Correct. I suggest that you, too, look up the definition of "porn" in a dictionary. Whether looking up the definition of "art" will prove a fruitful comparison, however, is questionable.
Luckily, pornography isn't a term that need defining here. I still think the concept is not so far from art as you claim; if pornography is "works intended to arouse", then art is "works intended to evoke emotions" or simply "beautiful works". If it's the former, intent is everything; if it's the latter, I see no reason whatsoever to exclude pornography.
No, not if it's created by chance happening, as you suggest (highly unlikely anyhow). The application of skill is essential. Note that skill can be applied subconsciously, as in the hypothetical mentally ill person, or even most people, in fact. But let's not head down a philosophical path, eh!
Oh, heavens no, that pesky philosophy will just muddle things further.
Anyway, this doesn't seem a very useful standard to me. Who's to say the child isn't applying a skill unconsciously? Who's to say the mentally retarded person isn't just banging randomly? It's not possibly to infallibly deduce intent (or even the presence of skill) just by viewing a work. And "skill" is also very hard to determine; there are, after all, many, many different skills and new ones will keep emerging. How do you determine which ones produce art and which don't? Especially if we also accept subconscious "skills"? In the end, you'd be making the call based on what the work looks like. I think there should be a way to determine whether or not something is art short of extra-sensory perception.
I think the meritoriousness of the observer's input extends only(!) to determining the degree of skill applied (if any) and whether the subject work constitutes art inherently as distinct from some other pre-classification (such as "motor car", for example). We've touched on this, if not debated it already, and I openly acknowledge that as much as I stand by this view it's certainly not an easy one to reconcile in one's mind so far as definitions and boundaries go. Fine arts, fine (possibly), but other "art" - more difficult, for sure. As to intent - irrelevant.
The idea that degree of skill can be determined by the observer only applies to cases where the observer completely understands the process behind the work. This is usually not the case even with traditional art (read: fine arts) and it excludes all possible new techniques. It comes down to how pretty the piece is, and that can't be used as a measuring stick; otherwise we'd have to call sunsets and flowers art.
Your idea of pre-classification is strange as well. If being a motor car prevents a piece from being art, why doesn't being a canvas do the same?
I've never claimed my views are necessarily common, just like Einstein didn't before he enlightened us with his famous equation.
Arrogant much?
Are you actually suggesting that your revolutionary theory of art will be proven true by observations, take the world by storm and revolutionize the way we look at art? If not, then I suggest the analogy is not as great as you think.
That would be the definition that I've already shown doesn't work, right? Go for it, but I suggest you heed
this first.
You've
said it doesn't work, yes. That doesn't prove much. As for appealing to popularity, what you must realize is that when we discuss the
meanings of words, popular opinion (or usage, or whatever, it's all the same)
is what matters. No matter how philosophically superior you consider your definition, the valid definition is the one people generally use.
But the Chambers Dictionary definition does, essentially, form a large part of the basis of my claimviews as to what does and doesn't constitute "art"! Or do you mean my claim that porn is not art per se?
Could you post a quote of this dictionary? It doesn't seem like it's quite the same as the one I posted. That or you read it funny. Do you realize the numbers/commas separate
alternative definitions, not conditions that must
all be met for something to qualify as art?
And yes, this relates to the question of whether porn is art or not. It does not matter which it primarily is, if it falls under the definition of art, then it's art, even if it's also clay, a sculpture, porn, blue and marvelous.
"What the work looks like"? You mean as opposed to scratch 'n' sniff, for example?!
