect of what it means to be human or how we perceive the world.

Selective means it cannot be random, and the purpose of communication means it cannot be incomprehensible, it must be arranged in some form that successfully communicates something to the audience. I agree with the notion entirely, and from this, you could say the answer to the question "What is good art?" is: "Art which successfully communicates what the artist selected for representation."

[Anonymous No.12547478]

Is a woman objectively beautiful if her beauty is perceived from outside the context of human reproduction?

[Anonymous No.12547500]

>>12547406
>how is it discernible from the artificial?
whats the artificial?

[Anonymous No.12547532]

>>12544186
art is phenomena that draws attention to itself by disrupting autopilot habitualized processing of external information

[Anonymous No.12547542]

>>12547532
high iq post

[Anonymous No.12547629]

Art is a feeble attempt of imitating reality by the humanoid animal. Its a puerile and self-congratulatory. The greatest art is that which does not intend do be art at all and in doing so transcends the notion of art.

[Anonymous No.12547656]

>>12547532
/thread

[Anonymous No.12547772]

>>12547629
Art isn't merely an attempt at imitation. It's a selective imitation.

[Anonymous No.12547846]

>>12545701
Again, no, you're excluding some art.

[Anonymous No.12547884]

>>12545402
What's the connection between sophistication, nuance, dynamism, and beauty? Intelligience? Sensitivity? How do these dictate the quality?

[Anonymous No.12547897]

[Anonymous No.12547904]

>>12546005
Most things are material expressions of culture, for example organising my bookshelf.

[Anonymous No.12547923]

>>12547532
Pretty weak. If I'm habituated to some art, does that mean it's not art anymore? Is a static electricity shock art?

[Anonymous No.12547943]

Argue what makes good art. Asking what is art is pointless

[Anonymous No.12547951]

>>12547500
My question exactly.

[Anonymous No.12547953]

>>12547943
>art is pointless

Finally someone gets it

[Anonymous No.12547961]

>>12547406
One can select to represent randomness or make use of it like the Surrealists, for a specific purpose. They are not necessarily 'recreating' reality but trying to surpass it for a purpose of social revolution. At this point it becomes more than passively communicating how we see the world, but trying to instigate an idea of how the world - human society - should be. This has huge repercussions for a definition of art, and one that holds true to its production as far back as the Renaissance.

Also in some way any use of a sign is 'communication' but to 'successfully' communicate in art can follow a different trajectory than in everyday language, for example. Successful communication in the everyday is the conveyance of meaning from one subject to another. In art to successfully communicate its idea is to successfully or sufficiently execute the idea in its form, regardless of whether another subject understands the intention.

[Anonymous No.12547964]

>>12547953
Indeed.

[Anonymous No.12547971]

>>12547629
Getting somewhere.

[Anonymous No.12547979]

>>12547406
Artificial as in created by an agent, not as in 'unreal' which artificial doesn't actually mean.

And what if an artist successfully communicates something that is anathema to me? Is that good for me?

If art is a recreation of reality, is a symphony just a recreation of a bird's song? I think it's a little more than that. Does it matter what is communicated if the manner of conveyance is not appreciated by the beholder (found beautiful in some respect)?

[Anonymous No.12547994]

>>12547923
a static shock doesn't draw attention to itself but rather draws your attention to your bodily reaction to it
art is 'self-orientated', an artistic piece could conceivably involve a static shock but the context would draw your perception towards the shock itself

>If I'm habituated to some art, does that mean it's not art anymore?

yes, i.e. wallpaper and advertising

[Anonymous No.12548040]

>>12547884 The standard of beauty is shaped by the various capacities of the beholder. The art I find most beautiful tends to both possess such attributes and demand them of the audience. As I have noted, the quality (goodness/badness) of something must relate to the nature and potential of the evaluating agent.

[Anonymous No.12548079]

>>12547961
>One can select to represent randomness or make use of it like the Surrealists, for a specific purpose.
Sure. That doesn't mean the creative process can be a random one; creation still presupposes selection.

>They are not necessarily 'recreating' reality but trying to surpass it for a purpose of social revolution.
That is what they think they are doing, at any rate, but that isn't the case. Surrealists don't transcend reality, or nature. "Transcending nature" is a clumsy misuse of language.

>At this point it becomes more than passively communicating how we see the world, but trying to instigate an idea of how the world - human society - should be.
Selection can't be passive. That said, the artist can't select anything that isn't in (human) nature, because this can't be (humanly) done. See above.

>Also in some way any use of a sign is 'communication'
But not every use of a sign is "for the purpose of communicating some aspect of what it means to be human or how we perceive the world."

[Anonymous No.12548097]

>>12547994
Very semantic. The feeling of a static shock may divert my attention such that I notice a blue spark. There are countless phenomena that draw attention to themselves because they are less common experiences.

What about a great symphony? If I've heard it hundreds of times and it no longer sends frissons down my back, is it no longer art?

[Anonymous No.12548121]

>>12548097
i suppose we should also add to the definition that the phenomena in question has to be a communication between an addresser and addressee

no matter how many times you've heard a great symphony its still going to draw attention to itself as a structured organization of sounds unless you have been raised since birth with it playing 24/7 as background noise.

[Anonymous No.12548249]

>>12548079
>creation still presupposes selection.
Not really. Automatism isn't really a select recreation. Representation maybe, as it uses words/images, but not a creation. The actual 'art' to it is the proposed effect on the person rather than the act. It is an outlet of the unconscious. I don't see the point in adding 'selective' when it is unnecessary complication that disqualifies the possibility of some art.

>Surrealists don't transcend reality, or nature.
You miss the point. They are trying to bring it about. In any case the subject is communication:

>Selection can't be passive.
No, the COMMUNICATION by the object/sign as a vehicle of the meaning would be passive. Beside the point -- the art is more about recreating human society based along some metaphysical understanding of reality.

>But not every use of a sign is
I'm not arguing that point. I'm talking about the idea of 'successful' communication with signs.

Regardless, simply communicating, casually, to someone else, "This flower is blue," would qualify as art, as words are no less representation than painting. 'Communication' itself is not the key.

[Anonymous No.12548495]

>>12548249
>Automatism isn't really a select recreation.
This is another misconception. There's no such thing as complete avoidance of intention when creating something; it's a phenomenon that can't be observed. The avoidance of intention itself is an intention.

>I don't see the point in adding 'selective' when it is unnecessary complication that disqualifies the possibility of some art.
I hate to break it to you, but there is no such thing as a theory of everything. A definition, BY DEFINITION, means exclusion. So your pursuit of a definition that doesn't disqualify anything at all, in the end, is a moot one. And such a definition would be an absolutely useless one anyway, because it would refer to everything, i.e. it wouldn't even be a definition with which to communicate something with.

The point in adding "selective" to the definition is so that we can rule out objects not made by us from the categories of art, because those objects don't help us to understand our creative capacities. We don't consider the planet a work of art because we didn't create it. If you want to consider it as such, go ahead, but then that means you obviously don't care about what we are capable of as a species.

>You miss the point. They are trying to bring it about.
What they think they are doing and what they are doing are two separate things. What they are doing is the same as all the other artists: selective recreation of nature (i.e. their nature, since none of us exist outside ourselves) for the purpose of communicating it.

>Regardless, simply communicating, casually, to someone else, "This flower is blue," would qualify as art, as words are no less representation than painting.
Yes. And what's wrong with this? What makes it not art to you?

>'Communication' itself is not the key.
For high art, perhaps not. For art in general? I see no alternative conception.

[Anonymous No.12549801]

>>12544186
Form & theme in harmony

[Anonymous No.12549843]

>>12544410
Prehaps this “art-ness” you describe is a phenomenon which stretches beyond our ability to adequately define. Now what? Do you have a definition or are you just going to play Socrates and try to deconstruct shit until you actually feel an iota of self-worth?

[Anonymous No.12550613]

Art is a conduit of form. Or, theologically, the memory, contemplation, and ode of the Muses formed within us as antistrophe. We cultivate ourselves to the forms which must be represented, crafting the aesthetics of dominion - our position relative to the laws of forms. Singing to the east of where the sun had risen.

[Anonymous No.12550867]

>>12544410
Art the unconscious manifesting itself through creatively expressive mediums such as art, music, drama, etc.
Propaganda is that but minus the unconscious part

[Anonymous No.12550874]

>>12550867
>such as art
i'm stoned
narrative, music, drama****

[Anonymous No.12551073]

>>12547324
So I know I said I have some things to say but I'm having problems with defining some of the metaphysics required for the arguments. The irony of this is very delicious.

I'm going to continue developing those ideas, but I guess I have some areas of my learning to refresh on and some reading to do.

What I can do for now is leave you with this:

We craft art, art crafts us.

[Anonymous No.12551075]

>>12544371
I admire my mother but she isn't beautiful

[Anonymous No.12551077]

>>12551073
meant for >>12544580

[Anonymous No.12551119]

>>12548495
>A definition, BY DEFINITION, means exclusion.
Your definition by definition excludes definitions that are all-inclusive, meaning there are definitions that are all-inclusive. This rhetoric aside, we're not talking a theory of everything but a theory of art. But it seems this definition is your personal one, as the psyche reflects external nature if we read you, and your definition ceases to exist when you die. What I am asking for is the definition that exceeds the individual, that is taught and continued between individuals, is communicated, etc. The history of art, as I keep mentioning and you keep ignoring. Instead you opt to greentext parts of my post that are quite literally beside the point. You are not interested in engaging with the argument fully and I am not interested in language games. Maybe I'll recognise you in another thread.

[Anonymous No.12551129]

>>12549843
>Prehaps this “art-ness” you describe is a phenomenon which stretches beyond our ability to adequately define

It's a human construct based in language, we can adequately define it. Speaking of deconstruction it's a pretty good method for recognising how we treat art, based in the metaphysics of presence.

[Anonymous No.12551130]

The very first post in this thread is the best one. Keeping the definition vague and broad so it covers it all. Getting into the specifics of the sublime or the transformative nature of art is fine but ultimately art has been totally fetishized in our time. There’s never an endpoint with art or a place where artists feel finished or satisfied. On a personal note religion is conceptually art and obviously in praxis as well. It’s all art. Stop thinking it’s so fuckin special though.

[Anonymous No.12551138]

>>12549801
Pretty good but what is the theme? What does harmony have to do with the theme?
>>12550613
Also good.

[Anonymous No.12551141]

>>12550867
Unconscious : manifest
Creativity : media

What do they have in common?

[Anonymous No.12551153]

>>12551073
If you can, read Derrida. I don't think it is by coincidence that the history of art runs parallel to the teleology of the metaphysics of presence.

[Anonymous No.12551154]

>>12551075
Pics? I can help in judging her.

[Anonymous No.12551158]

>>12551130
>There’s never an endpoint with art or a place where artists feel finished or satisfied.

[Anonymous No.12551164]

>>12551158
Who’s dad is this?

[Anonymous No.12551190]

>>12551141
not sure what you're getting at

[Anonymous No.12551218]

>>12551138
Would also like to see this hashed out. Form as in formalism?

[Anonymous No.12552134]

>>12551119
>But it seems this definition is your personal one, as the psyche reflects external nature if we read you, and your definition ceases to exist when you die. What I am asking for is the definition that exceeds the individual, that is taught and continued between individuals, is communicated, etc. The history of art, as I keep mentioning and you keep ignoring.

You act as if I'm just pulling this all out of my ass and not taking it from art history at all. Do you think Fred Ross of the Art Renewal Center also just pulled his definition out of his ass without having done any research to back his conclusion?

I'm not interested in language games either. I'm interested in what the meaning of art is as it is understood by the men of history whom I admire most, aka the men who appear to be the most informed about the subject. I don't care for the opinions of various cretins who, in my view, misunderstood and mishandled the concept of art (as it was invented by the Greeks, whom I regard as the greatest culture in history), and at times intentionally obscured our understanding of it out of resentment (i.e. as a Greek, Socrates, did). There are many different definitions of art out there; they can't all be right, and there can't be a definition that includes them all, because most of them contradict each other.

[Anonymous No.12552209]

>>12551153
Thanks for the recommendation.

[Anonymous No.12552294]

>>12552134
Appeal to authority much?

[Anonymous No.12552376]

>>12552294
That's not appeal to authority. I'm not saying Fred Ross is right simply because he founded an art institution. I'm saying that the accusation that he or myself are uninformed on the subject is ad hominem and a baseless accusation.

[Anonymous No.12552868]

>>12544186
Of course you can't. Art is an abstract concept. Attempting to define any abstract object is bound to fail due to it lacking a concrete relation. Also, any proclaimed 'definition' will encounter the Problem of Universals. It's not currently possible to get from a particular to a universal without a regress or u self-refutation occuring.

[Anonymous No.12552953]

>>12544186
Somebody post "this post is art.jpeg" pls

[Anonymous No.12552988]

Art is the end in itself. Best way to define art is compare it to something which isn't art. Why are fake pieces of paintings not considered art? Even if it was created for a innocent purpose because it isn't an end in itself it is not art.

[Anonymous No.12552993]

>>12552134
>Art Renewal
Bunch of boomers whining about the decline of academicism, a.k.a. the capeshit of easel painting.

[Anonymous No.12553461]

>>12552868
The problem of universals isn't a roadblock to definition. We're not looking for an actual nebulous property called 'art', we're describing a category of creations based upon similarity of effect. It's a trope. There's no universal instance of the colour red -- it exists on a spectrum of wavelengths -- but it's indisputable that there are similarities between the wavelengths of light we describe as 'red' which is what 'redness' actually is.

Also, any abstraction begins with observation of the concrete, so some relation is always present. The issue is how weak or strong that relation is, and refining definitions in the light of new information leads to a stronger relation (more accurate description).

[Anonymous No.12553526]

>>12544186
>>12552988
>>12553461
ITT: Serious misunderstanding / outright ignorance of the discussions surrounding the term "techne"/ τέχνη (& episteme, as some would have it)

Also, what even is the usefulness of a definition of art?

Marcel Duchamp once visited an aviation show in 1919 with Brancusi. He pointed to the propeller of an airplane and said, "who could do anything better than this propeller? Look, could you do that?"

[Anonymous No.12553527]

>>12544186
Art is something made with passion and creativity that is beyond practical use. Prove me wrong lads.

[Anonymous No.12553555]

>>12552993
I doubt you have even an inkling of an understanding as to how decadent art analysis became once the center of culture moved away from the academies. Consider reading Roger Kimball's The Rape of the Masters as an introductory on such matters. I don't agree with everything ARC posits, but there's nonetheless incredible value in what they are attempting to do, which is to preserve the vast wealth of knowledge from past monolithic cultures which we have mostly forgotten and lost.

[Anonymous No.12553776]

>>12553555
Trips of truth

[Anonymous No.12553810]

>>12553526
>I don't agree so you misunderstand
notanargument.png

>what is the use in refining the specificity of our language
brainlet.bmp

[Anonymous No.12554001]

>>12544186
Something a human makes to create an emotional response in other humans.

[Anonymous No.12554263]

>>12554001
The problem with this is it situates art as a form of communication like everyday speech, but art is not the everyday. It is not the diaphanous conveyance of the psyche; attention is meant to be paid to its form. With this we are closer to a definition of art.
>>12552988
Kind of.
>>12551190
>>12551218
Idea : form. Except the idea isn't just re-presented by the form as in a word, the form is created explicitly by the rules of the idea. What's the idea

[Anonymous No.12554644]

Art is those qualities possessed by a work that cannot be taught or otherwise reproduced.

[Anonymous No.12554900]

>>12554263
>Except the idea isn't just re-presented by the form as in a word, the form is created explicitly by the rules of the idea. What's the idea
Not really sure what you mean by this, can you expand?

[Anonymous No.12555013]

>>12554263
>The problem with this is it situates art as a form of communication like everyday speech, but art is not the everyday. It is not the diaphanous conveyance of the psyche; attention is meant to be paid to its form. With this we are closer to a definition of art.

Correct.

Art is our connection to divinity. The experience of it restores us to wholeness; in the experience, we no longer feel ourselves separate from the "object." If something does not grant us that experience, regardless if it was made to create an emotional response in others, it is not art to us, but something else. Something creative and likely technically impressive, to be sure, and perhaps art to someone else, but not to us. It isn't in our capacity to call it art then.

Art has both a formal and a sensual aspect to it. What is art to us depends on how developed these two instincts are in us, but also more than that. When we encounter art, we encounter an image of ourselves in our divine form. It is the most personal experience one can have. Our instincts for the formal (the complexity of structure) and the sensual (the potency of emotion) both manifest in us as poles along which the spectrum that is our propensity to experience the aesthetic is built. The object which we call art, which grants us that experience, is an object that appeals to the center of that spectrum in us in a way that nothing else can. The desires of the artist behind the object are completely trivial in all this; in fact, even considering the desires of the artist at all can be said to be antithetical to the aesthetic experience. To have that experience, all subjects and objects must dissolve, so that you are completely at one with the object alone.

[Anonymous No.12555041]

Art is a recreation of reality to convey values and potentially evoke emotional responses.
Easy shit.

[Anonymous No.12555057]

>>12555041
But you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.12556440]

bump