What is art?

[jiggeryqua]

[...] I merely gave you a little example[...] I left that little thing there [...]

Ninety minutes, Ron. An hour and a half. I work for 12 hours a night, I sleep for eight hours a day. Maybe you have so much time on your hands that 90 mins seems like very little time. Do you understand subjectivity?

If you don't want to watch it, it simply means you want to continue believing your pet assertion

Do you understand logic? If I don't want to watch it, it's because your 'little' video is ninety minutes long and you've already conceded it doesn't answer the question I actually asked.

If you don't want to summarise it, it simply means you want to continue believing your pet assertion.

 

[BillyJoe]

...the statement that science cannot explain artistic principles was contained within a context of conceding that it could explain pattern recognition, pigments and perspective etc...but not answer the question 'what is art?'.

I think Ron is being a little coy about what Ramachandran says.

Ramachandran is of the opinion that neuroscience is providing hints that we may one day be capable of explaining "What is art?" scientifically, but that we are not there yet. His principles are really "rules of thumb". They include hyperbolising, grouping, isolating, linking, obscuring/hinting (he calls it peekaboo), unifying, symmetry, and contrast.

There are apparently thirty areas in the brain concerned with visual perception. There is a cell that discriminate faces, another that discriminates a face turned away slightly, another that discriminates profiles, and finally one that discriminates a profile turned slightly away.

Damage to these areas of the brain result in a failure to recognise faces, including your own (prosopagnosia) or a conviction that there is an imposter pretending to be your mother who looks exactly like your mother but is not (Capgrass syndrome). He explains this as a failure of emotional content to be added to the visual perception of your mother's face and hence a denial that it could actually be your mother because you don't feel the way you used to when you previously saw her.

He talks about synaesthesia which is seeing numbers as colours (or music as colours) and he describes an experiment that actually proves that they actually do see coloured numbers. Synaesthesia is caused by links between different areas of the brain that most people do not have. So the hypothesis is that artist have many more links that the average person and therefore they are extremely good at coming up with metaphors (and he cites Shakespeare). He also hypothesises that those who appreciate art have some of these links and, by implication, that those who do not apreciate art lack these links.

Picasso is explained by reference to the fact that the four cells for recognising faces, half turned faces, profiles, and half turned profiles pass their information onto another cell which processes them. Picasso's figure of a woman shown simultaneously face-on and in profile hyperstimulates this cell and this explains why Picasso's paintings appeals to us (or some of us). He descrbes Picasso's paintings as "transcending the tyranny of viewpoint".

 

[AvalonXQ]

So, while it does not change materially, the work only 'becomes' art when somebody suitably qualified recognises it as such.

No; it was always art. Tautologically, we only establish it to be art when we figure out that that's what it is. But if art is defined by the intent of the artist (which I wholeheartedly believe it is), then it's quite possible for us to have insufficient information to know whether or not it's art. Later gaining sufficient information doesn't suddenly change its nature from non-art to art; it just means we now know enough to know whether or not it always was.

I see what you mean with the issue that the range of expression that art may be intending to provide, may be wider than emotion or visceral sensation. I'm not sure that I agree with that -- I think it's emotion or visceral sensation that distinguishes art from communication (intent to convey information) and persuasion (intent to influence belief). I think that in practice both communication and persuasion generally involve appeals to emotion, which is to say they include an artistic aspect. I well-written speech or a crafted novel is usually art. But I separate these intents, and label the artistic intent the one that focuses on aesthetics rather than content in expression.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Ninety minutes, Ron. An hour and a half. I work for 12 hours a night, I sleep for eight hours a day. Maybe you have so much time on your hands that 90 mins seems like very little time. Do you understand subjectivity?




Do you understand logic? If I don't want to watch it, it's because your 'little' video is ninety minutes long and you've already conceded it doesn't answer the question I actually asked.

If you don't want to summarise it, it simply means you want to continue believing your pet assertion.

I respect your own private time and how you handle it. But if you were to make the assertion that there is no evidence for evolution, and I gave you Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth, and you replied by saying "Sorry, I don't have time to read this, can you give me a summary of everything said in there?", my answer would be the same: "Fine, don't read it, and I don't feel like doing the enormous work of making a summary just for you. Regardless of this, your assertion that there is no evidence for evolution is wrong, and the evidence is there. When you have the time, if you feel like it, check it out. It will be sitting right there"

The fact that I don't feel like summarizing such a long, complex, yet interesting speech just for you because you don't have time to watch the video, is no proof against the fact that the evidence is there. The best summary I can give you is that, amongst other things, Ramachandran addresses the topic of Synesthesia which is a neural behavior found in many well known artists. Then he goes to explain how people such as Shakespeare created their poetic methapors, and how this behavior looks like in the brain. But those are just snippets of the many examples of different behaviors in the brain that explain many artistic principles and you would need to watch the entire video to get a big picture.

If you are still dissatisfied with my brief summary, that's your problem. But the evidence that science can address scientific principles is, I regret to inform you, still out there. And your assertion is still wrong.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Hell, Ron, of course its all mathematics. But there's also a spectrum of difficulty within mathematics. As shorthand, I'm simply calling one end of this spectrum mathematics and the other end Mathematics. That's all.

The same applies to art and Art. It's just my shorthand way of saying that while my art might qualify for my bedroom wall, Jackson Pollock's Art qualifies for an Art Gallery.

Actually, I forgot to mention that the other problem I have with the math comparison is that math is math regardless of whether people like it, agree with it or not. Art, on the other hand, is an arbitrary concept decided by cultural arbitrary values, which change over time. While 2+2 will always remain 4 no matter what time and cultural circle we're in, the same doesn't apply to art forms, which evolve over time, and which value is either diminished or increased depending on the culture and time they are in.

But how big is this audience?

Yes, yes, I know. That is the next question when trying to objectively classify this thing we call art.

I don't think we can address it in terms of "number of people" but rather in degrees of society. Something is acknowledged as art once it becomes part of the folklore of a culture. So the smallest possible number of people that would be "necessary" for something to be considered art would have to be a village. A community or town of some sort.

I think that art is like fashion. Both of them are created by societies and both of them shape such society's tendencies.

Let's consider some scenarios:
Scenario 1: Henry Drapers paintings are destroyed in a house fire before anyone other than Henry Draper ever sees them.
Scenario 2: A famous art critic discovers Henry Draper's paintings but they are destroyed in a house fire before he can organise for their removal to an art gallery.
Scenario 3: Henry Drapers paintings are moved to an art gallery and a selection of famous art critics from around the world get to see them by special invitation before opening night but they are destroyed in a gallery fire before the gallery opens to the public.
Scenario 4,5,6,7,and 8: As for scenario 3, but the paintings are destroyed ta day/week/month/year/decade after the opening day.

What is the critical mass? In which scenario does the audience become large enough for Henry Draper's paintings to be considered art?

An important question and I agree not an easy one to approach.
The scenarios you've suggested all deal with the audience not being able to perceive the work of art, except for the critics; leaving nothing but a bunch of critics who claim "Hey, once there was this guy and he had real art stuff but... it's gone".

I think that I can agree with you that yes, we could probably label his work art even though no one got to see it. Heck, I'll even agree with you that there are many individuals whose artwork was never made public but that if I took a peek and you took a peek, we would both agree that yeah, it is art and it could make it to Moma.

But when addressing the question you posed in your OP, "What is art?" it's not enough with the personal opinions of one or two individuals, because you will always find disagreements from many, many other people.

If we're gonna study art as a human cultural phenomenon, then we have to study it in the context which it takes place at. And that is: Human societies. Art then, is no different than fashion: It both shapes and is shaped by human societies in a never ending cycle.

But is it art or is it art reduced to a clever idea with a momentary appeal.
One important characteristic of Art is it's enduring appeal. You want to see the Mona Lisa again. Sure. You wanna sit through 4 minutes and 33 seconds of a man not playing a piano. I don't think so. You wanna see that urinal again. I hope not.

Whoa whoa, now you're making your own personal opinion as if it were universal. That you, personally, don't feel like watching Cage's 4:33 doesn't mean there is not a whole lot of people who do want to. Cage has his audience. David Lynch and his unbearable long, nonsense movies have an audience. You may not think these are "up to the level" of a Mona Lisa, but the truth is, your personal way of putting the Mona Lisa to that level isn't that different that other's people personal way of putting Cage's work up to the same level.

That you don't think I wanna see that urinal again is your own personal assumption. What if I do? Personally, I may or may not. But it's not just you and me in this world. There are oceans of humans out there and there are Duchamp aficionados who will indeed want to see the urinal many many times and feel inspired every time they see it.

As you approach that end of the spectrum - as the skill, the subjective response, and enduring appeal approach zero - the value of the art approaches zero.

That's your own personal opinion on what the value of art is based on. Not everyone thinks like you do and this is at the core of the mistake you're making. To you, personally, being moved by a work and labeling art is dependant on the degree of skill, but this isn't true about everyone else.

 

[Father Dagon]

And many words have their origin in some other word, sometimes because that's how they started. But later they evolved into something else. So Art is not a synonymous of Skill and effectively you don't see people using them interchangeably ("You got good arts with that hammer, kid"... "That picture is a piece of skill"). It's pretty well understood that they are two different words, that each one means something different and that "skill" is relative when making art. Many people we consider artists had very poor skills. Many were self taught, never attended an academy and even made many "mistakes" (which sometimes evolved into a new "school", and yes, a new "skill")... yet they had an original tone, a quality, a style, which is what made them appeal to the audience they had.

The same goes for "kung fu", that originally wasn't specific about martial arts, but rather some sort of skill that possessed the practicioner. (Could be some early concept of flow.) And interesting enough, the western interpretation has influenced the chinese themselves. In the old days you could say that "your kung fu in your wudang chuan is great". Nowadays only hilarity would ensue.

But the worst attempt of literal interpretations is the attempts to discredit pornography by saying that it literally means "writings about prostitutes".

 

[jiggeryqua]

I think Ron is being a little coy about what Ramachandran says.

Ramachandran is of the opinion that neuroscience is providing hints that we may one day be capable of explaining "What is art?" scientifically, but that we are not there yet. His principles are really "rules of thumb". They include hyperbolising, grouping, isolating, linking, obscuring/hinting (he calls it peekaboo), unifying, symmetry, and contrast.

Thank you, Billy Joe. I'm guessing that took less than 90 mins to type up... Unfortunately, it leaves us where we were: my original contention conceded that there is much in and of art that science can explain (or measure and label, at least, if that's the same thing). The clear distinction that Ron has continually chosen to ignore, as though his refusal to see it validates his narrow view, is that none of this answers 'what is art?', which is, after all, what we're all ostensibly dealing with in this thread.

We may one day be capable of explaining "What is art?", as you and Ramachandran suggest - and as Ron might easily have suggested. We may not, though I'm aware of how provocative it can be round here to suggest that there is anything at all 'outside' science (I think it troubles me a little to think what becomes of individuality, personality, humanity if that is true, but that's for another thread). Nevertheless, 'we may' precludes 'we can'. That Ron vociferously defends 'we may' as 'we will' (and hence 'we can, we just haven't yet') is perhaps the root of his rudeness.

Feel free to ignore this little siding, but can science answer 'what is science?' - take that as 'can it' or 'will it' or 'might it', what I'm after is whether it can be explained as merely something that some brains are inclined to, like art, or religion?

I respect your own private time and how you handle it. But if you were to make the assertion that there is no evidence for evolution, and I gave you Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth, and you replied by saying "Sorry, I don't have time to read this, can you give me a summary of everything said in there?", my answer would be the same: "Fine, don't read it, and I don't feel like doing the enormous work of making a summary just for you. Regardless of this, your assertion that there is no evidence for evolution is wrong, and the evidence is there. When you have the time, if you feel like it, check it out. It will be sitting right there"

Well for one, Ron, the probability of my claiming that there is no evidence of evolution is vanishingly small, but nice try at guilt by association. I'll let other people form their own judgements on your character in light of that little rhetorical ploy. You can always plead that it's just something your brain is inclined to, entirely explicable by science...

BillyJoe managed a satsifactorily succinct summary of the video, Ron, and very helpful it was too. As you can (or might) see above, it still leaves us at loggerheads, for reasons I've repeated. When you have the time, if you feel like it, check them out. They will be sitting right there.

The fact that I don't feel like summarizing such a long, complex, yet interesting speech just for you because you don't have time to watch the video, is no proof against the fact that the evidence is there.

Crucially, it's also no proof that the evidence is there, is it? Again, when I flicked through the video I saw a caption giving the text of an audience question, which referred to Ramachandran's seven principles. I asked for those before, as well. They would have done, not a screed covering every point he made in the video, just a simple summary. You know, how a scientist might write an abstract or even, you know, a summary. If you watched and understood the video, and I'm hoping you did before getting all evangelical with it, it ought to be a simple task to summarise it. To expect me to give up ninety minutes simply because you were enthused by it is wildly optimistic.

The best summary I can give you is that, amongst other things, Ramachandran addresses the topic of Synesthesia which is a neural behavior found in many well known artists. Then he goes to explain how people such as Shakespeare created their poetic methapors, and how this behavior looks like in the brain. But those are just snippets of the many examples of different behaviors in the brain that explain many artistic principles and you would need to watch the entire video to get a big picture.

Yes, I'm familiar with synaesthesia, thank you. It's a neural behaviour found also in people who would not describe themselves as artists, nor would artists describe them so. He then goes on to guess how Shakespeare's brain worked (can we agree on that? I know you've seen it and I haven't, but I'm pretty sure Bill's been dead for a while now and his brain, such as it may be, would be of little use to a researcher). It may well be an educated guess, to be fair. It would then appear that he further demonstrates that thinking takes place in the brain (and that different parts of the brain appear to have different roles or purposes), which isn't exactly groundbreaking but never mind.

More to the point, you will insist on using 'principles' to describe things that I excluded from the original question, repeatedly. If getting mired in semantics is your kind of fun, so be it, but I don't have time for that either.

If you are still dissatisfied with my brief summary, that's your problem. But the evidence that science can address scientific principles is, I regret to inform you, still out there. And your assertion is still wrong.

No, it's your problem. If you attempt to communicate and fail, that's your problem. That you imagine any failure of communication cannot be your fault is also your problem, though by the nature of communication it's one you spread and inflict on others.

And there you are again, sticking to your own interpretation of 'principles', because recognising that we're using two different words that happen to be spelled the same wouldn't let you tell somebody on the internet they are wrong. My assertion is still right, and in its own sweet little way, so is yours. But since yours was already a wilful (or ignorant, but accumulated evidence suggests 'wilful') failure to answer the original question, it's still 'wrong'.

Let's give it a rest, eh?

 

[rustypouch]

<snip>

Picasso is explained by reference to the fact that the four cells for recognising faces, half turned faces, profiles, and half turned profiles pass their information onto another cell which processes them. Picasso's figure of a woman shown simultaneously face-on and in profile hyperstimulates this cell and this explains why Picasso's paintings appeals to us (or some of us). He descrbes Picasso's paintings as "transcending the tyranny of viewpoint".

To derail a bit, I always think of Picasso's portraits as being a cabinet oblique view (if heavily stylized) of people. You can see more sides than are normally visible.

I stand by by previous statement that I pity those who don't get art. I feel they are missing out. I liken it to my step-sister, who doesn't get wine. To her, it all tastes the same. I just loathe those who must insult what for others is a source of pleasure, just because they do not understand it.

 

[BillyJoe]

Actually, I forgot to mention that the other problem I have with the math comparison is that math is math regardless of whether people like it, agree with it or not. Art, on the other hand, is an arbitrary concept decided by cultural arbitrary values, which change over time.

Actually you missed the point.
We don't have museums for maths but perhaps the content of books will do. You would not honour Addition with a book title, but there are any number of books about Calculus. My drawing stays at home. The Pollock goes to a gallery.

An important question and I agree not an easy one to approach.
The scenarios you've suggested all deal with the audience not being able to perceive the work of art, except for the critics; leaving nothing but a bunch of critics who claim "Hey, once there was this guy and he had real art stuff but... it's gone".

You missed scenarios 4,5,6,7,and 8
The paintings get to see opening day for various lengths of time exposing different numbers of art followers to Henry Draper's art. At what point does he become an artist if that isn't actually a stupid question?

But when addressing the question you posed in your OP, "What is art?" it's not enough with the personal opinions of one or two individuals, because you will always find disagreements from many, many other people.

How about we call art whatever is produced with the intention of causing a response in its viewers and that causes a response in at least one of them Art that produces a response in just one person would find itself towards one end of the spectrum. The Mona Lisa would find itself towards the other end.
What remains is to decide where the cut off point is in getting an artwork into a gallery.

Whoa whoa, now you're making your own personal opinion as if it were universal. That you, personally, don't feel like watching Cage's 4:33 doesn't mean there is not a whole lot of people who do want to.

You are kidding surely. Has Cage's 4:33 actually been done more than once? I mean, surely the impact is lost after the punchline has been revealed.

That you don't think I wanna see that urinal again is your own personal assumption. What if I do? Personally, I may or may not.

Come on, then. Do you?

But it's not just you and me in this world. There are oceans of humans out there and there are Duchamp aficionados who will indeed want to see the urinal many many times and feel inspired every time they see it.

I guess it made a statement when it first appeared. I'm not sure that anyone wants to keep reading it. But there are all types in this world I guess. I would come back to see the Mona Lisa. I might view the urinal once but I would see no point in returning. The statement's been made. Move on already.

That's your own personal opinion on what the value of art is based on. Not everyone thinks like you do and this is at the core of the mistake you're making. To you, personally, being moved by a work and labeling art is dependant on the degree of skill, but this isn't true about everyone else.

I did not make that claim.

 

[BillyJoe]

We may one day be capable of explaining "What is art?", as you and Ramachandran suggest

I think the idea is that if, at some future time, we have a complete census of the brain, in particular what those 30 areas involved with vision do, and how they are activated, and what increases the activity in these areas; and if we can analyse art that people find pleasing to discover what characteristics of the art is responsible for achieving that response and relate these characteristics of the art piece to activity in those areas in the brain and how intensively they are activated, then we will have explained art.
There really would be nothing else left to explain.

I think it troubles me a little to think what becomes of individuality, personality, humanity if that is true, but that's for another thread.

I don't think we lose anything.
The rainbow isn't destroyed by discovering the scientific basis for it.

 

[BillyJoe]

To derail a bit, I always think of Picasso's portraits as being a cabinet oblique view (if heavily stylized) of people. You can see more sides than are normally visible.

In the cabinet oblique view, the object is drawn slightly side on but the front face of the object is still drawn as if seen face on. Cubes are always drawn that way - slightly rotated to one side but with the front face still drawn as a square (which is actually impossible).
Although it is an interesting idea, I don't think it quite describes what Picasso does.

I stand by by previous statement that I pity those who don't get art. I feel they are missing out. I liken it to my step-sister, who doesn't get wine. To her, it all tastes the same. I just loathe those who must insult what for others is a source of pleasure, just because they do not understand it.

Maybe they just deserve pity for being so deficient, but I agree it's difficult to get past their pig-headed refusal to acknowledge that some people just might be capable of appreciating somethng they are incapable of appreciating.

 

[jiggeryqua]

I think the idea is that if, at some future time, we have a complete census of the brain, in particular what those 30 areas involved with vision do, and how they are activated, and what increases the activity in these areas; and if we can analyse art that people find pleasing to discover what characteristics of the art is responsible for achieving that response and relate these characteristics of the art piece to activity in those areas in the brain and how intensively they are activated, then we will have explained art.
There really would be nothing else left to explain.

I don't think we lose anything.
The rainbow isn't destroyed by discovering the scientific basis for it.

Art is not solely visual, but I accept that we can hope to accurately map or census the brain and its activity. We could certainly map enough to be sure we had some kind of standard (and perhaps establish that those who have no interest in art are suffering from some syndrome or other). Art is not solely 'pleasing' either, though I'm sure we can establish which bits of the brain respond to shock or emotional disturbance or confusion or any other response.

But how does that answer 'what is art?', when you must first answer that question before measuring the response of a suitable number of brains (and a suitable diversity of brains)? How do you select the art which provokes the responses which are measured without first answering 'what is art'? Will the question later be answered by placing putative art in front of normalised brains and measuring its value? The art establishment has always done that (albeit without precision instruments, just actual brains), and always been ultimately usurped by new art following new rules.

I still feel (yes, I know that's neither evidence nor proof...) that what you'd be doing is measuring art, not explaining it.

How is science getting on with 'what is humour?', by the way? Professional practitioners admit they don't know (artists are less honest, I feel...)

The rainbow, meanwhile, is not human. Analogies only take you so far. I like wonder. I like not knowing, on occasion. I enjoy some forms of uncertainty. Does science carry any responsibility to avoid 'spoilers'? I don't seek ignorance, nor 'hide' from knowledge. But I can't help but feel that a rainbow is more enjoyable without the explanation - much like a joke, or a work of art.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

How about we call art whatever is produced with the intention of causing a response in its viewers and that causes a response in at least one of them

"A response" is too vague, Billy. Anything could be a response. Shocking you with a taser will produce a response. Would you or anyone else call that art?

Also, intent is not mandatory. Many things we call art were not conceived with any intent of being art.

We're close, but no. I would say that Art is any imitation of nature that provokes an emotional reaction in the viewers. Regardless of the skill involved. Regardless of the intent in the artist. The only thing that matters is that such thing was accepted as art.

Art that produces a response in just one person would find itself towards one end of the spectrum. The Mona Lisa would find itself towards the other end.
What remains is to decide where the cut off point is in getting an artwork into a gallery.

Agreed.

You are kidding surely. Has Cage's 4:33 actually been done more than once? I mean, surely the impact is lost after the punchline has been revealed.

Look Billy, I understand you really don't like the idea of Cage's work being art and personally, I find that one work of his is a load of BS too, but of course it's been performed many times!
I'm not sure the impact is lost after the punch line is revealed. But regardless, I think that your attempt at diminishing other people's experience with that work (or other works you don't like) by claiming it is inferior to a Mona Lisa is nothing else but projection on your part. The raw truth is you simply hate the idea that a work like that can be considered art. I however think that Cage was at least smart enough to maybe push the line and see if people would appreciate a work that consists in nothing but a big tacet (which means silence). If you watch Cage interviews you will see he's not kidding when he asserts that silence and street noises are sounds that to him are as musical and even more musical than a Beethoven Symphony. I personally don't agree with this feeling and I'm sure neither do you, but it is as valid to him as my personal feelings are to me. So I don't go around and say "That is not art". No. What I say is "That art is not for me". And you should try that too.

Come on, then. Do you?

That's irrelevant. Even if I say no (which is in fact the answer), that doesn't change there are miliions of people and hundreds of different audiences for each type of art which would willfully continue watching the same artwork.

I guess it made a statement when it first appeared. I'm not sure that anyone wants to keep reading it. But there are all types in this world I guess. I would come back to see the Mona Lisa. I might view the urinal once but I would see no point in returning. The statement's been made. Move on already.

See the parts I bolded?

You're not the ultimate authority on what's art. You wouldn't see the urinal again but the urinal has audiences for which it is as much art as the Mona Lisa is art for you. You don't have to agree with them, but they exist.

Which brings us back to the initial issue: If you and I have already agreed that it's impossible (or at least really really hard) to determine what is the critical mass of people who have to consider something art for it to be art, why is it that all of a sudden you are an authority to determine which works of art are up to the "level" of a Mona Lisa and which aren't?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Also, intent is not mandatory. Many things we call art were not conceived with any intent of being art.

I disagree. If there's no intent behind it, it shouldn't be called art. We can attribute aesthetics to it, call it "pretty" or "moving", but art should be limited to something where the expression of an aesthetic was intended.

 

[Fnord]

I googled the question, "What is art?" and grabbed the first result. According to the Department of Art History at Sweet Briar College:

Art lacks a satisfactory definition. It is easier to describe it as the way something is done -- "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others" -- rather than what it is.

Thus, the word 'Art' is a label applied moreso to methods of expression, rather than any specific result of any specific method, making the term "A work of art" more appropriate for the final product.

In a way, this parallels the word 'Science' as a label applied moreso to methods of inquiry, rather than any specific result of any specific inquiry. An incandescent lamp is not 'science' per se, but the end result of 'Science' -- "the use of skill and reason in the investigation of physical principles, materials and forces to expand and refine knowledge that can be shared with others".

So, if one were to go by the Briar Definition, it is not so much the painting that is 'Art', but the selection and preparation of just the right subject, canvas, brush, pigment and lighting and the influence each of these has on the painter's final composition. On the other hand, while a machine may be programmed to produce exact copies of the original painting, and retain the same degree of visual appeal, the copies will be all the same, and the process itself might be devoid of creative purpose.

The original work could be argued to be more worthy of the term 'Art' than an entire warehouse full of machine-produced duplicates.

Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that the process that goes into the creation of an original work is why paintings by Vermeer are considered 'Art' moreso than an entire collection of paintings merely signed by Kincade.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I disagree. If there's no intent behind it, it shouldn't be called art. We can attribute aesthetics to it, call it "pretty" or "moving", but art should be limited to something where the expression of an aesthetic was intended.

You can disagree all you want, but many of the works we label art weren't necessarily created with the intent of being art. You can find many of these examples at museums that store objects that weren't originally built with the intent of being called art, let alone ending up at a museum.

 

[BillyJoe]

Well, then, it seems that pretty well anything can be considered art.

The only proviso seems to be that it must elicit a response. Any response, be emotional or intellectual. And it only needs to elicit a response in one person. However, there does not need to be intent. So even accidental art is acceptable. Any scene in nature can be art. Any accidental object can be art.

So I guess what we are really asking is: By what criteria does the art community determine what art deserves special praise by being displayed in art houses and museums? And, for that matter, what crtieria defines an art community.

I guess it's the asnwers to those questions that can never be agreed upon.

 

[BillyJoe]

...no doubt there wil be disagreement with that.

 

[Belz...]

Is it art? Yes.

Yeah. Ugly art.

And I like it, it stirs something in me. I can see past the initial business and begin to feel things off it.

Considering that it looks like a 3 year-old threw a bunch of paint buckets on a canvas, I'm not sure how you can feel anything off it.

How about this:



I made that with MSPaint in about 2 minutes. Do you feel anything off it ?

 

[AvalonXQ]

You can disagree all you want, but many of the works we label art weren't necessarily created with the intent of being art. You can find many of these examples at museums that store objects that weren't originally built with the intent of being called art, let alone ending up at a museum.

That's because the museum is interested in storing aesthetic objects, not just art objects. An object may not have been conceived as art, but the curator sees that the object has beauty (or some other aesthetic) and wants to exhibit that item. The curator's selection and exhibition of the object is itself art, but the original object is not.