jump to last post 1-50 of 53 discussions (311 posts)

What is art?

  1. 0
    pburgerposted 6 years ago

    Please discuss the following:-
    'Most people who visit art galleries, read novels and poetry, watch plays or ballet, go to see films, or listen to music have at some time wondered what art is' (p. 148, Nigel Warburton 'Philosophy: The basics', 2004, 4th Ed., Routledge, London).

    1. dahoglund profile image83
      dahoglundposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I used to wonder that but as I am much older now I think it really doesn't realy matter. It is a somewhat subjective thing.

      1. 0
        pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, but... How do we know when something is art and when is not art? For instance, promos for TV shows now 'sound' like reality; they use hyper-realism to grab our attention. And what about doc-drama that mix historical recreations with analysis? Is that art or no? And what about digital enhanced photography? Or in the opposite view, CGI in science documentaries. Those dinosaurs are fictions but they come to us in the context of fact.

        What do you think?

        1. Lisa HW profile image83
          Lisa HWposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Based on my version of a definition below, I think these things can be art.  The difference might be in venue, medium, etc. - and in the name given to the type of talent used to create it.  I think in cases like this, a lot may have to do with the motives and aims in creating it too.

          1. 0
            pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Lisa HW

            I cannot ask you what you mean
            I cannot use words to help me understand
            I can only express an allusion to a thought
            And only to the extent and in the vain hope that
            A simple reply does not produce yet
            Another onslaught of abuse and diatribe

            Oh yikes

            1. Lisa HW profile image83
              Lisa HWposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              With something like a docu-drama (maybe one aimed at telling, say, the Benjamin Franklin story, for example), I'd see one that was well done and as accurate as possible (with some "impact" thrown in) as "art".  To me, a mediocre one that didn't accomplish the aim of accuracy with whatever impact/emotion it might add would just be "another docu-drama".  I suppose, to me, it would be the careful and well crafted inclusion of the right kind of "impact" that might differentiate between art and not-art.

              Or, maybe another example would be something like a Hallmark card commercial:  A bunch of ad people get together and say, "We want this spot to reach everyone guying his grandmother a card for Mother's Day."  If someone comes up with a beautiful-but-realistic commercial that moves the viewer, I might call that "art".  The guy who "stars" in an infomercial about selling real estate and making millions - no art involved there.  smile  His commercial is aimed at accomplishing something different in the heart/minds of the viewer.

              1. 0
                pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Ohhhhhhhhhh

    2. qwark profile image62
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Art, like beauty, is determined by the "eye-of-the-beholder."

      1. 0
        pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes qwark, fair enough.

        But IMO that only shifts the question to 'how does the eye determine what is art?"

        1. qwark profile image62
          qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The answer to that could only be: "it differs in as many ways as there are numbers of beholders."

          1. 0
            pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I beg to differ, qwark...
            To say 'it differs in as many ways as there are numbers of beholders' does not answer my question of 'how does the eye determine what is art?'

            1. qwark profile image62
              qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Burger:
              I have no problem with you disagreeing.
              Lets consider your disagreement logically.
              Define "art."
              The definition is: " ...the use of skill and imagination in the production of things of BEAUTY."
              Man is a SENTIENT creature.
              Sight is a "sense" that when stimulated causes the "organism to respond.
              The "eye" does not determine what is ART! It just receives a stimulus and the stimulation is passed on to the brain. The "brain, of course, responds in its own unique way.
              There are as many responses to ART (BEAUTY) as there are sentient people who behold that "ART."
              Response is unique to the beholder.

              1. 0
                pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I never said the 'eye determines what is art'. I asked 'How the eye determine what is art?'  Now you retort with my very question.

                And to say 'There are as many responses to ART (BEAUTY) as there are sentient people who behold that "ART" does not answer the question 'What is art?' What you speak of the effect or art. What my question alludes to the affect of art.

                1. susanlang profile image61
                  susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  pburger: this is something I found interesting which may be one answer to your question.  Gail Adams, herself, is art!


                  Canadian artist Gail Adams has always supported and encouraged the youth of today. Gail as a former member of the Prairieland Exhibition Fine Art Committee, as well as a current member of the Saskatchewan Wildlife Artist Association which has been very instrumental in the high quality and number of submissions for these two outstanding art competitions. Gail not only actively supports these art competitions, but through her donations continues to support youth and various wildlife organizations throughout North America.  Gail has had many successes due to her commitment and personal dedication towards her art. She is thankful for the God given talent which has allowed her to realize the fulfillment one achieves when able to work with one's own passion.  Gail has resided for the past 20 years in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, along with her husband Dave, their 2 children Darren and Leanne, and most recently with her granddaughter Payge. Due to these aspects in Gail's life..... we find her very much enjoying her life as a Saskatoon artist.

                2. qwark profile image62
                  qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Burger:
                  The "eye" does NOT determine art.
                  The "eye" determines nothing!
                  Your quote: "What you speak of the effect or art. What my question alludes to the affect of art.thing!"
                  If that is the point of your question, make it obvious.
                  If you don't you will get responses like mine that don't satisfy your curiosity.
                  Be more precise!

                  1. 0
                    pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    WARK:

                    You first said - quote "Art, like beauty, is determined by the "eye-of-the-beholder." unquote roll

                    I responded with quote "Yes qwark, fair enough. But IMO that only shifts the question to 'how does the eye determine what is art?" unquote

                    For you to say I was not clear reveals more about you than you want to see; for I clearly asked "'how does the eye determine what is art?" That is clearly not a statement, clearly a question. Clearly the opposite of your claim against me. cool

                    I refuse to follow your dictate - you have no 'authority' to demand anything of anybody in this public domain...

                    Like it, or lump it!

                    Stiffus shitus lol

      2. 59
        Carolyn Meinhardtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, that says it all.  A simple, non-complicated definition.

        1. 0
          pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Welcome to the thread Carolyn Meinhardt,

          Because I do not understand how the "eye-of-the-beholder" determines art, can I ask why you think qwrak's 'simple, non-complicated definition' says it all?

          Do you think a work of art exists in a social vacuum? Or do you think works of art exist as a social relation between artist and audience? I opt for the latter...

    3. Andraste profile image62
      Andrasteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Art is all about expression. There are many different types of people who enjoy art. You don't have to read novels or watch the ballet to enjoy art or create art. Everyone expresses themselves in a different way.

      1. 0
        pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Welcome to the thread Andraste,

        I cannot disagree with anything you wrote. However, I'm not sure how your post relates to the question: What is art?

        A scientific theory expresses something, are science theories art? What distinguishes science from art? And if everyone expresses themselves in a different way, why do we have so genres and forms art that carry traditions across historical eras? For example, landscape, portraiture, still-life. And what of the different schools of art  - Cubist painting, Expressionist drama, Realist versus modernist literature etc... Each school has many adherents all striving to produce art of a specific kind - and yet you think 'everyone expresses themselves in a different way'.

  2. billyaustindillon profile image76
    billyaustindillonposted 6 years ago

    I agree art is totally subjective - there is an old saying 'One person's art is another person's crap' That pretty well sums it up. There is art be it music or paintings that I find amazing and others shake their heads at, and vice versa.

    1. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, yes, 'One person's art is another person's crap' but how do you decide whether something is art or not? What criteria do you use to distinguish the poles? Is a political speech set to music art or political propaganda? is there a clear line between art and everything else?

      1. Rochelle Frank profile image90
        Rochelle Frankposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        As in the quotation, it is a personal subjective opinion. It is
        also "atifice" which  can be a craft or a deception, or something created to express or elicit thoughts.

        1. 0
          pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you for your post Rochelle Frank,

          Alas, I don't understand what you mean by 'As in the quotation...'

          Is a scientific paper not also an artifice?  Does science not involve a degree of art - 'the art of science'? Cannot a science paper deceive as much as illuminate?

          Why do we not call Einstein's theory of relativity art?

          1. susanlang profile image61
            susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            People are beautiful, some of us are a masterpiece in our own beauty.  That's why so many people have been painted on canvas. They are infact, "Art" in their own skin !  smile

            1. 0
              pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Nice idea Susanlang,

              Yes, people are wondrous creatures...

              And I agree - living the human existence is a full-blow art.

              I think Nietzsche adopted a similar attitude - that to be fully human one must create; that a world devoid of creators is a terrible and banal planet.

              Personally, I look to create with very sentence I utter; alas many people frown when I push the barriers of their conforming thoughts...

              But, hey, each to her own liking...

              I hope you continue to contribute to the thread smile

              1. susanlang profile image61
                susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I think you need to smile... because I'm smiling at you. Infact, your group asked me to send you a hug... so have one on me  *Hug*  smile

                1. 0
                  pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Thank you for the hugs...

                  But what is this think you call 'my group'?

                  And where, when, and how did 'my group' ask you to send me a hug?

                  1. susanlang profile image61
                    susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Pburger: you said you push the barriers of people's conforming thoughts.
                    By your own words, pburger, you admitt your a very "pushy" person. Now, what do you know about my thoughts?  You say my thoughts are "conforming" , while I think in many cases conforming is an essential part of the cooperation needed to maintain balance,, you clearly have not read my profile, otherwise, you would not be so quick as to suggest I am "all" conforming, all the time. You are talking to me right now, and, based on your other posts to many in this forum. You do come off quite pushy and insulting. Now, go and delete your other insulting posts which you made to other's in this forum, and use whatever trick software you have to rearrange some of the posts so their out of order and that way you know you come off looking so inocent.  Aww, but camcorders are a wonderful thing when one is recording Art. Is that not what you said?  Your words are Art? In that case, I love the spoken word even more! smile wink

              2. susanlang profile image61
                susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                By the way burger, its not an idea...it's a fact! If you were not so inlove with yourself...and I'm sure you have your hands wraped around yourself in between hitting your keyboard, you might truly learn something about all form of art!  There, I said it cause it needed to be said!  I stand by my statement!

                1. 0
                  pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Thank you for pummeling me with a loving thought

                2. 0
                  pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  BTW LANG lol

                  A fact is fat with a 'c' in it!

                  One woman's fat+C is another man's fiction.

                  And according your logic, if you, or anybody, reply or respond to this post - I must be right.

                  obligatory lol big_smile tongue

              3. 59
                Carolyn Meinhardtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                God is the ultimate and first creator.  We are created in His image and have been given many talents.  We just need to find them and develop  them, then apply it.  By not doing this we abuse and can misuse to a fault...then those gifts will be taken from us.  He is happy when we create and use our brains He designed to do so.  What a glorious gift to recreate God's masterpieces around us.

                1. 0
                  pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  If God created us in His image how come we have hims and hers. Is God uni-sexual?

            2. 0
              pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I not have the right to disagree
              Nor express a point of view different
              And some demand that I must heed
              The loudest voice from the ugliest people
              In this corner of a public domain

  3. susanlang profile image61
    susanlangposted 6 years ago

    This is something I found interesting which may be one answer to your question.


    Canadian artist Gail Adams has always supported and encouraged the youth of today. Gail as a former member of the Prairieland Exhibition Fine Art Committee, as well as a current member of the Saskatchewan Wildlife Artist Association which has been very instrumental in the high quality and number of submissions for these two outstanding art competitions. Gail not only actively supports these art competitions, but through her donations continues to support youth and various wildlife organizations throughout North America.  Gail has had many successes due to her commitment and personal dedication towards her art. She is thankful for the God given talent which has allowed her to realize the fulfillment one achieves when able to work with one's own passion.  Gail has resided for the past 20 years in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, along with her husband Dave, their 2 children Darren and Leanne, and most recently with her granddaughter Payge. Due to these aspects in Gail's life..... we find her very much enjoying her life as a Saskatoon artist.

    1. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Thank for this biography of Gail Adams. But how does this contribute to the conversation around the question?

      BTW - I did not post the question to find a definitive answer. I posted the question to explore the options...

      Feel free to contribute to the ongoing conversation around the question What is art?

      1. susanlang profile image61
        susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The answer is simple, she is a work of art, everyone born is a creation and therefore, a work of art!  Why do you think so many people have been painted ?  Answer: to preserve their beauty as many of us are a masterpiece!  Oh..and your welcome!  smile

        1. 0
          pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          OIC roll

          Thank you for sharing a thought that reminds me of the Buddhist greeting of hands in a praying gesture; to recognize the God in each person. But, because I am not religious, I will more often look for the art of each person.

          1. susanlang profile image61
            susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Another hug might do it...*hug*  smile

            1. 0
              pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              OIC roll

              Every reply of mine, that you don't like, means I have a problem? How does this work? You pontificate and acquiesce?

              1. 0
                pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Amendment - You pontificate and I acquiesce?

  4. theirishobserver. profile image61
    theirishobserver.posted 6 years ago

    art is what ever you want it to be

    1. susanlang profile image61
      susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes.. so at the moment I wanted it to be what I posted!   smile

    2. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not sure I understand how your post speaks to the question.

      Your post seems to overlook the the two-way transaction that takes places with art. An artist might consider something artistic but the audience might not. For example, many critics and viewers decried Marcel Duchamp's surrealist works as 'not art'.

      I look forward to your comments...

      1. Daniel Carter profile image90
        Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That's a subjective, elitist judgment, not an accurate assessment. I disagree that it's not art. A child's scrawl is art to his mother. We have seen such things framed on walls and magnetized to refrigerators. Aesthetics are a completely subjective and judgmental assessment based on like and dislike. Art can still be art despite being disliked. We've witnessed and experienced that over and over.

        1. 0
          pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Daniel

          Thank you for the post. However, I think I did not make myself clear to your understanding.

          My example of - many critics and viewers decried Marcel Duchamp's surrealist works as 'not art' - was meant to make the very point you made. That is, 'Art can still be art despite being disliked.'

          Hence, my question 'What is art?' is not an attempt to construct some universal truth, rather, the question is asking want do you think is art? Another way to put my question would - why do you call something art?

          On another tack,  you make the observation that 'A child's scrawl is art to his mother'. No doubt that is true. And that attests to 'the two-way transaction that takes places with art'. So can I ask you to think further than 'Aesthetics are a completely subjective and judgmental assessment based on like and dislike'?

          For example, would you expect the result effect from a scientific paper that you receive from a picture that you consider artistic? And why?

          Or, why is one picture considered artistic, for example, a landscape. But, that same scene might also be photographed by a surveyor, in which case - would we call it art? Why?

      2. susanlang profile image61
        susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        pburger, I already answered your question up above. So please scroll up and read it.  Thanks and your welcome!  smile  wink

        1. 0
          pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          smile Yes you did, and I apologize for my premature expostulation - I'm like 'the Irish observer' leaping before I look.... smile

      3. susanlang profile image61
        susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        my post didn't over look anything... you did burger. smile

        1. 0
          pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Where did I say you overlooked something? I said 'I'm like 'the Irish observer' leaping before I look'. When did 'I' become 'You'? Methinks you need to chill

          1. susanlang profile image61
            susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            pburger: I'll over look your typo's because I make them too. However, I think you need to stop putting words in other people's posts.  smile

            1. 0
              pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              What?
              It is physically impossible for me to put words in other peoples' posts.
              Where are the typos in the post to which you just replied?
              What is your point - other than abuse?
              That I should have perfect language?
              That I need your approval for my thoughts?
              Get off your podium... see your Freudian projection

    3. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      If 'art is what ever you want it to be' then ... omFARKINGgodfather I can't ask..bludgeoned into silence, I'll have to learn to live with my ignorance  smile  smile  neutral   big_smile  yikes  wink  hmm  tongue  lol  roll cool

  5. theirishobserver. profile image61
    theirishobserver.posted 6 years ago

    i had not read your post when i replied to the thread title - good post

    1. susanlang profile image61
      susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      why,  thank you theirishob. smile

    2. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The Irish observer leaps before looking? Watch out for the cliff... big_smile

      1. susanlang profile image61
        susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        We love ya pburger, here's a group hug !!  lol  smile  wink

        1. 0
          pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          OMG LMAO

          Thank you susanlang

          Group hug for you too lol smile wink

  6. Daniel Carter profile image90
    Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago

    Wikipedia, the controversial "authority" has a pretty good definition, I believe:

    "Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, sculpture, and paintings. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics."

    It goes on from there....
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art

    Additionally, I think art is principally an expressive representation of what life and death, and everything in between means to us individually and collectively. Art is not confined to what is considered aesthetic high quality.

    1. Rochelle Frank profile image90
      Rochelle Frankposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I like your definition better than Wiki.

      1. Daniel Carter profile image90
        Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks. I'm a composer/songwriter, but I don't really like the term "artist". I think artisan makes more sense. It's an artisan's work to get your hands dirty in your craft and make it functional and useful. I sometimes tell my artsy friends I make "musical chairs and tables" to be functional, but sometimes there arises a melody that's really different and sometimes beautifully haunting. I don't often know where they come from except from within.

        Sometimes these things seem to rise above such artisan pieces to become art, but that process seems to be undefinable, and individually subject from person to person.

        1. Rambo-boy profile image60
          Rambo-boyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Art, it’s one of those funny things in our society, such as music, that we can’t exactly explain. It is a way to communicate and express ourselves or tell a storyPeople have always enjoyed creating art, with many famous art schools and artists throughout history. If we quickly skip through these we see trends change from the perfect perspective to movements such as Cubism with Picasso as one of the best known artists. Also Dali with his weird distorted realities of the surrealist movement.

          1. 0
            pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Hello Rambo-boy

            Nice irony in the pseudonym...

            Certainly schools of art come and go. But I'm not sure 'People have always enjoyed creating art' - Yes, people have always created art but many artists find little pleasure in the act. Graeme Green, that English writer, was a sorry man who used his writing as therapy to find solace from the brutal world.

            Until recently, artists poisoned themselves with the paint they used. They mixed their own paints using substances such as mercury and lead. Such artists suffered for their art. And the well-heeled artist is very recent phenomenon; in many respects Picasso and Dali are exceptions to the rule.

            And let us look farther back than the modernists. Let us recall the Middle Ages, where the church dominated as the commissioner of art. People suffered from art, lowly paid artisans who worked under terrible conditions.Think of the physical effort of moving those stones to the top of those huge spires. Think of the accidents that led to the deaths of artisans. Think of Michael Angelo and the chapel ceiling. Think of Beethoven turning deaf....

            As for the consumption of art? How many artists try to shock the audience. The tradition of shock is not new. The Romantics make shock the basis of art - art had to shock to provoke within the viewer or reader a change of mind. And today, what about the Dadaists and the Surrealists who promoted an aesthetic of the ugly, as a counter to the beauty preferred by the school of classicism?

            Can we really think of 'enjoyment' and 'pleasure' as an essential feature, or the primary function, of the production and consumption of art?

      2. 0
        pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thank for sharing that Rochelle,

        Would you like to expand that thought. Why do you prefer Daniel's 'definition better than Wiki'?

        Cheers smile

    2. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Bravo Daniel,

      Your post raises interesting points.

      The denotation, the dictionary definition, of art... Alas, the compass of a word overflows any definition. That is, connotations abound with words. For example, what do you make of 'the art of science' or 'the science of art'. What the seemingly plain word 'red'? Does it conjure in your mind a location on the spectrum of light? And if so, precisely where - Strawberry red? Scarlet? Crimson? Or perhaps the word 'red' triggers political connotations - 'Communists!' So, the value of the definition taken from wiki is IMO somewhat constrained within a straight-jacket of convention.

      And if the definition is so clear and true, then how come our judgments of art are so cloudy and diverse? Does the history of art not show that the definition of art is always dubious. The Nazis in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s come to mind. They banned any art that did not conform to a definition that they accepted.

      and how many artists today, consciously push the boundaries? Are these artists not making deliberate efforts to confound the current definition of art?

    3. susanlang profile image61
      susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Very well said, and that is why I said up above, people are beautiful, some of us are a masterpiece in our beauty.  That's why so many beautiful people have been painted on canvas. They are infact, art in their own skin !!  smile

  7. Pandoras Box profile image83
    Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago

    I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. Art is an expression of the human condition. Whether you, I, or the dead and gone nazis like it or not is irrelevent.

    When the surveyor takes a picture of a site it is not art, other than the art of surveying -totally different thing. However, should that picture catch someone else's fancy in some way, then it becomes art because it is now an expression of something within that person.

    1. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for a thought-provoking post, Pandora's Box,

      i begin with the notion that 'Art is an expression of the human condition'.
      To my mind, you assert a conception that bespeaks of universality  - i.e. for all people, in all times, and all places. Your espoused conception also reduces art to a single function an is then essentialist. My view maybe the result of the context of this communication, and therefore I will stand corrected if needs be. But as this stage of proceedings, I cannot hold with a universal single function for art.

      Let us distinguish between religious art , commercial art, and avant-garde art. Not all religious art is not an expression of the human condition, it expresses the doctrine and theology of the particular commissioning religion. Nor is religious art a static category, and thus the character and function of such art changes over time . I like to think those changes come about because the human condition changes. But I would not say religious art expresses the human condition.

      Commercial art differs from religious art in many ways, but if by commercial art we understand fiction in any art-form then I have trouble understanding how fiction expresses the human condition. i would argue that fiction is a not a lie, but certainly a constructed reality that requires two points-of-view. The producer of the art brings a particular point-of-view that 'colors' the representation. Thus, if the the art expresses anything it express the artist's condition. But to generalize one person's living condition to the whole of humanity is a stretch of the imagination I cannot make.

      Then we must take account of the second point-of-view brought to bear on a piece of art - that of the consumer, audience, reader, viewer...The condition of this person is often radically different from that of the producer. For example, Charles Dickens and a modern reader of his work. So, the modern consumer of a non-contemporary work of art differ in the conditions under which they live. We see this in the alternative interpretations of older works put forth by contemporary consumers. Art popular in a one era, seems inaccessible to people in a later era.

      And avant-garde art tends to eschew much of the preceding ideas. But what constitutes avant-garde is not fixed in time. As social conventions change so the connotation of of avant-garde changes.

      So, the universality of art is hard for me to accept.

      And you assert that 'When the surveyor takes a picture of a site it is not art'. IMO when one asserts something one is not open to the possibility of alternative positions. Again, I may be wrong. Perhaps, I misinterpret the meaning buried within your words.

      However, let me proceed based on my interpretation.

      You see, what is missing from your 'assertion' is an explanation of why you think as you do. You seem to pigeon-hole things. Surveying is not art, and art is not surveying... But that distinction relies on the dictionary, on a definition of art. And yet, we have not  determined in a social manner where the clear dividing-line begins and ends. By social manner I mean that while the appreciation and evaluation of art rests on a subjective basis, the communication of our appreciation and evaluation rests on discourse - and that is social product.

      Which brings me to your opening question - what was I trying to get in my earlier post? That language limited to denotation - dictionary definitions - leads one to a static understanding of any concept. And the more subjective that concept the more static our thinking when focused on denotations.  What is more, a dictionary is something of a grave-yard for words because language changes and dictionaries lag behind current usage. So, an understanding of art that relies on the dictionary is bound to lag behind any currently accepted view of art.

      i hope that gives you something to ponder...

      1. Pandoras Box profile image83
        Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well you do ramble on more than I. No, you did misconstrue, as I think my example of the surveyor's photograph made clear. There is no universal expression, which is why my art may be your junk.

        Plus you're interchanging two meanings of the term. The 'art' of effective advertising, for example, is not always art. The 'art' of making a mattress is probably never art.

        Yes, religious art is an expression of the human condition in one way or another. Not an expression of every human's condition, no, nor even necessarily an expression of the artist's condition, but it is an expression of the human condition in that certain humans are touched by it, can relate to it, can turn to it and find comfort or beauty in it.

        Fiction is an expression of the human condition in many ways. You know authors always put that disclaimer in their books "not representative of any actual persons living or dead". It's not exactly true, strictly speaking. Authors draw on their life experiences and the observation of others for their characters.

        Even our desire for beauty, for justice, for money, equality, all these things -and so much more- are expressions of the human condition.

        Actually, lol, since the topic was at your instigating, I hope I have given you something to ponder, since it was you seeking input. But then, I guess not.

        Sorry I couldn't be more helpful.

        By the way, I always enjoyed Dickens, great escapism. Not always very realistic in the happy endings, but I like happy endings. Sure we can't exactly relate to living in 19th century England, but do you really think that's what Dickens' books were about?

        1. 0
          pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          First, when you say that I ramble you imply that I must contain myself to a length you accept as appropriate.

          Second, when you say 'religious art is an expression of the human condition' and 'Fiction is an expression of the human condition' you assert these points as if they are scientific facts.

          Before I can fully understand what you mean I must first appreciate what you call 'the human condition'' but I must ramble on. So I have no room to explain my ignorance.

          And yes, you give something to ponder... but no room to post my pondering

          1. 0
            china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I would agree with Pandora - it is not what you are saying, this is moderately interesting to follow, it is the pompous mock academic verbosity of the posts that is wearing.  If you put what you are trying to say in plain language it would make for much much shorter posts.

            1. 0
              pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              OIC hmm

              Do you mean I should be myself? Do you mean I should not use my own style of writing? Do you mean I should tweeter - use 140 characters or less?

              1. Jane Bovary profile image87
                Jane Bovaryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Maybe if you just came down off your podium...

                1. 0
                  pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Again Jane Bovary you pigeon-hole me...

                  Again you pronounce judgment without addressing the question between the lines.

                  You have your style of writing and includes the savory elements of pigeon-holing, argument ad hominem, and cutting sarcasm....

                  You do not seem to realize that you crowned yourself queen of rational thought and from your throne you dictate to those call the plebs. Why I should change my voice when you and your favored few do not?

              2. 0
                pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I missed a 'not' - the first sentence should read 'Do you mean I should not be myself?'

        2. susanlang profile image61
          susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Pandoras, hello.. nice to read your comments today!

  8. Pandoras Box profile image83
    Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago

    Confound the current definition of art? No. Expand it maybe.

    What the heck is a "current definition of art". I don't understand the statement as it is written. Current trends in art, current tastes, these have always changed, but the definition of art itself does not change.

    1. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Pandoras Box -  What the heck is a "current definition of art"? That was my point in the earlier post.

      And do you really expect posts on a thread in a hug-page to have the clarity and erudition of a theoretical paper?

      I credit you with intelligence, and therefore remind you that the English language has formal, informal, and casual registers. The register of a thread is informal, if not at times downright casual. Hence we encounter misspellings, shortcuts, poor grammar, experiments in language and a potpourri of usage. Again I maybe wrong, but do I ken a strict regimented thinker on the other side of this conversation?

      I do not expect perfection from you, in your writing, thinking, or being. Hence, I acknowledge I may be at fault with my interpretation. I hope you extend a generous interpretation to these later posts of mine..

      Cheers cool

      1. Pandoras Box profile image83
        Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well, okay, my bad, I guess.

        I just wanted to be sure I understood what you were trying to say. Your thread here is kinda weird. You asked peoples' input regarding what makes art, reject most of what is offered in socratic style, and refer to a "current definition".

        I thought you maybe had some point to eventually get to. I was just trying to help you along before everyone lost interest in the thread.

        1. 0
          pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you Pandora's Box,

          Please help me further. I do not understand what you mean by 'You asked peoples' input regarding what makes art, reject most of what is offered in Socratic style, and refer to a "current definition"'.

          Don't get me wrong, I understand the Socratic method, and that I references the term 'current definition" but where have I 'rejected ... what is offered'?

          Yours, in genuine need of help smile

      2. 0
        pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        OMG - Look mum - a typo! Hug-pages? Indeed! roll

  9. 0
    kimberlyslyricsposted 6 years ago

    Thisis worth a read on the subject, Mike has some brilliant thoughts on what is and what isn't Art

    http://hubpages.com/hub/What-is-Art-What-is-Not-Art

    Kimberly

    1. Daniel Carter profile image90
      Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Very good hub, Kimberly. Thanks for the link.
      I rather think that art has a tendency to have a follower base, therefore, one group will proclaim its definition, while another will disagree and counter it's not art at all. This is pretty consistent with the hub Kimberly linked to.

      The word "red" at times can be art, while at others it will seem not. The variety and possibilities seem almost endless, really.

      Art is like religion to me. Followers of a style, a brand, or a variety gathering together, extolling its virtues while other sects disagree.

      In short, I think the old cliché is true: Art is in the eye of the beholder.

      1. Pandoras Box profile image83
        Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Works for me.

    2. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Wicked shit Kimberleyslyrics hmm

      Totally awesome. Clear language, coherent structure, thoughtful insights... And even an argument against 'the concept that art is anything its creator wants it to be'...

      Great contribution, thanks heaps

  10. torimari profile image79
    torimariposted 6 years ago

    It's very subjective and personal.

    The cliche 'Art is in the eye of the beholder..." is true!

    I live right near the Philly Art Museum and there is the room full of what I perceive as childish scribbles of penis and fire. I'm serious...a whole room to vulgar crayon scribbles.

    However, my friend swears they are deep and meaningful pieces of work...yea, very subjective topic.

    1. Daniel Carter profile image90
      Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You beat me to it, and so then, I'm not alone in feeling comfortable with a cliché, which could also be a truism.

      1. torimari profile image79
        torimariposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No matter how overused, some cliches are overused and lasting for a reason---they often times hold simple but valid truths!smile

        1. 0
          pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Thank for your contribution torimari,

          And no doubt 'some cliches are overused and lasting for a reason'... but do not the prevalance of such cliches beg the question 'why they persist?' And that answer, I suspect, must go beyond simply 'they are true'. For that simple answer begs several questions.

          So, while I agree with you and Daniel that art is a highly subjective enterprise, I do not feel satisfied with such an answer because such answer does not burrow deep into the physical layers of the brain that actually produce the 'subjective impression.'

          And please, do not construe me as someone searching for a definitive answer... Far from it, rather than tie-down art to some definition, with this thread I hope attract a diverse range of opinions and encounter a multitude of views...

          In many ways I want to challenge my own view of art...

    2. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      yikes That sounds so cool :p

      Maybe the artist and museum hope to challenge 'straight-jacket morality'?  roll

  11. sagbee profile image60
    sagbeeposted 6 years ago

    Art is nothing but the creativity of an individual.. whatever comes out of the imaginative mind no matter on canvas or in the form of some show piece comes in the category of art..

    1. susanlang profile image61
      susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      well said.. and people are beautiful in their own skin, therefore,  they are art. smile

      1. alternate poet profile image78
        alternate poetposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I don't agree that a person is art - it can clearly be natural beauty but not art. Art expresses an idea, a person just is.

        If art does not express an idea it is just decoration.

        What is art has been done by some excellent minds - I am sure pb can tell us what they say about it?

        1. susanlang profile image61
          susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          alt poet,  I disagree with you. A person is the creation of God's idea. Therefore is art... and even if you say you don't believe in God, I still disagree with you when you say  (a person just is)  no person just is. Everyone of us is a creation of something GREATER then ourselves. Nothing just is!  smile

          1. alternate poet profile image78
            alternate poetposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Creation by your god or nature is naturally occurring and so like any mountain or sunset - beautiful but not art.

            1. susanlang profile image61
              susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              once again poet, and for the last time... people are art in their own skin. mountains are art, the sunset is art. anything beautiful is a creation and therefore, a work of art. That's my statement and I'm sticking to it! smile

              1. Greek One profile image81
                Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                dont forget the ugly.. the ugly can be art too

                1. alternate poet profile image78
                  alternate poetposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  bloody good job too or we would all be artless big_smile

                2. Greek One profile image81
                  Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_MXgmyVNt4E8/SBC7A4IepHI/AAAAAAAACRQ/oUP42av6KFU/s320/mona%2Bgioconda.jpg

                  http://www.notempire.com/images/uploads/mona-lisa-1629-mid.jpg

                  http://www.studiolo.org/Mona/images/Gescheidt1991-01.jpg

                  http://www.worldart.com.au/userimages/user999_1148605477.bmp

                  http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/monalisa2.jpg

                  1. susanlang profile image61
                    susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    greek, you never lose your good humor  lol  well done. smile wink

                  2. sagbee profile image60
                    sagbeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    hahahhaha...thats too funny.. a great representation of art... lols...

                  3. errum fattah profile image59
                    errum fattahposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    its dangerous...

              2. alternate poet profile image78
                alternate poetposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                No it is NOT  *stamps foot*  if every beautiful thing is art then we would have to invent a new word for art !!!

                1. susanlang profile image61
                  susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Stamp your foot all you want, poet.  smile  lol  everything beautiful is art!  By the way poet...do you  line dance with that stomping foot?  lol

                  1. 0
                    pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    lol Come on susanlang

                    Are you losing your sense of humor? ;P

                    Do you really consider your last comment to alternate poet polite and caring, simply because you punctuate your thought with a few smileys? lol

          2. 0
            pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            OIC with a hug smile God's idea?

    2. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Does anybody think it possible that 'we' can organize a piece of global art built from the physical and non-physical presences of people?

  12. heart4theword profile image57
    heart4thewordposted 6 years ago

    Art is in the eyes of the beholder!  What some say is a piece of art, others say it is not art at all.

    1. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes heart4theword you echo the thoughts of other people,

      And thank you for your contribution to the consensus.

      But can you dig a little deeper into the subjectivity of art appreciation?

      With this thread, I at least, am not trying to come to a definitive explanation or the ultimate understanding of 'what is art?'

      Yet, to say art is what you think it is, does not, to my mind, open any useful vision. I do not think the diversity of art opinion reaches into the heart of the matter.

      Can we use this thread to burrow into our cliches and find out why art is in the eye of the beholder, as opposed to any other point of view?

      kimberlyslyrics introduced this useful hub http://hubpages.com/hub/What-is-Art-What-is-Not-Art on the varieties of opinion of 'what is art?'

      1. susanlang profile image61
        susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I think your nuts got away from your candy bowl! wink

        1. 0
          pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          And I consider your mixed metaphor quite revealing big_smile

          1. susanlang profile image61
            susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            lol

  13. 0
    china manposted 6 years ago

    Art is just another form of communication, it communicates the thought that cannot be put into words.

    1. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you China man,

      Your that 'Art is just another form of communication'  provoke me to ask if the word 'just' is a 'just' word in this context. That is, the word 'just' as you use it, implies 'mere'; 'Being nothing more than...' But I know of one philosophy of language that says communication is a form of social behavior. i would then suggest there is nothing 'mere' or 'just' and communication. The single word 'communication' tends to make obscure a complex phenomenon that bridges physical form with neuropsychological processes.

      And then you say art 'communicates the thought that cannot be put into words'. Here I focus on your use of the word 'cannot'. Much of what art communicates is implied but that I suggest is not because the thought 'cannot' be expressed - rather the artist chooses to leave something expressed; else the reader or viewer has nothing upon which to exercise this or her imagination....

      Perhaps, my reading is to rigid. Perhaps you can elucidate another view?

      Cheers, smile

    2. heart4theword profile image57
      heart4thewordposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I agree!  Art from the Heart, can be another form of language:)

      1. 0
        pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Welcome to the forum heart4theword,

        No doubt, 'art from the Heart, [has] a form of language' just as art from the mind. But perhaps the question 'what is art' inquires deeper than that... going to the question of 'how does art communicate?'

        Can you comment?

  14. 59
    donteatthatposted 6 years ago

    In my opinion, art is what the people want. I can put something together and ill be liek OH LOOK ART. but it has to be approved to be art. and who will approve that? the people.
    talent may go into it. but art is also a chance thing.
    art is whatever you want it to be doesnt work.

    1. Jane Bovary profile image87
      Jane Bovaryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Does art shift then? For example Van Gogh only sold one painting [to his brother] in his life...the people had not declared it art. Does that mean it's art now but it wasn't then?

      I think it was art then as much at it is now so I don't think you are right with that definition.

      1. 0
        pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Whaaaahooo Jane Bovary...

        Are you bringing science to bear on art?

        In reply to your question, 'Does that mean it's art now but it wasn't then?' I would answer YES! The people of Van Gogh's time said his art was rubbish, that was why they didn't buy it. social conditions had to change before people came to understand his work as art. Otherwise you postulate some universal quality to art, in which case I draw your attention to the like in the post above by kimberleyslyrics...

        As for saying to donteatthat 'I don't think you are right with that definition'; well blow me down, you got through telling me to get on my podium and here are making another pronouncement from your throne.

        In this thread, I personally don't care whether somebody's right or not? I'm not trying to tally right and wrong 'facts'. With this thread, I'm trying to gauge the consensus of opinion. I'm trying to listen to the diversity of opinions, even if that does make me seem like I'm on a podium.

        1. alternate poet profile image78
          alternate poetposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          It is not within your purvey to tally or otherwise pronounce on right and wrong I think; and your definition of us as 'the people' in conjunction with your pedestal, sorry, you said podium, says much more that all your previous words.

          1. 0
            pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            LMAFO that's exactly what I said - "'I'm not trying to tally right and wrong 'facts" Why do you take exception to that and tell 'It is not within your purvey to tally or otherwise pronounce on right and wrong'. Except in your mind, where did I lay claim to a purvey to pronounce right and wrong? Methinks you have crooked aim...

            As for taking a consensus of opinion - that is entirely within my scope. If I look down the thread and count X numbers said 'this' and Y number people said 'that" and Z number of people said 'WTF!' Where's the wrong in that? Why does the offend you?

            And where did I say anything about a 'definition of us as 'the people' in conjunction with your pedestal'?  I said, 'I'm trying to listen to the diversity of opinions, even if that does make me seem like I'm on a podium.' Look back up the thread and you will find where the word podium entered the discourse. But obviously my irony was lost on you. So how much of a poet are you, a poet who doesn't ken irony? There's an oxymoron...

          2. 0
            pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            But it's within your purvey to slap me down!?!

        2. Jane Bovary profile image87
          Jane Bovaryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Sheesh...I said "I think" not "I know" and  donteatthat is free to disagree with me...just as I am free to disagree with you when you voice your opinions...or don't you concede you have any?

          Not everyone thought Van Gogh's art was rubbish..even if only  the artist himself places a value on it as art, that's good enough for me. Of course that's just an OPINION..not a decree from my throne.

          PB, I'm prepared to admit I have pigeon-holed you, which is unfair...so sorry about that. In my defence,whether you identify with the postmodern theorists or not most of your questions are the same or very similar to the ones I've been hearing for the last 3 years. I just don't buy into them that's all and I don't see anything wrong with voicing that. I did try to provide a justification for why I think the way I do but you dismiss my views as rigidly as I dismiss yours so let's not get too self-righteous here.

          1. 0
            pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Within the uncomfortable pigeon-hole, I responded in a mode that I thought was in-kind.

            And as I said to someone in another thread to which we both contribute ... It takes two to tango, two to bicker, and two to compromise...

          2. susanlang profile image61
            susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Jane, I think your *key* word on pburger is *conceded*  opps, I mean concede. Good point you made Jane.

            1. 0
              pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Group hug for susanlang smile big_smile cool

              1. susanlang profile image61
                susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                pburger:  are you now admitting you have a group???  Oh.. thanks for your group hug then!  smile  lol  wink

        3. Jane Bovary profile image87
          Jane Bovaryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Pb, Suppose you came upon a beautiful, weird undiscovered cave painting...would you dismiss it as art because it hadn't been popularised as such?

          1. 0
            pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            No.

  15. Greek One profile image81
    Greek Oneposted 6 years ago

    http://album.punt.nl/upload/ArtGarfunkel.jpg

    1. 0
      kimberlyslyricsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      nicely said Greek ? hmm:

      1. susanlang profile image61
        susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        LMAO,   poor Greek  lol

  16. theirishobserver. profile image61
    theirishobserver.posted 6 years ago

    Art is love....love of all that surrounds us.... smile

    1. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      OIC roll A little vague for my mind...

    2. susanlang profile image61
      susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well said the irish observer. I love the way you write. wink

  17. Greek One profile image81
    Greek Oneposted 6 years ago

    another example of art...

    http://blog.lib.umn.edu/bgleason/pt/dogs-playing-poker.jpg

    1. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      And your point is?

      1. Greek One profile image81
        Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        art needs no explanation or justification..
        it is what ever a person says it is...
        the determination of which is subjective to each person

        1. Daniel Carter profile image90
          Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          ...and the Greek sage has spoken...

          Me likee.
          wink

          1. susanlang profile image61
            susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I second that Daniel Carter smile

        2. 0
          pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Methinks - if that is permissible - that the Greek One makes a contradiction.

          If 'art needs no explanation or justification' then why does the Greek One feel the need to post an all too brief 'explanation or justification'? smile hmm

          1. Greek One profile image81
            Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            well, we are on the topic after all, aren't we?

            1. 0
              pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Topic?  roll

            2. 0
              pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              'We'? Who's this we?

              1. Greek One profile image81
                Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                the collective we on this forum

                1. 0
                  pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I still don't see a 'we'
                  I don't believe the 'we' exists except in a political context that enables you to leverage a mystical group to support your own opinion.

                  The use of 'we' in place of 'I', is the same tactic used by politicians to mobilize the masses - nothing more than the usurpation of the voices of the silent people.

                  Until you refrain from using the royal plural pronoun I cannot find common ground with you - IMO common ground exists between two people using single person pronouns - I-statements.

  18. theirishobserver. profile image61
    theirishobserver.posted 6 years ago

    excelent - Taxas Hold'em

  19. 0
    kimberlyslyricsposted 6 years ago

    While I believe this womans art is true beauty I also believe it is true art.  Art simply is something that provokes emotion.  For me anyways.

    It's funny, I always know what I don't think is art and question what I do think is

    Treat yourself to one of many of these beautiful pieces in motion.

    Nothing but sand and 2 hands

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIOsIbqpR5s

    Kimberly

  20. Richieb799 profile image61
    Richieb799posted 6 years ago

    The problem is when art becomes institutionalized, Queen Victoria if I remember rightly is quoted as saying 'Beware of artists - they mix with all classes of society and are therefore most dangerous'

    1. mythbuster profile image87
      mythbusterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Wow - beware of Queen Victoria's thoughts on the matter! lol

      1. susanlang profile image61
        susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        lmao lol

    2. Daniel Carter profile image90
      Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Wow. Obviously elitism among those who commission expensive artworks, is polluted with the riff-raff of the earth that artists apparently are, according to the good queen.

      She didn't get out much, did she.

      1. susanlang profile image61
        susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        lol point taken.

      2. Richieb799 profile image61
        Richieb799posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I don't think she meant it in a bad way, I thought the quote was relevent to my comment, Artists are dangerous because they encourage people to think outside the boundaries of what is the 'norm', institutions are'nt funded by artists themselves - power to the people I say!

        1. alternate poet profile image78
          alternate poetposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          art is outside the boundaries of the norm - or at least in teh boundary - that is what it is.

        2. susanlang profile image61
          susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          power to the people right on.

        3. 0
          pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I agree with you Richieb799 - the value of artists was that they moved across social boundaries. I wonder today if that is still the case. I think the bourgeois mode of thinking overtakes so many artists that mixing between the 'classes' is not so common these days.

  21. 0
    kimberlyslyricsposted 6 years ago

    Greek One is Art

    Graceful
    Resemblance
    Enhancing
    Emotions
    Kindly

    Otherwise
    Never
    edible

    [lame, ya, so whats your point?

    Attractive
    Resemblance  of
    Thought

    1. Greek One profile image81
      Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      will you marry me?  (I'll have to change my religion to one that will allow it, and also ask my wife if she wants company in the house, though)

  22. susanlang profile image61
    susanlangposted 6 years ago

    Legal Abuse Must End, Inc. (lame)

  23. Lisa HW profile image83
    Lisa HWposted 6 years ago

    I think I define art as coming from a creative instinct, as as an attempt to recreate life (or some aspect of it, including internal life) through the art form.  So, if a five-year-old has the urge to draw a picture of his family, I'd call that art (a child's art, but art nonetheless).  I don't think art has to be beautiful.  Some pretty nasty recreations of some of "real life" are art too (whether we like to admit it or not).  I suppose, though, my own personal definition would be that a "recreation" of some aspect of life that also nurtured life would be even better.

    I'm not a religious person, but I've often thought of the "line" "in the image and likeness..".  To the person who believes in God or some higher force, the idea that creativity (or at least creative urge) is directed as recreating life (in some way) could almost seem as if this would be "where creativity and spirituality" meet (even if the person isn't particularly thinking in terms of spirituality when he creates).

    Regardless of what/who anyone's "higher power" is; if you think of the concept that man was created "in the image and likeness of God", then the idea that God (or some higher power) may have created man in His/its own spiritual likeness; it would make sense that a the human spirit (a "copy" of a higher spirit) would have an urge to "create" life through art.

    All of it would point not just to the preservation of the human species (as in evolution), but to the preservation (through art) of "all of life itself" - on a "higher level" than just the biological thing of a species.  I'd think even if you rule out the concept of a higher power creating man in His/its image; it would still make sense that with the development of intellect (in the form of artistic expression) has come the potential of further "advancement" of spirituality (whether or not any particular artist is thinking in spiritual terms when he creates).

    So that's my take on the whole art matter (at 6:00 a.m. this multi-coffee morning).   smile

  24. Sue Adams profile image92
    Sue Adamsposted 6 years ago

    There are two distinct positions for art. That of the creator, which is partly therapeutic but also has an element of the urge to achieve technical perfection like virtuoso musicians or actors, painters, dancers, you name it. That is one side of the coin which I recognise and appreciate.
    Then there is Number two: the view of the audience, the critics and the public. If Art therefore is the highly skilled expression of a true artist then, for me, as soon as art becomes a financial and gambling commodity, it ceases to be art. Even Van Gogh's Sun Flowers wouldn't fetch millions if the painting had not been signed by a "master". I talk about this issue in my hub "Name Dropping".

    1. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Sue Adams
      I do not employ a therapeutic angle in my art. My friend does, alas he suffers schizophrenia.

      What I do with my art, long prose fiction and drama, is try to explore a problem... For example, the protagonist faces a dilemma, such as 'Can she climb a formidable mountain?' The story then stands as a vehicle to explore different points of view on that problem.

      Someone else may characterize that as therapy but not me...

  25. Pandoras Box profile image83
    Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago

    Two thoughts. As pointed out by others, art isn't always about beauty.

    The other thing is what we generally universally find beautiful is more, I think, about where we live in the universe, or even the planet. Desert dwellers for instance are more likely to think a desert scene beautiful than those who live by the ocean or in the woods.

    This is in a way in response to Susan's idea that people are art and Lisa's post above about a higher power being the original creator. I'm not arguing with either of you, just adding my comments, because after all, art -like beauty- is in the eye of the beholder.

    People are beautiful to us, but how much of that has to do with our emotional response and how much is truly just a matter of aesthetic standards?

    For instance, I am more likely to be drawn to an image of... a child playing in the dirt, an old wrinkled person, grimy day laborers at the end of their shift, etc etc than I am likely to be drawn to an image of a perfectly beautiful person.

    Sure I can see and acknowledge that beauty as well, but it isn't what really strikes me as beauty. I mean, I see beauty in the human form, but would better appreciate art that focuses -let us say- on a more human human. That's very likely based on where I come from personally.

    An upper class socialite may see it exactly the opposite. Old age is shunned, working men is an unknown, dirty children are not to be seen.

    In the same way, I think it's fair to conclude that the earthly things we find beauty in -landscapes, trees, oceans, mountains, lakes, rivers, sunsets, animals, flowers, etc. are beautiful to us because earth is where we come from.

    For instance, a scene that shows movement is often more appealing than one which doesn't, to many of us, because it is depicting life, in action, as we know it.

    Yes, life and beauty as we know it, either in our realities or in our dreams.

    I'll use the Mona Lisa for an example here. It isn't her perfection which makes the Mona Lisa so popular, I think. I think it is the mystery of her thoughts. Her eyes and her smile show something beyond the human perfection of her skin and features.

    Then again, there is art which pushes us beyond what we know or what is in our thoughts already. Generally not appealing on such a large scale.

    1. Lisa HW profile image83
      Lisa HWposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Pandora's Box, I think sometimes, whether or not a person aims to immortalize life in its beauty versus an uglier side to life has to do with what's going on inside the artist (his soul - for those who see "soul" in that way).   

      If I were to paint a picture tomorrow (I don't paint these days) I'd probably want to immortalize that child you mentioned or a beautiful mauve sunset (maybe because I'd think,"That's so beautiful - I want to capture that on canvas).  On the other hand,  I've taken an "artistic" approach with some Hubs I've made for the purpose of trying to make sure at least some people know how "bad"/"ugly" some things that go on are.  In that example, even though I wasn't painting, I tried to "create a mood" by adding certain kinds of images and music.  I was trying to help any readers get the mix of feelings involved in what I was writing about.

      Another example may be the rapper who aims to "immortalize" the kind of life that can surround people in some urban settings.  That person may either be aiming to portray reality as he sees it, or he may be angry about what goes on and want to let "the world" (and even posterity) see it as it is and maybe think about it, aim to change some things, etc.

      I do think, though, that art is always about trying to bring something to anyone who "experiences" it.  In the case of those example-Hubs I mentioned (and nobody would even think of Hubs as art), it was a matter of thinking I had information people needed to know/have and I wanted them to feel as much of the experience as possible (through the use of images, music, and whatever words I could think up).  Needless to say (in view of the fact that they were Hubs), I wasn't thinking, "Hey - come see this 'great art'
      I did."  Instead, I was thinking, "I hope if you read this you'll come away with a mini-experience that will help you see something you may not already have seen about some things that go on."

      I think the thing with the Mona Lisa is how real and living she she seems - and that goes back to art being about capturing real life in some way.  A photograph of a super-model with a giant, phony, smile (even if a beautiful one) and a lot of air-brushing wouldn't be art.

      1. Pandoras Box profile image83
        Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You know, I'm kinda surprised that this response came to what I wrote. "Uglier side of life." I didn't write anything about that.

        I'm not arguing with what you say, much art does depict the uglier side of life, and in most cases that's a good thing, I'd say.

        But my post had nothing to do with that.

        1. Lisa HW profile image83
          Lisa HWposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I wasn't really arguing anything at all - just "discussing"; but I guess what I did was "extend out" from your references to living in one beautiful place or another, the child, etc.; to the "opposite" of beautiful art and onto less than beautiful images.

          So I guess as I was pondering the whole beauty aspect to it, it was just natural that I also pondered that other side to things.  Maybe the  "old-age shunned" and "dirty-children" remarks got me to thinking of the "less than perfect-beauty"  angle.    hmm

          1. deosfluviatilis profile image90
            deosfluviatilisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Yeh, okay. Less than technically beautiful is fair. "Uglier side of life", in regards to what I was speaking of didn't seem quite right in response to the examples I gave. I didn't see it that way.

            But as I said, there was nothing in your post I disagreed with.

            In a way, I reckon you bring up a good point though. Beauty can be found, even in the uglier sides of life.

      2. 0
        pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        What the emerging art-form of 'digitally enhanced photography'?

        The other month, I spoke to a photographer and asked about the impact of the digital cameras. I learned that photographic exhibitions distinguish between non-enhanced and enhanced. As long as a photographer acknowledges the enhancements exhibitors and audiences deem the work art...

        Technology is indispensable and inseparable from art; a canvas, a brush, a lens, a frame, a pen are all technologies...

        One might even extend that notion so far as to say the artist is a technology

  26. Lisa HW profile image83
    Lisa HWposted 6 years ago

    Sue, (just debate here): it would seem to me that either of the two things you mentioned are less than "genuinely true" art.  The person who uses art in a therapeutic way is essentially engaging in a selfish act (and I think art is about more than self).  As far as the technical-perfection thing goes, that, too, seems to me to be a more "selfish" aim (in a lot of ways) (achieving that perfection).  In that instance, the person would seem to either want to be the one to achieve that technical perfection, or else s/he would be pursuing it for the same of reaching it.  To me, both motives are less than "art - in the truest sense of the word".  (Of course, that's just another opinion about the definition of "art" - nothing more).

    Everyone's free to "do" whatever his art is and define it their own way, but to me, it isn't really "pure" art if the motive amounts to some gain (not necessarily monetary gain, by any means) for the artist.  If you think about the technical-perfection aim, it almost seems to me as if that turns what would/could have been art into science instead.

    1. Sue Adams profile image92
      Sue Adamsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      HHmmm. Interesting Lisa. But to me, skill is embedded in art. Language proves this: "the art of baking bread" etc.. baking bread is not necessarily an artform but the word art is often used to mean skill. An unskilled artist, to me is a con-artist.

      1. deosfluviatilis profile image90
        deosfluviatilisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I'd guess it takes alot of skill to run a good con.

        Point taken however. A flawed loaf of bread does not attest favorably of the baker's skill.

        I do think, however, that the term art has two different meanings, and it probably isn't fair to use one to define the other.

        Still we must concede that there is an 'art' to creating good 'art'. I imagine what was meant was that too rigid a focus on the 'rules' or 'guidelines' of the 'art' of 'art' can interfere with producing a true masterpiece.

        Picasso, for instance, certainly broke some of the rules of the 'art', and yet his art is very beloved.

      2. susanlang profile image61
        susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        lol lol  That was just so funny Sue, thanks, and lots of con-artist running around the country indeed. lol wink

      3. 0
        pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Sue Adams,

        Can ask you - how language 'proves' some thing about language? That is, I'm sure I see how saying "the art of baking bread" makes it so... Adolf Hitler said the Jews were vermin, did that make it so?

      4. Lisa HW profile image83
        Lisa HWposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Sue, good point.  I think that distinction, though, may be more a matter of dictionaries including "discipline" as one of the definitions of "art" .  To me, it's two different uses of the same word.

    2. susanlang profile image61
      susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      often things created, devoloped, made and sold are both, art and science.
      Just look at some new car designs today. Many times we see a car and say, "wow, I like the design and style of that car"  therefore, art and science has come together. smile

    3. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Lisa

      I think you introduce a salient point - the social context of art.  I think art is about much more than self; for me, art implicates a distinct social relationship between producer and consumer. See my reply to timorous, below, for why I eschew create, creation, creator....

      And I agree the technical-perfection of art is nefarious at best and idealistic in practice. An aesthetic of the ugly, a modernist device, came about as a direct challenge to the classical and neoclassical ideal of beauty and perfection. For me, nothing in this world is perfect, ideal, and so if art relates to reality then art perforce needs some flaw.

      And yes I agree that art 'isn't really "pure"' art is a political act - to insert  into the world one's idea in an art-form is to enact the power relations extant with the social context of artistic production.

      1. Lisa HW profile image83
        Lisa HWposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        pburger, I think I'd I'd agree with your last point about political motives or a general wish to "make a statement" beyond something along the the lines of, "Oh - that sunset is so beautiful.  I need to try to capture it on canvas." or "Oh, that elderly man on the park bench is an intriguing glimpse of life," I'd like to try to capture that photograph.

        1. 0
          pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you Lisa,

          For me art is process not a product - and a very real social process. Your later example of a mother creating art for a child examples what I mean. The actual message of the mother goes beyond the image or words used... and implicates a social relation

          1. glendoncaba profile image82
            glendoncabaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Burger can you give me a simple one sentence definition of art, with special emphasis on visual arts.

            Then I could see where you are going.

            We all seem to be going around in circles.

            EDIT:  I should know better.  Art eludes simple definitions.  But let's have a go at it.

            1. 0
              pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Of course I cannot give you 'a simple one sentence definition of art'

              I didn't post the question to pin down 'a definition of art' - I posted the question to see what discussion people could make of the topic.

              I posted my question so I could discuss the topic with other people. The operative word being 'discuss', that is, to throw ideas up and see where they land, to pass back and forth various differences of opinion...

              As for your query about where I am going? I'm going nowhere - via online discussion I don't expect to arrive at any point...

              1. glendoncaba profile image82
                glendoncabaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                So we end up with a motley crew of forum addicts going back and forth over who have the right to insult everyone else's opinion of art.

                And the OP is the favourite punching bag and worst offender.

                Well...if there is no goal then any road will take us there.  Artists are crazy, so too are people who write about art.

                I mean...you start a thread What is art but you dont want a definition.  You should be a politician.

                1. 0
                  pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Why must I have a 'definition' of art?

                  Why cannot I simply want to know what other people think?

                  Is a single definition even possible?

  27. Pandoras Box profile image83
    Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago

    Seems I read that somewhere, Lisa, that art should contain flaws.

  28. susanlang profile image61
    susanlangposted 6 years ago

    A beautiful woman is art in her own skin, as she is the (creation) of something greater then herself! An ugly woman on the outside is still art in her own skin as she too, is the (creation) of something greater then herself. That is my opinion.

    1. deosfluviatilis profile image90
      deosfluviatilisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well yes, you've posted it several times now.

      1. susanlang profile image61
        susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No, not in that complete manner. Now it is a complete statement.

      2. susanlang profile image61
        susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Deleted

        1. deosfluviatilis profile image90
          deosfluviatilisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Post away, dear heart!

          Just pointing out that we get the message. You think women are beautiful and some god or the other -or nature perhaps- was the first artist.

          Frankly I could argue your position, and it'd be pretty easy, but don't find it worthwhile.

          I am glad to see that your latest repitition of it does now include less than physically technically beautiful women. Soon perhaps you'll graduate to including the male figure. Then other animals, and perhaps onto other forms of life. 

          So does an amoeba qualify as art? It may not be technically beautiful on the outside, but it was created by something bigger than itself. By your definition it should qualify.

          So keep reiterating, I don't think your statement is yet complete.
          smile

          Big hugs!

          1. 0
            pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Take care deosfluviatilis - lest the wrath of God's earthly representative mark you Cain :p

            1. deosfluviatilis profile image90
              deosfluviatilisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Wouldn't be the first time.

              1. 0
                pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Based on your experience, how many marks of Cain does it take before one turns into a full-blown troll? lol hmm

          2. susanlang profile image61
            susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            deosfluviatilis: you can come down off your soapbox now and stop ranting in such a rude ugly manner. I'm sure all your careless insults left a sour taste in your mouth. Everyone knows an amoeba is a cell. And yes.. I have a right to think it is art. I realize cells are well studied by science. As for the rest of your meanless rant, I sure hope you feel better now that you had a chance to abuse me.

            Sending your group's hug right back at ya smile
            Now try and relax before you burn up your keyboard smile

            1. 0
              pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Lang's right deosfluviatilis

              Be more passive with your aggression - try and learn from some of the wonderful examples we have here, you nawty boy you

              obligatory lol lol

              1. deosfluviatilis profile image90
                deosfluviatilisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You forgot the hugs.

                I'll just admit it, I find both of you funny.

                1. 0
                  pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  deosfluviatilis
                  I did not 4get the *hugs* smile
                  They are there but because I wear a brand imposed by 'you-know-who' they turn invisible

                  But so nobody should feel left out of the circle - here in terrestrial language is a mystical hug !@#$%^ &*()_+

              2. susanlang profile image61
                susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                pburger:  lol lol wink

  29. deosfluviatilis profile image90
    deosfluviatilisposted 6 years ago

    Huh. Like I said, not worthwhile.

  30. susanlang profile image61
    susanlangposted 6 years ago

    Some people believe abusive art is over rated! I have to agree smile

    1. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That's odd - because I think you make abuse quite an art

      obligatory big_smile big_smile big_smile lol

      1. susanlang profile image61
        susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        pburger:  I think you don't think. You just push  everyone around as you admitted in this forum when you said, you like to push everyone's  "conforming thoughts" as far as you can. That is controlling as well as abusive.   I don't feel your earlier profound slang swearing was missed at all. You changed your font slightly, but the potty mouth in you came through loud and clear.  smile wink  awww, as I said, camcorder's are wonderful and, as you said, your potty words are real art!   lol  lol  wink

        1. 0
          pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Ho hum... Freudian projection

  31. deosfluviatilis profile image90
    deosfluviatilisposted 6 years ago

    Back to the subject.

    Could have been a good topic, really, without one of you constantly finding fault in other peoples' definitions of art, and the other seeming to think the entire subject revolves around one person.

    Beauty in the uglier side of life.

    Anyone care to pontificate?

    1. Greek One profile image81
      Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I disagree violently with you and find your post to be both insulting and childish!

      Plus, the picture of your fish is making me hungry!

      tongue

      1. deosfluviatilis profile image90
        deosfluviatilisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You leave my galaxy rasbora alone.

        I promise, it's far too small to aleviate your hunger.

        1. 0
          pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Oh come now Pandora... I mean deosfluviatilis

          Surely your 'galaxy rasbora' is big enough to satisfy everybody's hunger tongue

      2. susanlang profile image61
        susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Greek One: whoever you are, I like you and your sharp witty humor. I really mean that, Greek One. smile

        1. Greek One profile image81
          Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          i can't make love to you... I am a married man, and 20 years over my sexual prime sad

          But i still like ya!

          1. susanlang profile image61
            susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Greek One:  no.. no.. I never said anything about making love. Goodness...I'm a very happy and married woman.  But I still like you in other ways... as I said above here. so smile... smile  smile wink

            1. Greek One profile image81
              Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              http://crunkish.com/qimages/6/Smiley_Face.gif

              1. susanlang profile image61
                susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Greek One...My my what big smile you have!!! ROTFLOL

    2. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      well said deosfluviatilis

      But if we all tend beauty
      in the uglier side of life;
      Who tends the uglier
      face of beauty?

      1. Pandoras Box profile image83
        Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Everyone gets back on late at night, huh? LOL

        Isn't the uglier side of beauty another subject?

        Are we gonna admit that we all get on each other's nerves and let it go and talk art, or just keep toying with each other?

    3. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Madly pontificating
      Wildly expostulating
      Frantically reasoning
      Irrationally concluding
      Stop the worm turning
      Nah! Stop the word turning
      Nah! Nah! Stop the world turning
      We should all get off - on good drugs! lol

  32. deosfluviatilis profile image90
    deosfluviatilisposted 6 years ago

    Seriously, anyone care to pontificate on the point Lisa raised regarding art based on the uglier sides of life?

  33. 0
    zampanoposted 6 years ago

    A contribution to a definition of art (human art) :
    The excrement of the soul. Or, to speak otherwise, an unconscious to subconscious communication (a bit like peer to peers). One individual's unconscious mind addresses a group's subconscious mind. Like a broadcast to deep layers of the soul.
    And I feel this might be close to a partial definition, because I experience confused subjective feelings while looking at a work of art without a technical point of view, of course, and unknown stimulating thought associations which provoque sometimes a conscious flow of words that some people listen to politely.
    Art goes very well with a drink or two...
    hehehe

    1. deosfluviatilis profile image90
      deosfluviatilisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The excrement of the soul! That's an interesting way of putting it, which I'm not sure I would utilize.

      Nonetheless, I like the rest of your definition. And agree, some art definitely goes better with a few drinks.

    2. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hail Zampano,

      Soul, pure, creation, all mean nothing to me... so the phrase 'excrement of the soul'  is certainly grammatical, and even has a poetical ring, but what it means is beyond my imagination.

      working from the body waste of the immaterial part of a person, the closest I can come to imagining something is a spirit, pants around her knees, and a dung-ball dangling from her backside... lol

      When you coined the phrase, was that what you had mind?

      1. 0
        zampanoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Not quite.
        Rather unconscious emanations from the mind that can be expressed on a material media.
        And I'm not discussing semanthics here, nor methaphysical matters.
        Just letting my subconscious out... hehehe
        Let's replace excrement with secretion.
        But the stinking character of excrement goes well with darker sides of the artist's mind that produce often real masterpieces

        1. 0
          pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lol 'the stinking character of excrement' lasts while the pile of dung is fresh and wet - dry dung is not so foul big_smile And the size of the dung-pile is also a factor in the strength of stench. So the fresher the artist's ego, the bigger the dark mind, and the fouler the stench of the secreting excrement? big_smile

  34. 0
    zampanoposted 6 years ago

    I'm not surprised that the term "excrement" is not appealing.
    Futhermore, in an aquatic environment, it really is not the best, I agree. It can be rather troubling.
    But also in aquatic environments, some creature's excrements (and not soul's) are nourishment for others.
    So, for your pond I'll say that art is the PETCO of the soul.
    smile

    1. deosfluviatilis profile image90
      deosfluviatilisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Dude, Petco is the whore of the pet industry.

      Hmmm, maybe you have a point.

      Just kidding about petco by the way. More or less.

  35. susanlang profile image61
    susanlangposted 6 years ago

    Pretending to be innocent is not art.  smile

  36. timorous profile image91
    timorousposted 6 years ago

    Art was the name of my grade 8 woodshop teacher..Art Gilbert.  Well..isn't creating things out of wood, an art?

    1. susanlang profile image61
      susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes... timorous, creating things out of wood is an art! Do you still create things out of wood? smile

      1. timorous profile image91
        timorousposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Sometimes..although lately there hasn't been the time.  I've designed and built quite a few nice pieces of furniture in the past.  Thank you for asking Susan.  Ohhh...you look so sultry and mysterious in your avatar...

        1. susanlang profile image61
          susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Oh no problem timorous,  my friend creates many things out of wood. Maybe someday you might find the time to get back to creating art with wood again.
          About what you said regarding my avatar, really?  It was not my intention to look hot or steamy, I'm sorrry the avatar comes off that way!  Maybe I'll change it now! smile

          1. timorous profile image91
            timorousposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            No No, please leave it be..it's very becoming.

    2. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I agree that 'creating' stuff from wood can be art.

      however, I am aware that the word 'create' and its derivations such as 'creator' and 'creation' hold highly religious connotations. I prefer to think and speak with such religious frameworks; production and consumption of art are my preferred words. Rob Pope and other are recent questioners of 'creation' and 'creativity'...

      But, yes the production of art from wood is possible, but I can also produce non-art from wood. So the material is not decisive in my determination of what is art.

      1. susanlang profile image61
        susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You just never stop pburger... lol  ever consider a guest spot on Saturday Night Live? smile

      2. susanlang profile image61
        susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        lol pburger, I don't care what you think you think. lol

  37. Pandoras Box profile image83
    Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago

    BTW me = deosfluviatilis. I'm not supposed to offend people under that name. Figured it would be safe enough in an art thread.

    sad

    1. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      lol LMAFO lol
      Well there you go!
      Why would you 'cark cark' presume you can offend people in a thread on art? 'cark cark'

  38. Pandoras Box profile image83
    Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago

    I disagree with the idea that art need be pure to be art, and also with the idea of purity in general. I also can't see why one would discount a piece of art just because others valued it.

    What does "the aesthetic of ugly" mean. Like Picasso? Or like 'the uglier sides of life'?

    1. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The term 'the aesthetic of the ugly' refers to appreciating what is not considered beautiful, inverting the classical concept of art as an expression of beauty.

      For example, in the 19th century, and into the 20th, artists living in industrial societies made their art a political statement that brought into question various socially accepted notions of beauty. Like Picasso, & Dali...

    2. Lisa HW profile image83
      Lisa HWposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Pandoras Box, I noticed this thread was still going and couldn't resist popping back on.   I don't think I'd "rule out" art that wouldn't be considered "art in its purest form" as art.  I just think the definition of would require using "purest form" as part of the definition.

      I think there's room for lots of "non-purest-form" things to be called art.  For example, with dancing there's ballet and there's The Twist (or there used to be The Twist) anyway.  Both would be considered "dancing".   On ballet requires the kind of training and ability/talent it does.  The Twist requires little skill.

      Having "admitted" The Twist to be included as dancing, though, if two people wanted to open a dancing school (or get into a performance-arts school), The Twist wouldn't matter much in terms of admissions requirements.

      So I guess I'd go back to the thing that's there's art or dancing for "true" artists , and there's art and dancing for everyone else.  They're all art or dancing.  I guess, though, I'd go back to the tougher standard when it comes to a "base" definition of "art" and whether or not any one person/artist meets it.  (I think it's fine that a lot of people don't quite meet that rigorous definition, but I do think there has to be that "base" definition as a place from which to start).

      I think it's fine that there's all kinds of art, but I also think it's OK that there be a tough measure of what's considered "in its purest form" and for a lot of "less than the purest" forms of art not meet that criteria.  In other words, I think there can be a rigid standard without underestimating the value of things that don't meet that standard. 

      I think I'd disagree that "no vocation or calling is pure".  Most people don't have the luxury of following a "pure" vocation even if they have one (because of money, responsibilities, etc.); but I think some people actually can have a "pure" calling.  Here's a really, really, dumb, dumb, and inappropriate example of something that isn't a vocation or calling (but it sort of makes the point, I think):  If someone makes a habit of kind of cleaning off the counters in a public restroom, only because she (it isn't usually a "he" I don't think) thinks it will be that much nicer for the next person (and for no other motives, like having OCD, thinking it will earn "Heaven points", or being "robotically trained" by one's mother) - that would be a "pure" motive.  There are people who have some vocation or calling (beyond the dumb rest-room example, of course) with no motives other than to offer something to someone else.

      Even if someone doesn't think the above is true, I think what would make art different is that art IS different.  Art and music (those two things that are the first to go when schools have budget problems) are different from other subjects/areas in life because of the fundamental nature and universal place in humanity.  A good picture of the fundamental nature of art and music is that infants respond to music, and toddlers love to draw and color - and then young children often "outgrow" these fundamental instincts/urges and learn things that are "more removed" from the most basic human nature.

  39. Pandoras Box profile image83
    Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago

    No vocation or calling is pure as defined here. Why should art be different?

    1. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You and might agree on that point - but I meet many people who use the word 'pure' without stopping to question their language...

      1. Lisa HW profile image83
        Lisa HWposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I think "less than the purest form" is fine.  I just think it's OK (even important) to define a "purest form" and go from there.  Some things (songs or movies may be a good example) may start out as "less than the purest form" of art but earn their place as "art" once they've been well received as a result of having some impact (other just sales, which are the result of being well received) on people.  Maybe an example would be the movie, "It's A Wonderful Life" which kind of earned its way to "art" status after becoming a classic.  Maybe the original motives for making that film wouldn't put it in the "purest art" category, but earning a place alongside "purest art" isn't such a bad thing either.   hmm

        1. 0
          pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Lisa

          What do you mean "purest art"?
          What is pure?
          How is anything 'free of extraneous elements of any kind'?

          1. Lisa HW profile image83
            Lisa HWposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            What I mean, I think, I described above. 

            I guess examples might be:

            If I (or someone who actually really paints) were to decide to paint the most beautiful sunset I could imagine just because I thought it was so beautiful and thought I knew how to capture it.  I could paint it and put the painting away somewhere, being happy to have "captured" the sunset just because I wanted to.  Or, I could hang the painting in my home, believing it might give pleasure to someone who saw it.

            Someone could do the same kind of thing with a poem:  Just write it because of being inspired - "end of story". 

            I (in whatever example it would be) may decide to just save my work.  I may collect it and eventually sell it.  Selling it wouldn't change the motive  if the original motive was out of inspiration and "artistic drive", rather than because I was hired to paint a picture of a sunset.

            So I guess I'd define the elements of "purest art" as including a drive to create/capture life with that as the end aim; and a wish to create something that would bring something to whoever (in the present or future) sees/hears it.

            I guess I think that if someone, for example, paid me to paint them a picture of even the most striking sunset; I'd call that "art" - but not the "purest form" of it.  As I said somewhere else on here, I think art that doesn't meet a standard of "purest form" is still a valuable thing.  I just don't think all art is the "purest form", but it should be OK that all art (or anything) isn't always in its "purest form".

            Essentially, I guess it's a form of love (or even a few different forms of it).  An artist can admire, treasure, respect, and want to preserve his subject.  He may want to make someone happy (or otherwise more fulfilled) with his creation.  He may want to preserve something treasured for posterity (give something without wanting anything back).  He may enjoy the act of producing the artistic creation, so it isn't completely self-less.  Then again, if you think of what makes an artist enjoy creating it's often what he's imagining he'll end up producing that largely contributes to the joy of creating it.  I don't necessarily think gaining emotional reward for creating art has to be ruled out in "purest form" art; because the emotional reward is still within the artist and is very much a part of the creative process.  (In other words, it isn't extraneous).

            It isn't art, but if you think about how mothers often do or make something special or nice for their child, just to make their child happy - "pure" art is that kind of thing.  The mother gets reward from making her child happy, from putting together whatever it is she puts together for her child (thinking of the end result), and from thinking adding the love that goes into whatever it is she does for her child to her child's life and her own.

            1. 0
              pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Thank you Lisa,

              I ken what you mean - but note you qualify the word pure by placing in it quotation marks. Typically, we use quotation marks to indicate a special derivative meaning for a word. So, yes a mother who writes a poem for a child produces art - but why call it "pure" art as distinct from any other type of art? Why not just call it art?

  40. timorous profile image91
    timorousposted 6 years ago

    I suspect the only "pure" art is that found in nature: trees, flowers, birds etc.  It's only we humans that have applied an appreciation at various levels to these found objects.  I refuse to go into a diatribe about humans having a 'superior' brain capacity..let's just call it 'unique'.

    However, it's obvious that humans have a fairly unique ability to create things out of sources found in nature (initally out of the necessity for survival).  Quite a bit of art is derived from these sources, sometimes using nature's architechture as a basis for some clever, useful artifacts and structures.

    Each person puts their own interpretation on what the created object means to them. We all choose things that please us, sometimes in ways that are more intuitive than conscious decisions.

    1. susanlang profile image61
      susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      well said smile

    2. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      A male bower bird will build an  architectural structure for the explicit purpose of attracting a female, so the I cannot see how 'humans have a fairly unique ability to create things out of sources found in nature'.

      And to my knowledge many animals respond to a sense of beauty, which is why color and form play a major role in the 'mating game'  of so many animals; including the species called homo sapiens.

      I also think, starting from an evolutionary point of view,  whatever abilities we humans possess are some sort of extension of the abilities preexisting in nature; we are natural creatures after all - unless you are saying humans were 'created' ex nihilo

  41. susanlang profile image61
    susanlangposted 6 years ago

    The box is sometimes like a hollow brain without anything in it. I placed a small pan in a box once and called it a work of art. wink

    1. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      OIC - you 'placed a small pan in a box once and [you] called it a work of art' hmm
      Well for me, that is not the measure of art. As you keep alluding, an opinion, and especially my opinion, is worthless. So, before I deem something I make to be art, I ask 'Does anybody else think of it as art?' lol That, for me, is the only valid measure of art. For, the value of art, in my worthless opinion, is found in the life of another person. Art is social not personal. But hey, that's only one 'worthless' opinion from one 'mindless' hubber...

      1. alternate poet profile image78
        alternate poetposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        So - this is about trying to promote your idea over others. You say   
        "however, I am aware that the word 'create' and its derivations such as 'creator' and 'creation' hold highly religious connotations. I prefer to think and speak with such religious frameworks; production and consumption of art are my preferred words."
        So you are trying to justify the obvious BS of creationism by floating threads of fake ideas, which is how creationism is intruding into rational thinking.

        You cannot prefer to think and speak - with your 'preferred' words, you can use chosen words but your underlying 'religious' argument is still clear because you draw your words from your own word pool first. 

        And to my knowledge many animals respond to a sense of beauty, which is why color and form play a major role in the 'mating game'  of so many animals;
        Animals DO NOT respond to 'beauty' they respond to form and colour as signals' 'signifiers' of the qualities of the other sex or food etc.  Animals do not have the CONCEPT of beauty.

        OIC - you 'placed a small pan in a box once and [you] called it a work of art' hmm
        Well for me, that is not the measure of art. As you keep alluding, an opinion, and especially my opinion, is worthless. So, before I deem something I make to be art, I ask 'Does anybody else think of it as art?' lol That, for me, is the only valid measure of art. For, the value of art, in my worthless opinion, is found in the life of another person. Art is social not personal. But hey, that's only one 'worthless' opinion from one 'mindless' hubber...

        And this sarcastic type of response is what gives yo away most clearly - When clearly nobody else in this thread agrees with your vague, constantly changing and pompous view of yourself as arbiter you resort to sarcasm and flood the thread with  condescending answers.

        1. 0
          pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          If you think I was 'trying to justify the obvious BS of creationism' then you really do not understand the English language. I was saying any use of create is flawed - hence I use produce! How you can claim  the opposite is beyond comprehension. I wrote 'I eschew create, creation, creator...' That is quite contrary to your interpretation of my post. clearly you do not understand that the word eschew refers to  'Avoid and stay away from deliberately; stay clear of...'

          So, you put aside my words to assert your false claim. Why? Because, driven by emotion, you feel you must attack anything and everything I write. You feel the need to defend susanlang. And yet, in an earlier post, susanlang lambasted me for defending another poster. But here you are defending her?  Double-standard!

          As for using sarcasm! HAH! You, sasanlang, Greek one, & Mark Knowles troll these hub pages posting sarcastic remarks left, right and center. For example, susanlang write in this thread 'The box is sometimes like a hollow brain without anything in it'. That was sarcasm and why timorous replied 'Oh Susan, you're a sly one..I love it...'
          Double-standard!

          As a form communication, every post implies a pregnant reply. If you find me offensive stop posting to a question hosted on my hub. Who are you to insist I depart from a question, posted by me, on my hub page? Who are to impose rules? Who are you to depart from the rules you impose?

          Shove your double-standard!

        2. 0
          pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Here you are again, imposing your opinion....

          Recall your own words 'Animals DO NOT respond to 'beauty' they respond to form and colour as signals' 'signifiers' of the qualities of the other sex or food etc.  Animals do not have the CONCEPT of beauty.'

          Who said animals do not respond to beauty? A beast like you?
          How do you know animals do not have a concept of beauty? I do not think they have your sense of beauty but that is a human sense of beauty. A bird has a bird's sense of beauty...

          Clearly you do not know that we share the limbic system with many animals.The limbic system is the emotional system and plays an important role in all cognition - whether human or not.

          Now, this is not an academic forum, so I have no need to post a list of references to support this idea, just as you do not post references to support your ideas. Again, you leverage a double-standard.

          And what's with all your shouting! Do you think it makes your communication clearer? What it makes clear is that you are not reasoning but emoting. You exercise your limbic system - much like the 'lower animals' as someone called them.

          BTW - in A Devil's Chaplain, Richard Dawkins urges all reasonable people to embrace the idea that evolution does not produce a hierarchy but a spectrum of creatures.

          You're not the final arbitrator. Get over yourself dude!

          1. alternate poet profile image78
            alternate poetposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            And as I point out -

            And this sarcastic type of response is what gives yo away most clearly - When clearly nobody else in this thread agrees with your vague, constantly changing and pompous view of yourself as arbiter you resort to sarcasm and flood the thread with  condescending answers.

            You are clearly unable to think above yourself - maybe you should take up that failed course and try again to learn about those things that you are trying unsuccessfully to argue here, that everyone else seems to know.

            1. 0
              pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Who's conducting a popularity poll?
              Where's the sarcasm is my last post?

              I have not changed my view - I agree and disagree with different people on different points - that is not changing my view. And who are you to insist I have a single constant point of view?

              A single non-changing point of view, such as yours, is a dogma!

              I won't allow you to dictate my opinion.

              Just because you don't approve of me,  just because you claim to know what everybody thinks, 'proves' one thing - but not about me.

              Again you bring your double-standard to bear...That is the consistent message within my last three posts? I reiterate - clearly, again, going against your false accusation 'Shove yer double-standard'

              1. alternate poet profile image78
                alternate poetposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                No it is not dogma - my non-changing view is to give both sides to an answer whenever possible, and my opinion.  This is discussion.

                I don't claim to represent what everybody thinks - I just read the posts.

                On the subject of animals perception of beauty - liking the smell, sound, the feeling of something is not liking the beauty - just the thing. It is necessary to have reasoning ability to perceive beauty, without reason it is just wanting.

          2. Lisa HW profile image83
            Lisa HWposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I think animals do respond to beauty.  I've had several cats who always show up when I have my music on (even with headphones, although it's loud enough for even me to hear it without having them on), and sit very contentedly nearby whenever I have the music on.  My dog would be upset in the car and I'd sing to him, and he'd calm down (not that my voice was beautiful, but I think the tone/tune amounted to more "beauty" than just talking or else saying nothing.

            The other thing with cats is that when I have my potpourri tart burner going in the kitchen they always go out there and settle in.  Apparently, they find the scent of Yankee Candle's buttercream and a few other scents appealing.

            Pets respond to a loving voice.  I've had cats that show up whenever I've talked on the phone to my kids, while they won't show up when I talk to other people in a different tone.  I think this kind of stuff is what they may perceive as "beauty" in life, and I know they do respond. Changes in their behavior and sense of calm show it.

            1. 0
              pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Wow! That's fascinating...

              And come to think of it, I recall many instances when an animal responded to the tone of my voice. 

              And I recall a story someone told me about a horse-wrangler in the USA who used emotive language to train wild horses, without breaking their spirit...

      2. susanlang profile image61
        susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        pburger,
        While I agree that the value of art can be found in the life of another person, I still believe that art is an intensly personal matter. Art is in the eye of the beholder, I may like Picaso, where-as you may like Monet. This does not mean one is better than the other, just that they are precevied differently by different people.

      3. susanlang profile image61
        susanlangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        To Pburger,
        My comment in regards to me placing a pan in an empty box and calling it Art, was not intended for you. However, if you feel everything I post in this forum, you must reply to..by all means, don't let me stop you.

  42. timorous profile image91
    timorousposted 6 years ago

    Oh Susan, you're a sly one..I love it...

    @pburger;  I used the word "fairly" on purpose.  True, many animals do use colour and found objects to attract a mate. However I think that it's purely instinctive, and that their brains are not capable of any such reasoned thought, compared to how human brains have evolved to be able to make comparisons and judgements based on prior experience.  Besides, most lower animals can't change their colours if the mate doesn't like it. smile

  43. Apostle Jack profile image60
    Apostle Jackposted 6 years ago

    Art is the challenge of thought.It conveys
    hidden and remote direction between intellect and
    vision.It conquers the imagination with odd decisions.
    If you look for common sense,it's there,along with a hidden
    message and some of it stramge and untold,but in a far away concept can some-what make you more aware.

    1. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I think I glean something from your post smile big_smile thank you

  44. deosfluviatilis profile image90
    deosfluviatilisposted 6 years ago

    Expressions of the human condition.


    Oh yeah, and threads on art are truly just the most divisive things I've ever seen. I'm going back to the religion and politics forums, where people are relatively sane.

    1. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      lol hasta la vista amigo lol the lunatics know where you go....

  45. theirishobserver. profile image61
    theirishobserver.posted 6 years ago

    Art is what ever you want it to be smile

    1. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I don't know if your answer helps me learn anything about art. your answer seems to take no account of the two processes of art - production and consumption...

  46. wingedcentaur profile image84
    wingedcentaurposted 6 years ago

    The best answer I have ever heard to this question is that we "know (art) when we see it." At first this sounds like a glib cliche, but if you think it through it isn't. There is something to it. We sense the sincerity or lack thereof, behind something that calls itself art.

    I have heard it said that art is the search for truth - nothing more or less than this. Various "movements" or styles of art, they say, represent art questioning itself - about what it (art) is. Art is a continuing dialogue seeking truth. A thing is art, if you look at it, read it, watch it, or listen to it, and sense that there is a sincere search for truth.

    Take painting. Some people might think that Surrealism is the best path for searching out truth in this medium. For others it might be Cubism, and so on and so forth. This is quite apart from your opinion of the level of skill exhibited by the individual artist.

    Though people are reflexively dismissive when her name is mentioned, I think Brittney Spears is an artist. I understand she's had a tumultuos personal life, and one senses in her songs an authentic search for the meaning of love. The next time you're at an art venue of some kind and you see a really strange looking piece of modern art - if the artist is handy - ask him to explain it.

    If what follows is a clear, convincing explanation of some truth he was searching for, then he has created art, regardless of the level of skill you think he's exhibited. If it seems like he's talking out of the side of his neck, then you know you are looking at a "work" forged in pure cynicism, in an attempt to make a fool out of the public. Sincerity matters.

    wingedcentaur

    1. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hi winged centaur,

      Thank you for your contribution...I hope you do not mind if I engage in a dialogue with you...

      You begin your post saying 'The best answer I have ever heard to this question is that we "know (art) when we see it." At first this sounds like a glib cliche, but if you think it through it isn't.'

      And yet the history of art contradicts that very notion. contemporaries of Marcel Duchamp did not accept his surrealist work as art. Nor did the public readily accept Cubism. Another contrary example is Socialist Realism, an art-form approved by the state but denounced by artists.

      And according to my reading of the history of art, a major reason Surrealism and Cubism and other radical forms of art come to be accepted is that radical critics write against the orthodox view that 'we know art when we see it'...

      Thus, for me, the history of art shows that we do not know art when we see it... Rather than say we know art when we see it, I am tempted to invert the proposition and say we see art in whatever we call art...

      I hope I make some sense....

      1. wingedcentaur profile image84
        wingedcentaurposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Good Day Pburger,

        I don't mind the pushback at all. I stand by the idea that art is the search for truth - nothing more or less than this. We should be able to tell whether or not something is art, by sensing a sincerity infusing it, regardless of whether we like the work or not.

        I think I know what the trouble is. I tied subjectivity together with a suggestion of objectivity. I am asking people to use their subjective intuition to look for the sincerity of a work and then come to an objective conclusion that what we are looking at is art. That might also be a rich subject for discussion: the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity.

        Still, I think this is so. People often do not trust themselves as much as they should, and as a result, we let ourselves be taken for fools sometimes. Are we certain that Marcel Duchamp's contemporaries simply did not like surrealism from an aesthetic point of view? Were they really saying he was not an artist? There is a difference between saying something is not your cup of tea, and saying that the maker is not an artist.

        And even if a few ill-tempered curmudgeons did declare that Duchamp was not an artist, they may have been being lazy and petulant. I know you know this, pburger, but we must not take the utterances of anyone, even famous artists from the past, as gospel.

        1. 0
          pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Good day Winged Centaur

          As always, you offer an interesting point-of-view.

          Since you say, 'I stand by the idea that art is the search for truth - nothing more or less than this' I shall limit my reply to this view.

          Art is nothing more or less than a search for truth?

          Does this not beg several questions? For example, what is truth? And, how does art search for truth?

          I can readily agree art is made from the point of view of the artist and taken into the point-of-view of the audience. But whether either of those points-of-view constitutes 'truth' is still in my mind an unresolved debate.

          And if art is nothing more or less than a search for truth, then surely art does not differ from any form of science? But would you try to build an inter-galactic craft based on the imaginative writings produced by science-fiction novelists? Or would you base your plans on the writings of scientists?

          Thank you for your thought-provoking ideas

  47. watchya profile image60
    watchyaposted 6 years ago

    Art is expression. Some artists know how to express themselves better than others. Those are the ones who get all the attention.But that doesn't mean the forgotten or hidden ones are not as good.

    1. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Watchya,

      Thank you for your contribution. May I draw you into a conversation?

      Working backwards through your post, I wholeheartedly agree that commercial success or academic popularity is the true measure of the value of art. In his time, Charles Dickens was not the most prolific of writers, but today he is one of the most renowned... In reverse, the Bronte sisters and Virginia Woolf were barely a blip on the literary scene of their time, but today they count among the great writers of English literature...

      And you say 'Art is expression...' That much I do not question. But I think you simply restate the question in a different form.

      If we begin with What is art, and reply art is expression we are left to ask what is an expression in art... That is, how does an expression via art differ from an expression via some other mode? alternatively, we are left to ask how does art express?

      And I think the phrase 'art is expression' begs another question... Is art a universal medium? By that I mean does music express in the same way painting expresses. And to my mind nor does your idea include any notions of cultural or historical differences. That is, for example, the shift religious to secular art; or the function of art in present-day indigenous societies...

      I do not reply to your post with questions in the spirit of polemic, rather, I pose my questions to enter into dialogue and to flesh out a plastic notion of art... I hope you engage in this dialogue....

  48. wingedcentaur profile image84
    wingedcentaurposted 6 years ago

    Good Day Pburger,

    Your latest response is related to another idea I posed in your forum on the function of communication. I broke that down into two levels: the basic "animal" needs we have for food, sex, shelter, clothing, friendship (we are a "tribal" species), money (which we need to procure all of the above); and other level is what we are doing in these forums, all the arts, all the sciences, both biological and "hard" sciences like physics and chemistry - all of these activities, taken together, are, to my mind, unconsciously directed to asking and trying to answer a single question: Why are we here?

    We might ask ourselves: Why was art invented in the first place? What was motivating early man to paint scenes of his surrounding on cave walls? Why did mythology and religious systems appear? Quantum physics is no different.

    All of us, when we're not talking about sports, cars, celebrities - are unconsciously directed to asking "God" why "he" sent us here, in my opinion, anyway. In pursuing this question about art, you, pburger, show this to be an intense concern of yours - as it should be for all of us. Why are we here?

    Why did Salvatore Dali of the surrealist camp paint all those melting clocks and so forth? Just to do it? There was something he was trying to get at. There was some aspect of reality he was trying to explore - using fantastic means in his case.

    Why do physicists want to split the atom? To see what is inside it? Why do this if it were not expressive of a longing to "get to the bottom" of things. Therefore, to my way of thinking, truth = Why are we here?

    1. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Good day Winged Centaur

      Thank you again for the thought-provoking post.

      And I read with interest your reply to my other question.

      Perhaps, you are right that this question is 'an intense concern of' mine. And perhaps also you are right that if we strip away the language and form of query we can 'reduce' the search to the  question 'why are we here'...

      And yes, I agree that communication has at least two levels, but I do tend to explore any binary dualities and intuit in this case a quaternary matrix - and without moving into a fully theoretical mode I cannot explicate the four elements... But in brief I suggest the interplay of physical environment, brain as matter, brain as psychology, and social relations...

      To relate this to the question what is art, I suggest art is means to explore the  interactions between those four elements... But, then I realize the four elements are doubled by the presence of the audience. So that what the artist wants to do with a work may differ from what the audience ants to do with that work...

      Does that make sense?

  49. Alota profile image61
    Alotaposted 6 years ago
    1. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Welcome to the forum Alota

      And thank you for the link that I followed to the one-act play written by theirishobserver...

      You comment 'I think this is art' provides an answer from the surface of the question 'what is art'. That is, you provide another example of art.

      When I read the question 'what is art' I see another question - 'what makes art work?'

      Do you care to respond to that alternative question?

  50. wingedcentaur profile image84
    wingedcentaurposted 6 years ago

    Good Day Pburger

    You seem to have an acquaintance with what I think is called analytic philosophy. I am not so technically strong. By 'binary dualities' are you referring to the two levels of communication I identified?

    Is the 'quaternary matrix' the four elements: physical environment; brain as matter; brain as psychology; and social relations? I'd like to know what you mean by these. Go ahead, switch into theoretical mode.

    I think I have identified another way in which I have expressed myself badly. There seems to be a question that goes something like this: What if a person genuinely infuses his work with an authentic search for truth, and other people do not see it (the search for truth, independent of their view of the work's aesthetic merits)?

    In the event of such a disconnect on the part of artist and viewer, is x art or not? Is the artist right or is the viewer? I believe I suggested in another of your forums that we might need to discuss the relationship of subjectivity to objectivity.

    Remember the advice I gave you on my first posting in this forum? The next time you find yourself at an art venue of some kind and you see a piece of funky, weird "modern" art - and if the artist is available - ask him to explain it. If what follows is a clear, convincing explanation of a truth he was searching for, then what he has made is objectively, I would say, art, even if you don't like the look of it.

    If he seems to be talking out of the side of his neck, then what you're looking at is objectively not art.

    I believe this is so, because he has not searched for truth.
    I believe this is so, because he has objectively not engaged in a dialogue with the public, who are meant to consume his contribution.
    I believe this is so, because all he has done is attempt to show how clever he is - really just attempted to put one over on th public.

    He may meet all of the conditions I laid out, and still believe he has created art. However, if we could look inside of his skull, I suspect that what we would find is a misplaced conceit about his "talent" and self-deception, not unlike what we see when we are treated to the horrible first rounders on American Idol - you know how that is (remember William Hung?).

    1. 0
      pburgerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Good evening Winged Centaur

      I began my exploration with classical philosophy, came upon analytical philosophy but then found the 'cognitive revolution' and via the philosophy surrounding quantum physics came to construct an intersection around non-deterministic post-materialism

      As for the four elements of the 'quaternary matrix': physical environment; brain as matter; brain as psychology; and social relations; imagine the following arrangement:

      Space  Mind   
      Matter Time

      The matrix consists of diagonal, horizontal and vertical relations. The elements in a diagonal relations conflict,
      vertical relations compliment, and horizontal relations contrast.

      So that,
      Space and Time conflict
      Mind and Matter conflict
      Space and Mind contrast
      Matter and Time contrast
      Space and Matter compliment
      Mind and Time compliment

      I realize this may not help you, so i will post a separate hub where I can post a link to a PDF in which I can actually draw the martix as a square...

      Perhaps this will help provoke your questions?
      --------------------------------------

      Your clear succinct analysis opens a useful question - are first rounders of American Idol artists or buffoons? Is art in the artist's mind, the mind of the audience, or the piece of work? But that schema has only three elements... Whereas, in a four-dimensional model, i.e. through the four-fold matrix, I find 'art' at the intersection of the following 4 elements artist, audience, work, conventions (society).

      I look forward to your thoughts... and once again, thank you for this generous dialogue

 
working