What is art? Does it require an artist?

[poxic]

So you were trolling? Also: Randall doesn't visit the fora anymore, and hasn't for a long time.

No, what I meant was that someone in that mood and knowledgeable doing that to me (preferrably someone with lots of deep insight). Its actually a great response and exactly what I am looking for as it lets me see what basis they formed their opinion on.

So what Dream and I are going to model (if Dream agrees to do so) is the way the xkcd fora prefer to have their debates. At least, in SB. You see, "destroying" someone is only one way of communicating information. It's not a very useful one, in fact, since the hostile tone tends to create many, many more problems than it solves. The last few pages should be a testament to that.

[studyinserendipity]

Actually, poxic, (if you will allow me to enter the discussion) your craft scenario is interesting Having examined it for a bit, I would say that you don't even need the second half about adding something of your own experience. In my opinion, craft is a means to art. As I understand Noc, he stated that utility and functionality can be viewed through an 'artistic lens.' And as Malconstant and Dream (and others too, but those are the posts that stuck out most in my mind) stated (and I agree), art is about context and is at least partially about what meaning an audience extracts from it. Someone looking at your craft may appreciate it in an artistic sense, and therefore it becomes art.

Personally, I think I have a very broad and general view of what should be considered art. I've been following this thread since it began, and some parts really gave me food for thought. I think art has to do with creativity, and expression, and appreciation for beautiful and/or intriguing ideas (but it doesn't have to be both! I love the idea of serialism in music. I do not listen to serial music because I do not appreciate the sound. But the IDEAS behind it! So awesome.). There are two ends to art: Art as perceived by the audience, and art as expressed by a creator. I believe that both ends do not have to be present for the creation to be art. If at least one end was fulfilled, then I consider it art. And I thoroughly understand that this statement allows people to be 'duped' at both ends. An artist can create something that would not be appreciated by most audiences, but she believes it to be a masterpiece. As an extension of her expression and creativity, it must be art. An audience member can see an interesting sculpture at a museum and ponder on its interesting structure, only to find out the janitorial staff mistakenly left some brooms in the corner.

As a music teacher, I was asked this question often so I would learn to defend my profession: Why should people who will not be Mozart or Beethoven bother to learn how to sing or play an instrument? I reply, "To create art and to appreciate art is to be human. It should be a right of everyone." Therefore art, as an expression or as an appreciation of ideas, should be seen as a daily occurrence. There must be some holes in this theory, but it's late and I need to play piano. It felt nice to get some ideas down anyways, so thanks for reading!

[poxic]

Hmm. I guess I have a habit of separating art from craft based on whether "anything new" was added. That newness is dependent on the artist, so that a toddler making a joyful fingerpaint picture is still making art. (Provided she hasn't done the same picture before or is not copying another one she's seen, that is. )

Let's say I've built a hydroelectric dam and made it as functional as possible, without consideration of its aesthetic values. At one point in history, though I can't find a relevant quote right now, that would have been called "art" because it was not "nature". Art was what humans made, more or less.

It seems that the definition has evolved toward the first sentence in the Wiki article: "Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect." So my dam will only be art if I've built it with some aesthetic or symbolic value.

Or, perhaps, if someone perceives it that way. Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned the cave paintings at Lascaux. We don't know if the drawings were intended to be art, but we see it that way. If every human on the planet dies of immediate bubonic explosive plague today, and tomorrow aliens arrive ready to greet us, will they see my dam as art? If they do, does it then become art?

[Zamfir]

Or, perhaps, if someone perceives it that way. Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned the cave paintings at Lascaux. We don't know if the drawings were intended to be art, but we see it that way. If every human on the planet dies of immediate bubonic explosive plague today, and tomorrow aliens arrive ready to greet us, will they see my dam as art? If they do, does it then become art?

You don't have to go as far as aliens, really. When I got to my current working place, I was surprised to find that most colleagues have decorated their rooms with drawings of nuclear plants. Not just "this is what I worked on" pictures, but drawings of plants they have no relation with at all, that they just happen to like. It's been a few years now, and I am still not feeling the urge myself. Power plants come as close to "objectively ugly as fuck" as it gets*, and they're rarely designed with looks in mind (although this is changing a bit nowadays).

Most of these pictures are cut-away drawings, which are arguably an artform in themselves apart from the subject, and help to make ugly things look better. But it's also that the aethetics are not really the looks here. A good cutaway drawing gives an impression of the intricate machinery inside, and people-in-the-know appreciate that in an art-like way, including an appreciation of the people who made this particular design. Most wouldn't use the word "art", but that's also because they are not people who see art as a particularly superior category of things.

Before that, I worked in aerospace, and aircraft are far more naturally accepted as visually beautiful, even when that's still purely functional aerodynamics. Looking back, many of the (photos of) planes people used there as decoration where like found art objects, appreciated for a beauty the designers did not aim for. But even there, people also decorated their offices with complicated cutaway drawings, or pictures of planes that were not nice-looking at all. I guess that's a sign of artisitic appreciation of the technical design of the machine, the part that the designers did put in intentionally without bothering for the resulting looks.


* I personally think for example that oil refineries have better visual aesthetics than powerplants. But that's a point of discussion

[Dream]

So, Mr. Dream, if I may call you Mr. Dream, and please correct me if I may not:

Ah, it's actually Squadron Commander the Lord Dream. Common mistake, doesn't bother me in the slightest.

"I used a skill and/or piece of technology (e.g., bleached dried reeds) to make an object or experience (e.g., basket or movement or sound). If I got creative with it -- added some of myself and/or my ideas into it -- then I can call it Art rather than Craft."

I think your definition is just a bit too mechanistic to be perfect. It probably encompasses almost all art, but I feel it defines it by non-essential attributes, technology and ideas, and in opposition to craft, which I think is not central to the question. To illustrate, there can be art that does not involve technology or craft at all, such as a physical performance made up entirely of presence. There can also be art where though some level of technology is involved, it is not implemented by the artist, and no particular skill is used, such as found object juxtapositions or the famous light-going-on-and-off in the Turner a while ago. The light, of course, articulates to the audience no particularly comprehensible ideas, which in your definition would make it craft because nothing the audience can't perceive can be said to be present in the work.

What all of these things, and all other works of art share though, is that they achieve their ends by some deliberate application of context. Sometimes, like Fountain, or Lights Going On And Off the context is just the gallery, and the art world in general. Others, like Warhol's print series are more subtle evocations of similar things, about culture, image and mass production. The perfect example of what I'm talking about is Rauschenberg's Erased De Kooning. It's a Willem De Kooning drawing, erased by Rauschenberg (with the permission of De Kooning, to sidestep confusion over it being an attack on him in particular) and exhibited as his own. The act of erasing a thing is not art, nor does it create art. It can destroy it, of course or alter it, or simply be an entirely creatively neutral act, like erasing an accidental stain. Any of these acts could evoke emotion, articulate meaning or apply technology to communicate a thing, but without being or creating art. The thing that makes Rauschenberg art, and not me removing yesterday's lesson from a chalkboard, is the context applied: De Kooning's drawing. So while Erased De Kooning fits your definition perfectly, the application of technology and (very basic) skill to creating a thing, and an idea that sets the act apart from some definition of craft, I don't feel that that captures the art in it. The De Kooning isn't the craft, skill or technology, it's the context, and it's the context that makes it art.

It occurs to me that your definition of the "idea" that sets a thing apart from craft migth be very close, or identical to my definition of the application of context. Maybe?

[Danny Uncanny7]

Is it possible for an artist to create art without artistic intentions? Can someone just doing their job or going about their day-to-day business be creating art if it has the same effect on a viewer as something intentional? I can't think of a really good example now, but something like Buddhist monks making elaborate mosaics or someone balancing rocks off on a secluded beach.

[jakovasaur]

I don't think athletes have artistic intentions, but I find many sports, particularly basketball and soccer, to be very aesthetically pleasing. I'm not sure if I'd call it art, but I wouldn't disagree if someone else did.

[poxic]

But it's also that the aethetics are not really the looks here. A good cutaway drawing gives an impression of the intricate machinery inside, and people-in-the-know appreciate that in an art-like way, including an appreciation of the people who made this particular design. Most wouldn't use the word "art", but that's also because they are not people who see art as a particularly superior category of things

I can dig that. Encountering a particularly elegant piece of systems design can light up my soul in a similar way to finding a new and wonderful painting or sculpture.

In fact, I wonder if the way artists experience each others' art is like this: I see what you did there, and it tickles me pink (if I like it) or depresses me a bit (if I don't).

Ah, it's actually Squadron Commander the Lord Dream. Common mistake, doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Woof! If you need something, take it! Bob, I need something!

The thing that makes Rauschenberg art, and not me removing yesterday's lesson from a chalkboard, is the context applied: De Kooning's drawing. So while Erased De Kooning fits your definition perfectly, the application of technology and (very basic) skill to creating a thing, and an idea that sets the act apart from some definition of craft, I don't feel that that captures the art in it. The De Kooning isn't the craft, skill or technology, it's the context, and it's the context that makes it art.

OK, *that* is food for thought. Up until here, I didn't see much difference between the art-vs-craft thing and context. This is interesting, though. Maybe my idea of "idea" (as it were) is much like your "context". I'll ponder thereon for a bit and see if anything interesting comes up. Woof.

[Dream]

Is it possible for an artist to create art without artistic intentions? ... Buddhist monks making elaborate mosaics or someone balancing rocks off on a secluded beach.

What about these activities means there was no intent to create art? Your question is problematic because it hinges on a definition of art as being the artist's motivation. I know nothing of the intention or motivation of the artists who make all the abstract public sculptures I see every day, but that doesn't lead me to question their status as art. If I come across those balanced rocks, I can see as much of their nature and context as I can of the public sculptures, so I don't see the difference.

I wonder if the way artists experience each others' art is like this: I see what you did there

I definitely get that feeling about sound art and electronic music. It's often arcane stuff, that uses all kinds of signal processing trickery or algorithms to create the effect on the listener, which I can perceive for what they are. But it's no more problematic for me as an audience than is knowing what goes on on a movie set for a film fan. Occasionally something unexpected will "break the fourth wall" but it's actually far less of a distraction than people assume it to be.

[Malconstant]

I wonder if the way artists experience each others' art is like this: I see what you did there

I definitely get that feeling about sound art and electronic music. It's often arcane stuff, that uses all kinds of signal processing trickery or algorithms to create the effect on the listener, which I can perceive for what they are. But it's no more problematic for me as an audience than is knowing what goes on on a movie set for a film fan. Occasionally something unexpected will "break the fourth wall" but it's actually far less of a distraction than people assume it to be.

Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars - mere globs of gas atoms. I too can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more? The vastness of the heavens stretches my imagination - stuck on this carousel my little eye can catch one - million - year - old light. A vast pattern - of which I am a part... What is the pattern, or the meaning, or the why? It does not do harm to the mystery to know a little about it. For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined it. Why do the poets of the present not speak of it? What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?

[infernovia]

Not to destroy all the great discussion that's happening, but here is what context means according to the great almighty wikipedia.
Context: the relevant constraints of the communicative situation that influence language use, language variation, and discourse summary.

And what dream is saying is that art IS context. So when people say "Hamlet is art, Duchamp's Urinal is art" we should replace it with "Hamlet is context, Duchamp's urinal is context" or "Hamlet is the relevant constraints of the communicative situation that influence language use, language variation, and discourse summary." Or even the otherway around, we should replace "In the context of our discussion" with "In the art of our discussion"

So my question is how does this make any sense? Hamlet definitely isn't constraint (especially not the relevant constraint), although it was certainly created within a context. So this is what I am left with:
a) The previous definition and usage of art is wrong. Aka "Hamlet is art" is a nonsensical sentence and propagated by idiots.
b) This isn't the complete definition of art. In which case whatever.
c) Art isn't context, art is simply created within a context. And since everything we create and do has an impact in the world, it also creates a certain restraint/context at everything else (how much effect is limited by it's power)

But the latter isn't really an insight about art's definition, nor even a deep one that is specific about art. Especially in this century (as we found out, EVERY symbol exists within a context). Apparently, they knew about this in the late 1800s and stuff, even before all the "great artist thinkers" like Duchamp or Picasso!

[FrancisDrake]

I thought art was everything the mind applies onto the cosmos around it but after reading this thread; I have learned nothing at all. I think to have an art is to create and since everything is created than everything is art. Therefore, I have a hunch that what is generalized as art isn't art, but rather a subjective taste to objects or creation around us. But then again, nothing feigns in comparison to that painting elephant; which if I may say has quite the trunk for art.

[RoberII]

Fucking dammit, infernovia, how can you start a post with "Not to destroy all the great discussion...", and then write such utter crap? It's pretty clear that what is art is largely defined by context - hence, Duchamp's Urinal being considered an artwork by the vast majority of people who aren't useless pedantics, while most urinals aren't.

[infernovia]

Robert II, what I am seeing here is a lot of people agreeing that "art is context" without trying to seriously understand what this means instead of projecting meaning into it. Dream did not say art is created within a certain context (or that art is what is consider art within a certain context), because this is not a definition of art. But it also becomes a bit more subtle than that because we must ask ourselves as Derrida did: what symbol ISN'T created within a certain context (and indeed what context isn't created within another one)?

See, if we take your answer, the original question is still unanswered because literally everything is created within a context. So we are left with the answer "art is what people consider to be art." So then you have to realize that Duchamp's urinal is considered art is because more people higher up, with more money than you, were able to convince more influential people that that is art and that is propagated to more people. But the question we must always ask is why did they consider it art? What was it's function (do you see how the "definition" answered none of this because it isn't one)? And if you have the strength for it, was it even, worthwhile?

Because all I see is "high" culture coming to terms with the death of objectivity by the death of art, and has not moved forward anymore. Unlike say, Nietzsche and the death of god (in more simpler terms, universal validity).

[RoberII]

As if your semantics is an attempt at seriously understanding what this means? Are you being willfully obtuse, or are you trolling? The very first thing I said in my very first post on the very first page of this thread was that art was defined by it being in an artistic context - not just a context in general. And yes, that means exactly what you just said - that art is a more or less arbitrary category. Just like, say, fashion. They are both modes of discourse. And they both require cultural capital to get into, and that's an interesting discussion in and of itself, but that's basically it. End of discussion: Art is that which takes place in an artistic context, and there will be varying reasons for considering thing art depending on the fashion at the time. Now, you want to discuss which particular fashion was the best, but that's like arguing whether the 30's or 70's was the better fashion, it's not a discussion on the nature of fashion.

[infernovia]

The very first thing I said in my very first post on the very first page of this thread was that art was defined by it being in an artistic context - not just a context in general. And yes, that means exactly what you just said - that art is a more or less arbitrary category. Just like, say, fashion.

Artistic context holds the word art in it, so that doesn't say anything. As for what you said, fashion is not arbitrary, it is a game about status. However, the reason fashion the word is deplorable is that it is very forgettable and does not hold the mind of people so long (simply, it is not strong enough as the purpose is too limited). But is this true of all art? Like say... Crime and Punishment or The Godfather or 1984 or Groundhog Day?

And if it is fashion (here understood as a display of status within a very limited context, as it's own end), then there is no point on holding Duchamp's urinal or any art with any amount of seriousness because it is weak. Anyway w/e.

[Malconstant]

You seem to be operating under the assumption that by dismissing everyone else's good sense and repeating your poor articulation of poorly thought out ideas despite pages of refutation, that this thread will come to a satisfying end. I wonder how it will work out for you.

[gmalivuk]

Well as he drifts ever closer to flat-out trolling, the chances of his getting banned from SB increase. And I think that'd be a rather satisfying end for the rest of us, don't you?

[RoberII]

Spoiler:

Fixed that for you.

Stay on topic.

- Az

[TrlstanC]

I can see how infernovia's posts can be confusing, but I think that there is a legitimate question in there. Something along the lines of:

• If art is defined by it being in an artistic context, how do we know what an artistic context is? Seemingly it's a context that involves the creation, discussion or appreciation of art or something that takes place in the "art world", but that just get's us back to asking what art is.

I think everyone can agree that art is defined by what context it takes place in, but then what's the definition of that context? We also all are probably able to agree on certain features of that context, for example it usually involves talking about things as being creative, and most art could be displayed in a museum. But features like that don't seem to be obviously unique to art (unless we want to drastically increase the boundaries of what we call art in everyday language.)

The only thought I have on how to answer that question is that art is something where the way it's created and/or displayed (which could argued is just part of it's creation) is more important then the information it conveys. Ultimately art is whatever a lot of people think is art, but I think a definition like this would probably cover most cases. Although it would also lead to cases where we could say "this is more artistic" and "this is less artistic" even if both pieces are superficially very similar i.e., it doesn't always give a clear cut binary answer to the question "is this art?" That might be OK though if sometimes people actually think and talk about art this way.

Another problem are the many cases where we don't know how something is created, or by who, and yet we still want to call it art. I'd say though that these cases are usually pieces that are either of 1) unusually quality or ornateness, or are 2) just unique/out of place. For the first we could be assuming that someone must've had a reason to put extra effort in to making this look good/interesting beyond just trying to make it work better. And for the second, I'm thinking about cases like sculptures in city parks, they don't obviously serve a purpose like everything else in the city and they also appear to be hard to make, so they must've been created in some interesting way i.e., we assume it was made in an artistic way.

Here's some more common/popular examples of how I think this could work:

• A paint-by-numbers painting might be considered art, but just barely by most people. And if a 1000 copies were cranked out on an assembly line, then a lot of people wouldn't think it's art. But the original painting that the paint-by-numbers is based on probably is art because the artist created the original without following a guide.
  
• Same with an original painting and a counterfeit. Some people wouldn't call the counterfeit "real art" or would say it's "less artistic." Although a very good counterfeit could be appreciated on it's own for the skill that it took to make. But because the counterfeit was created by copying, even if it was created by an artist, the way in which it was made doesn't seem as "art like."
  
• Even something like a really well designed power plant or piece of code might inspire someone to describe it as artistic, for example if it was created in a way that was elegant or efficient or took extra effort, but didn't obviously add any value to how it's going to be used. Here again we get in to an issue where it's not obvious that we can say "this is art" and "this isn't" but have to say something like "this has artistic elements to it."
  
• A Jackson Pollock might be indistinguishable from a particularly lucky drop cloth with paint all over it, but most people think that the Pollock is art because of the way it was created, and the drop cloth wasn't because it didn't take any skill or creativity to create (just random chance).
  
• Even Duchamp's Fountain could find it's way in to the "art" definition this way if we consider the act of pulling it off a wall and putting in a museum to be at least as important as the original creation and installation. The only reason people talk about this particular isn't because anything about it's physical structure is interesting, but because of the way it became art. People think that it took a particularly creative mind to come up with the idea of putting it on display in a gallery (or at least a particularly audacious personality). Although I heard a rumor that the fountain was actually a unique porcelain sculpture that Duchamp created, and couldn't be ordered from a catalog.

Obviously it's not an easy question to answer, but I've always thought that some definition in this vein would be on the right track.

[Dream]

A paint-by-numbers painting might be considered art, but just barely

If you want to start ranking works of art by their amount of "artness", by all means do. But have the courage of your convictions and give us a solid theoretical framework that explains the relationship between and relative merits of a Caravaggio and a napkin doodle. If you can't do that, then don't make the suggestion, because it's just a hunch you have, not a fully thought out and comprehensible theory.

Same with an original painting and a counterfeit.

Damien Hirst used to buy forgeries of his own work and autograph them, then resell them as originals. Being a copy is not a limitation on being a work of art. Only (in the case of forgeries) being not by the purported author. Hirst neatly sidestepped that, and raised interesting questions about authorship in the process, compounding the legitimacy of the autographed forgeries as works of art in themselves.

Even something like a really well designed power plant or piece of code might inspire someone to describe it as artistic,

The use of "art" "artful" or "artistic" as descriptive terms for non-art entities is not relevant to the discussion of what art is. If I call a bright summer's day "the darkest day of the year" because someone important died on it, I'm not redefining "dark" just using the connotations of its existing definition to articulate a concept. One can refer to an athlete or a piece of functional architecture as "artistic" without having to expand the definition of art to include it.

A Jackson Pollock might be indistinguishable from a particularly lucky drop cloth with paint all over it, but most people think that the Pollock is art because of the way it was created, and the drop cloth wasn't because it didn't take any skill or creativity to create (just random chance).

There is a lot more to a Pollock than random chance dribbles of paint. You can read any of the dozens of books on the subject for a complete explanation, but trust me, random isn't a significant component of his painting. Also, the hypothetical random dropping of paint requires skill (in directing and dropping the paint) and artistic intervention (choice of colour, decisions about when the work is completed) and so is certainly art in the mechanistic sense. It took skill and creativity, and was deliberately created.

People think that it took a particularly creative mind to come up with the idea of putting it on display in a gallery (or at least a particularly audacious personality).

They're wrong, in as much as such an opinion can be thought "wrong". Duchamp, and Dada in general were closely concerned with the potential for art to be present not in the form or physicality of a work, but in the thought and consideration that went into it. Could the audience perceive that thought, thanks to the mediation of the gallery presentation and the artist's signature? Apparently yes, considering how successful the works were. They were about distilling the nature of art down to an essence, though they had the effect of scandalising those who didn't understand them. Duchamp was still doing readymades long after Fountain, long after that simplistic reading was fully absorbed into critical thinking.

[The Great Hippo]

There is a lot more to a Pollock than random chance dribbles of paint. You can read any of the dozens of books on the subject for a complete explanation, but trust me, random isn't a significant component of his painting. Also, the hypothetical random dropping of paint requires skill (in directing and dropping the paint) and artistic intervention (choice of colour, decisions about when the work is completed) and so is certainly art in the mechanistic sense. It took skill and creativity, and was deliberately created.

Just as an unrelated (but still somewhat on-topic) aside--Pollock quantifies a lot of my problem with modern art, a problem that can be summarized with just one word: Unapproachability.

If I can't appreciate or enjoy your work without an art degree, my instinct is to assume that it isn't 'good art'; to me, 'good art' should be enjoyable by anyone (and an art degree should only increase my enjoyment). The fact that entire economies cropped up around art that can only be properly enjoyed if you're 'in the know' while far more approachable, digestible work languished in a corner always bothered me.

But to take a step back from that perspective, I can see how the enjoyment of all art hinges on a certain context and a certain knowledge--I can't enjoy a good book unless I know how to read, I can't enjoy a painting that refers to a historical event without knowing what that event is¹, etc. Some forms of modern art may have merely extended that context (literacy was, after all, rare; maybe modern art is in some ways an attempt to manufacture that same rarity). Art has gateways for enjoyment, and my instinct is, of course, to dislike art which has a gateway that is above and beyond my current proficiency.

Still, there's part of me--and it won't seem to go away--that suspects that the proficiency required for certain works of art is, in fact, false--I've always been suspicious of Pollock and other modernists of creating an imaginary need for a certain type of context to appreciate their work. Is this fair? I don't know, and while I'm willing to give Pollock a chance, I can't shake the feeling every time I hear someone talking highly of his work that someone's been had.

¹ Of course, I can enjoy these things without the proper context, but I enjoy them in different ways than intended, and perhaps arguably less so than someone who enjoys them in a way that fits closer with its creation.

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

Still, there's part of me--and it won't seem to go away--that suspects that the proficiency required for certain works of art is, in fact, false--I've always been suspicious of Pollock and other modernists of creating an imaginary need for a certain type of context to appreciate their work. Is this fair? I don't know, and while I'm willing to give Pollock a chance, I can't shake the feeling every time I hear someone talking highly of his work that someone's been had.

This is getting dangerously close to denying another's experiences simply because they aren't your own.

[The Great Hippo]

This is getting dangerously close to denying another's experiences simply because they aren't your own.

When a Scientologist speaks of religious exultation, I don't doubt that their exultation exists, but I still understand that they've been, in some sense, the victim of a con. I can still respect your experiences but criticize the framework in which those experiences happen.

EDIT: Also, to qualify, I'm not trying to attack the structure of high art or high art criticism, but just voicing my concerns that there's a whiff of illegitimacy about the whole affair. I don't have an art degree, I'm not versed on critical art theory, I may very well be speaking out of my ass. If someone could explain to me how my concerns are totally without merit, I'd be more than happy to listen.

[TrlstanC]

If you want to start ranking works of art by their amount of "artness", by all means do.

The whole quote is important in this case: "A paint-by-numbers painting might be considered art, but just barely by most people. I'm just guessing that if you asked a lot of people "is this original painting art, is this color-by-numbers art, and if they're both art, is one more 'artistic' than then other?" That you would get a lot of people saying that the original painting was more artistic, or that one was art while the other wasn't. Of course I don't have any numbers to back that up, so if you think I'm wildly wrong I could certainly be convinced, or better yet if you have a link or article that talks about the idea in depth that would probably be a lot more useful than my guesses.

But have the courage of your convictions and give us a solid theoretical framework that explains the relationship between and relative merits of a Caravaggio and a napkin doodle.

I don't know who Caravaggio is, but my framework would be based on the idea that "something is art if the way it's created is more important then the information it conveys." If Caravaggio put some thought and skill in to her (or his) work, and that's one of the major reasons why people enjoy it as art more than most napkin doodles, then this seems like it may be in the ballpark.

If you can't do that, then don't make the suggestion, because it's just a hunch you have, not a fully thought out and comprehensible theory.

The main point of my post (despite not taking up a majority of the space) was that "I can see how infernovia's posts can be confusing, but I think that there is a legitimate question in there." I.e., I'm not sure that defining art as something that takes place in an artistic context is a great definition. I also wasn't aware that the forum rules (or the social etiquette of intelligent conversation) said anything about not offering any hunches? I suppose all posts have to be parts of arguments? I suggest something, someone else points out all the things wrong with it, I try to defend my ideas? In the future I'll refrain from suggesting ideas that other people could contribute to, or build on - or, if you don't like hunches, feel free to ignore any of mine that accidentally slip in to a thought somewhere.

Same with an original painting and a counterfeit.

Damien Hirst used to buy forgeries of his own work and autograph them, then resell them as originals.

Wait, I'm confused, are you arguing against a point I made, or for it (or possibly contributing to an incomplete idea)? Did people know they were forgeries? Are you raising this as an example because these works of art are more interesting because the weird way they were made are more interesting than what they depicted?

Even something like a really well designed power plant or piece of code might inspire someone to describe it as artistic,

The use of "art" "artful" or "artistic" as descriptive terms for non-art entities is not relevant to the discussion of what art is.

That's fine, I just thought it was an interesting observation that had been made earlier in the discussion.

A Jackson Pollock might be indistinguishable from a particularly lucky drop cloth with paint all over it, but most people think that the Pollock is art because of the way it was created, and the drop cloth wasn't because it didn't take any skill or creativity to create (just random chance).

There is a lot more to a Pollock than random chance dribbles of paint. (...) the hypothetical random dropping of paint requires skill (in directing and dropping the paint) and artistic intervention (choice of colour, decisions about when the work is completed) and so is certainly art in the mechanistic sense. It took skill and creativity, and was deliberately created.

Exactly the point I was trying to make, thanks for stating it better than I did.

People think that it took a particularly creative mind to come up with the idea of putting it on display in a gallery (or at least a particularly audacious personality).

They're wrong, in as much as such an opinion can be thought "wrong". Duchamp, and Dada in general were closely concerned with the potential for art to be present not in the form or physicality of a work, but in the thought and consideration that went into it. Could the audience perceive that thought, thanks to the mediation of the gallery presentation and the artist's signature? Apparently yes, considering how successful the works were. They were about distilling the nature of art down to an essence, though they had the effect of scandalising those who didn't understand them. Duchamp was still doing readymades long after Fountain, long after that simplistic reading was fully absorbed into critical thinking.

I'm sorry, but I'm not catching the point you're trying to make here. Could you just clarify a few points, do you think that: 1) People thought Duchamp was creative? 2) Duchamp was creative? And do 1 & 2 have anything to do with the Fountain being considered art?

[The Great Hippo]

The whole quote is important in this case: "A paint-by-numbers painting might be considered art, but just barely by most people. I'm just guessing that if you asked a lot of people "is this original painting art, is this color-by-numbers art, and if they're both art, is one more 'artistic' than then other?" That you would get a lot of people saying that the original painting was more artistic, or that one was art while the other wasn't. Of course I don't have any numbers to back that up, so if you think I'm wildly wrong I could certainly be convinced, or better yet if you have a link or article that talks about the idea in depth that would probably be a lot more useful than my guesses.

Is whether or not people think something is more artistic than something else important, though? A lot of people think Yoo-hoo is disgusting; well, they're obviously wrong (it's delicious, delicious sweet ambrosial nectar). Or should I consider what other people think before I enjoy Yoo-hoo?

I don't know who Caravaggio is, but my framework would be based on the idea that "something is art if the way it's created is more important then the information it conveys." If Caravaggio put some thought and skill in to her (or his) work, and that's one of the major reasons why people enjoy it as art more than most napkin doodles, then this seems like it may be in the ballpark.

I've laughed aloud at napkin doodles before; I've even been shocked and moved. This strikes me as a great example of a doodle that did a lot for me¹.

I've seen a lot of Caraveggio's work, and while technically superior, it didn't move or speak to me. So I actually rate it as much lower than the above link, artistically. Does that mean I'm bad at art, or does it mean that whether or not the paper napkin qualifies is actually more about context than craft?

¹Link stolen from Jessica out of another thread.

[TrlstanC]

Is whether or not people think something is more artistic than something else important, though?

No, I don't think so. I certainly don't go around saying "this is more artistic than that" or think that's a very useful judgement to make. And the goal of a definition like this should be just to explain why people call somethings art and not some other (even some similar) things art i.e., the goal should be a binary judgment. However, when thinking about this definition I realized that it could be used in some situations to say things like "this is more 'art' than that" or to say something like "this is a little bit arty." Which doesn't seem ideal to me, but if there are actually situations where people talk or think like this then I guess that might just be the nature of the way that people "appreciate" art. The example of the paint-by-numbers was one situation where I could imagine people thinking that one painting was clearly more artistic than another, similar, painting.

[PAstrychef]

Is whether or not people think something is more artistic than something else important, though?

And the goal of a definition like this should be just to explain why people call somethings art and not some other (even some similar) things art i.e., the goal should be a binary judgment.

Why is a binary definition the goal? Since art requires context to be recognizable as art, the idea of a bright shiny line of "artness" seems naive.

[TrlstanC]

Why is a binary definition the goal?

Because people usually make binary judgments about something either being art or not being art i.e., people usually say things like:

Since art requires context to be recognizable as art

and not things like

Since art requires context to recognize how art like it is.

If that's the way people usually talk about art, then a binary definition seems like a worthwhile goal, but if we find that as we pursue that goal we run in to some cases where it's not possible to make a binary judgment because people occasionally, and correctly, talk about things being "more or less arty" then it would seem proper to adopt a definition that isn't binary. However, it doesn't seem useful to assume up front that a binary judgment isn't possible and to just ignore the possibility. If such a definition is possible it would be interesting to see what it's like, and the only way I know to possibly get there is to set that as the objective and see if we can get there.

[The Great Hippo]

If that's the way people usually talk about art, then a binary definition seems like a worthwhile goal, but if we find that as we pursue that goal we run in to some cases where it's not possible to make a binary judgment because people occasionally, and correctly, talk about things being "more or less arty" then it would seem proper to adopt a definition that isn't binary. However, it doesn't seem useful to assume up front that a binary judgment isn't possible and to just ignore the possibility. If such a definition is possible it would be interesting to see what it's like, and the only way I know to possibly get there is to set that as the objective and see if we can get there.

I just don't see the utility in a definition for art beyond context. Is there some particular need that your definition would be fulfilling?

[TrlstanC]

I just don't see the utility in a definition for art beyond context. Is there some particular need that your definition would be fulfilling?

Well certainly art's context is important, but that's not the only subject that is best understood in its context, or can only be understood in a particular context. For example, talking about language, technology or religion would be difficult or impossible without also talking about their context. But when we say that art is something that takes place in an artistic context, we should also be able to say how an artistic context is different than a religious context, or any other context. If we want to be able to define art in terms of its context we should then be able to define what an artistic context is without referring to art, otherwise we end up in a circular definition.

[Zamfir]

If that's the way people usually talk about art, then a binary definition seems like a worthwhile goal, but if we find that as we pursue that goal we run in to some cases where it's not possible to make a binary judgment because people occasionally, and correctly, talk about things being "more or less arty" then it would seem proper to adopt a definition that isn't binary. However, it doesn't seem useful to assume up front that a binary judgment isn't possible and to just ignore the possibility. If such a definition is possible it would be interesting to see what it's like, and the only way I know to possibly get there is to set that as the objective and see if we can get there.

A non-binary concept of art doesn't have to mean that things are "more arty", on some one-dimensional scale. It seems far more useful to consider the ways in which things and activities can have an artistic component, while they also have other natures, other ways of looking at them.

For some objects or activities the artistic sides comes to the foreground, as the central way we consider them. So "works of art" is a big part of their meaning, of their role in human life. For other things or activities, non-artistic sides come to the foreground as well, or even more than artistic aspects. The same building might be someone's office, someone 's eyesore, and someone's favourite work of art.

In such a light, you can't divide the world into art and non-art, but not in more or less artistic either.

Well certainly art's context is important, but that's not the only subject that is best understood in its context, or can only be understood in a particular context. For example, talking about language, technology or religion would be difficult or impossible without also talking about their context. But when we say that art is something that takes place in an artistic context, we should also be able to say how an artistic context is different than a religious context, or any other context. If we want to be able to define art in terms of its context we should then be able to define what an artistic context is without referring to art, otherwise we end up in a circular definition.

Thing is, for all those things we can work perfectly well without a strict definition. If we try to form a working definition for language, religion, or technology, we start by considering the things to include, then try to fit a definition around them. And when someone comes up with exceptions to the definition, it's usually the definition that's at fault.

Clearly, such definitions are only short-hands to what we mean with the words. "I knows it when I sees it" is not a weakness, it's a recognition that our concepts are often far too complex to be encapsulated in a neat sentence or a short list.

[TrlstanC]

. The same building might be someone's office, someone 's eyesore, and someone's favourite work of art.

In such a light, you can't divide the world into art and non-art, but not in more or less artistic either.

Just for clarification, the three people who work, hate and love that building, do you think think that each of them thinks that the building 1) either is or isn't art 2) falls on some scale of being more or less artistic or 3) neither i.e., none of them can have their opinion of the building described using either 1 or 2?

[Zamfir]

I dunno, you'd have to ask them.

[TrlstanC]

My guess is that for many things most people will say that it clearly is either art or it isn't. There seem to be some cases where there isn't a clear answer, but without an agreed upon definition of art the possibility exists that there is a definition that could be used to always say if something is art or not. Which while it seems unlikely, would certainly be very interesting. Of course it may seem unlikely simply because it's not possible, but the best evidence that it's not possible would most likely be a working definition that in all cases says something like "this is more artistic than that" but which can't also define a clear line to separate art from not-art.

[Outchanter]

I can't shake the feeling every time I hear someone talking highly of his work that someone's been had.

Arguably, "conning"people into thinking that something is art is one of the oldest arts in existence. Is it really a "con" if the piece speaks to them though? You could call it the free market definition of art: if someone likes it enough to pay for it, it's art - at least to them.

The question then becomes, what separates art from technology? People will pay for both the songs on the iPod and the iPod itself, but the songs are art while the iPod is technology (albeit a vehicle for art). I suppose the main difference might be that a song is probably written to get across a specific emotional message, while the iPod was designed to facilitate the emotional message of all songs, but not any one message in particular.

[Danny Uncanny7]

The iPad has a number of practical and not so practical uses. The song only exists to satisfy some human desire for art. I've been trying from the start to hammer out an understanding of that desire, but things keep kind of sliding into semantics and name calling.

[Dream]

The question then becomes, what separates art from technology?

Technology and art are not on the same continuum in order for separating them to be a meaningful exercise. It's like worrying about whether some apples are oranges. You have a fundamental problem there that renders the exercise moot.

[TrlstanC]

Technology and art are not on the same continuum in order for separating them to be a meaningful exercise.

Let's assume for a moment that I can't tell the difference between technology and art, I know they're on different continuums, but I'm not sure what the difference is. How could I prove to myself that they are on different continuums?

[The Great Hippo]

Let's assume for a moment that I can't tell the difference between technology and art, I know they're on different continuums, but I'm not sure what the difference is. How could I prove to myself that they are on different continuums?

By finding an example of technology that isn't art, and an example of art that isn't technology.