What is art? Does it require an artist?

[TrlstanC]

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.

I don't want to prove to myself that technology isn't art, I want to prove that they're not on the same continuum. I can pick an example of one shade of blue, and pick another example of a shade of red. The shade of red won't be blue, and the shade of blue won't be red, but they'll be on the same continuum.

For example, lets say that I thought about using a definition of art something like the ratio (using some arbitrary scale and units):

Code: Select all

[How interesting is this because of the way this piece was created) / (How useful is this piece)

Where higher ratios, presumably above some arbitrary level, would be called art. And we could consider things on the opposite end of the scale i.e., high inverse ratios, would be things that are considered "technology." I'm not sure that this would work in all cases, but it seems like an interesting direction to explore, and importantly an example like this doesn't seem to run in to any obvious logical difficulties even though it considers art and technology on the same continuum.

[The Great Hippo]

I don't want to prove to myself that technology isn't art, I want to prove that they're not on the same continuum. I can pick an example of one shade of blue, and pick another example of a shade of red. The shade of red won't be blue, and the shade of blue won't be red, but they'll be on the same continuum.

Do you know what a continuum is? It's a type of set.

Find an example of art that isn't technology, and an example of technology that isn't art, and you've proved they don't exist on the same continuum. There might be overlap, but they're separate.

Example: Are 'trucks' and 'things we find in a fire house' on the same continuum? Fire-trucks are in both sets; however, trash-trucks are in only one set (trucks). Similarly, axes are in only one set (things we find in a fire house). Therefore, they are not part of the same continuum.

[Zamfir]

TrlstanC, why do you want to collapse such complicated concepts to a single numerical value?

Perhaps sex and academic education are part of a continuum. I can go around picking up objects, and assign them a number of the form

Code: Select all

 How erudite is this object / How hard does it make my penis

Have I now learned something about the nature of sex or education?

[RoberII]

I have to say, that in addition to defining "art", it seems we now have to define "technology" as well, which strikes me as being just as hard.

[TrlstanC]

Do you know what a continuum is? It's a type of set.

I think I do, I wasn't thinking about set theory, but more of a "common usage" definition, along the lines of "a continuous whole, where no part can be differentiated from it's neighbor except by an arbitrary division" or "a range where for any two points there exists a third point in-between." I think there could also be more than one definition of "continuum" especially if we wanted to consider mathematical uses. If you (and Dream) are using a specific definition of "continuum" that I'm not familiar with, that could explain the misunderstanding.

Find an example of art that isn't technology, and an example of technology that isn't art, and you've proved they don't exist on the same continuum. There might be overlap, but they're separate.

Can you give me an example of a continuum that works - where the two sets are never separate and always overlap? Because I'm not sure I understand the way it's being used here. For example, would colors i.e., visible light, be considered a continuum? And I assume "all real numbers" would be a continuum too, right? But I can think of definitions of sets of real numbers that don't have any overlap, but that would still fall on the same continuum. For example: Set A is "all numbers greater than 100" and Set B is "all numbers less than -100" are those two on the same continuum?

[The Great Hippo]

I think I do, I wasn't thinking about set theory, but more of a "common usage" definition, along the lines of "a continuous whole, where no part can be differentiated from it's neighbor except by an arbitrary division" or "a range where for any two points there exists a third point in-between." I think there could also be more than one definition of "continuum" especially if we wanted to consider mathematical uses. If you (and Dream) are using a specific definition of "continuum" that I'm not familiar with, that could explain the misunderstanding.

Both definitions you just sited are also examples of sets. Sets are groups that contain any number of elements.

Can you give me an example of a continuum that works - where the two sets are never separate and always overlap? Because I'm not sure I understand the way it's being used here. For example, would colors i.e., visible light, be considered a continuum? And I assume "all real numbers" would be a continuum too, right? But I can think of definitions of sets of real numbers that don't have any overlap, but that would still fall on the same continuum. For example: Set A is "all numbers greater than 100" and Set B is "all numbers less than -100" are those two on the same continuum?

Not unless you create a third set--Set C, "all numbers". Then both sets fall into the continuum of Set C.

[Azrael]

The real numbers are actually the prime example of a continuum as a mathematical concept. Both of your sets fall on the continuum, as they meet all of the requirements of the larger set (the continuum itself) plus additional restrictions of the subsets. The continuum defines the transition between the two, and it's discrete and gradual. 'How' to get from Point A to Point B is defined. And while that's well and good, the numerical definition doesn't have much relevance to art and technology.

The generic continuum theory/model/definition involves gradual quantitative changes without abrupt transitions, changes or discontinuities. So I guess we'd have to ignore the quantitative part. Now, I can take art and form a coherent continuum starting with the first 2D renderings of antelopes on cavern walls, coursing through drawing and painting and ending with photography, albeit I've already demonstrated in this set that it's not comprehensive to all of 'art' (perhaps my continuum should instead be named "creative 2D depictions of physical reality?) Then I can make a technology continuum starting with the wheel, moving through the industrial revolution, into the age of computers and pop out at the iPad.

But what I can't do is form a cohesive explanation of how to get from the iPad on my technology continuum into the those cave drawings (or vice-versa). There's a discontinuity. The nature of the gradient of small changes on each those two continuum are not even qualitatively similar, nor is there a meaningful line of predecessors.

[TrlstanC]

TrlstanC, why do you want to collapse such complicated concepts to a single numerical value?

Because it seems like it might be an interesting exercise to attempt? I don't know if we can get there or not, but I don't see the value in assuming up front that it's impossible.

Perhaps sex and academic education are part of a continuum. I can go around picking up objects, and assign them a number of the form

Code: Select all

 How erudite is this object / How hard does it make my penis

Have I now learned something about the nature of sex or education?

It's certainly true that you can create a ratio by comparing any two values, but just because some ratios aren't interesting doesn't mean that all ratios aren't interesting. But If there's a good correlation between a particular ratio and a set of objects then it seems like that ratio might shed some light on the definition of the set we're interested in.

And I assume "all real numbers" would be a continuum too, right? But I can think of definitions of sets of real numbers that don't have any overlap, but that would still fall on the same continuum. For example: Set A is "all numbers greater than 100" and Set B is "all numbers less than -100" are those two on the same continuum?

Not unless you create a third set--Set C, "all numbers". Then both sets fall into the continuum of Set C.

Is the distinction between "all real numbers" and "all numbers" important for the example? So, lets say that we do have a Set C of "all numbers" and sets A and B are part of that continuum. This is all fits my understanding of what a continuum is. But if we use this rule (and replace "technology" and "art" with the definitions of A and B)

Find an example of art that isn't technology, and an example of technology that isn't art, and you've proved they don't exist on the same continuum. There might be overlap, but they're separate.

Then it seems like we've proved that A and B aren't on the same continuum, since any example from A won't be an example of B. Am I missing something important?

But what I can't do is form a cohesive explanation of how to get from the iPad on my technology continuum into the those cave drawings (or vice-versa). There's a discontinuity. The nature of the gradient of small changes on each those two continuum are not even qualitatively similar, nor is there a meaningful line of predecessors.

But there can be more than these two continuums right? Just because some art falls on one continuum and some technology falls on another continuum, does that mean that those are the only two continuums that art and/or technology can fall on? What about a third continuum defined by something like:

Code: Select all

[How interesting is this because of the way this piece was created) / (How useful is this piece)

Is it possible that both art and technology could fall on that?

[Dream]

Is it possible that both art and technology could fall on that?

It is, in the same way that both art things and technology things fall on the continuum "the doings of mankind". That they both do does not speak to any qualitative relationship between the two, because tat continuum does not imply any qualitative relationship between it's members, at least none relevant to this discussion.

[Azrael]

But there can be more than these two continuums right? Just because some art falls on one continuum and some technology falls on another continuum, does that mean that those are the only two continuums that art and/or technology can fall on? What about a third continuum defined by something like:

Code: Select all

[How interesting is this because of the way this piece was created) / (How useful is this piece)

Is it possible that both art and technology could fall on that?

There seems to be a massive discontinuity in "useful" between art and technology. So, no.

Not every transition between A and B is a continuum.

Is it possible that both art and technology could fall on that?

It is, in the same way that both art things and technology things fall on the continuum "the doings of mankind". That they both do does not speak to any qualitative relationship between the two, because tat continuum does not imply any qualitative relationship between it's members, at least none relevant to this discussion.

Dream, that's not a continuum either. It's just a set.

[Zamfir]

But there can be more than these two continuums right? Just because some art falls on one continuum and some technology falls on another continuum, does that mean that those are the only two continuums that art and/or technology can fall on? What about a third continuum defined by something like:

Code: Select all

[How interesting is this because of the way this piece was created) / (How useful is this piece)

Is it possible that both art and technology could fall on that?

If those two questions did define art and technology, then yes. By definition. But that's begging the question, hard and fast. You're just proposing that "art" is the same as "interesting because of the way something was created", and that this can be measured by a number. Then we could measure Art (let's say in Bellinis*, Bl), and Technology (in Edisons, Ed), and give a ratio in Bl/Ed for everything. Brave new world.


* For post-modern art we can use Picassos, defined as the imaginary part of a complex value, where Bellinis measure the real Art.

[The Great Hippo]

I beg pardon for confusing my understanding of a mathematical set with a continuum; I completely discounted/forgot about the notion of a steady, progressive evolution (the continuum between 'loathe' and 'dislike', for instance).

[Dream]

Dream, that's not a continuum either. It's just a set.

Sorry, that was supposed to have scare quotes, but they ended up around "the doings of mankind" instead.

[TrlstanC]

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

It is, in the same way that both art things and technology things fall on the continuum "the doings of mankind".

Ok, I was under the impression you were claiming that “art and technology can never fall on the same continuum” but it appears that you’re just asserting that “art and technology don’t fall on any interesting continuums.” I’m not sure that, lacking any evidence, I agree with that, but at least it’s a plausible claim.

Code: Select all

[How interesting is this because of the way this piece was created) / (How useful is this piece)

There seems to be a massive discontinuity in "useful" between art and technology. So, no.

I'd agree, at either end of the continuum it doesn't seem like there's anything the two extremes have in common. But I think it may be possible to find a lot of cases in the middle that might bridge the gap. They would probably look like things that are either 1) both useful and have interesting "stories" i.e., we would want to call them artistic technology or something like that, or 2) things which aren't clearly art or technology, maybe something like simple, but well made, tools?

If those two questions did define art and technology, then yes. By definition. But that's begging the question, hard and fast. You're just proposing that "art" is the same as "interesting because of the way something was created"

Agreed, in the discussion of "What is art" I'm attempting to propose a different viewpoint that could give an interesting definition of art. I don't think it can be simplified to just "interesting because of the way something was created", but I think that may be an important factor.

and that this can be measured by a number. Then we could measure Art (let's say in Bellinis*, Bl), and Technology (in Edisons, Ed), and give a ratio in Bl/Ed for everything. Brave new world.

I wasn't so concerned about having an objective number that could be applied to art, but more in the idea of expressing that (at least) two factors seemed to have an impact on what we consider art. I assumed that people could just use some subjective, and arbitrary scale, and as long as it's mostly consistent it would provide a useful guide for making judgments.

[morriswalters]

How about a definition of art as anything which evokes an emotional response?

[Azrael]

I think you need to add some phrase about 'a creative work' into that...

[TrlstanC]

A definition of art along the lines of "a creative work which evokes an emotional response" can run in to problems in two ways:

1. By including too many things - if I get emotional over something which is creative in someway, but that most people would not consider art. For example: "I hate the design of CNN.com so much!"
2. By excluding some things which many people would consider art - things that don't evoke emotion. We can try to get around this by doing something like defining beauty or concepts like "recognizing positive aesthetic properties" as an "emotional response." But this just gets more difficult when we run in to art works whose main features seem to be that they're "original" or "intellectually challenging."

I'd guess that usually these kinds of definitions evolve in to some kind of "cluster" or "family" of resemblance definition, which would address these kinds of issues, but still have many of the same problems as other "resemblance" definitions. See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s articlefor a better review.

[morriswalters]

Why? Art could be construed as being created by the mind, therefore any thing I can perceive could be art if it evokes a response from me.

@ TristanC
If it invokes no emotional response from anyone, including the artist than why would the artist do it?

[jules.LT]

I think it should have the purpose of eliciting an emotional response (possibly among other things)
Including involuntary art would be a stretch too far, imo

[Malconstant]

It's true. Is a picture of a sunset art? Is the sunset itself art? If I cut a hole in an outer wall at an art exhibit and framed the hole, so that none of the piece was created by the artist, would that be art? The catch 22 is that when you say "everything is art unless it has one specific quality", you can then isolate that one specific quality, put a frame around it and call it art, and now it has to be art because it makes you think about that boundary you tried to give it.

It's like the theorem of the interestingness of integers, being that all numbers are interesting. 1 is interesting for lots of reasons, it's an identity, it's the first non-0 number, lots of reasons. 2 is also interesting, it's the first even number. From there, all other numbers are interesting numbers because, well, suppose you wanted to say that there are some integers that aren't interesting. If so then there must be an integer x that is the first uninteresting number. Well now, that's a pretty interesting property, don't you think? So it's no longer uninteresting.

It's a dumb joke, but there you go. If art was a thoroughly-contained discipline then pushing the boundaries for its own sake seems odd. But once art comes to have almost no bounds at all, suddenly those bounds start to look peculiar, and it's no longer bizarre to make art which highlights the arbitrariness of any remaining boundary.

There's really nothing that can escape this for a post-modern "what is art" debate. The only reason "perception" works as a bound on what art is is because trying to negate it is itself a similar catch-22.

Involuntary art falls into the same trap just as easily. Just walk around town laying frames down on things. Now it's art, cause it made you think about it.

[morriswalters]

Natural art, and by that I mean, a perfect view, or a particular moment, when something, by a random effect on your sensory inputs, interacts in some way that you don't understand, to produce an emotional response from you. That conceivably be anything that you can see or hear or taste or touch or combinations thereof.

[Dream]

If I cut a hole in an outer wall at an art exhibit and framed the hole, so that none of the piece was created by the artist, would that be art?

It's been done. I don't recall the artists, but there was an installation of white cube spaces on open land, with square holes in the ceiling, so that upon entering the viewer is in a gallery space, with the sky that had a moment ago been part of their environment now mediated by the gallery context. Yes, it was very much art, unarguably so.

Just walk around town laying frames down on things. Now it's art, cause it made you think about it.

A perfect example. This is absolutely art, and very much involves an artist.

[Outchanter]

I'm not sure that usefulness is a good criterion for separating art from technology. For most people*, an iPod's sole purpose is entertainment - if music is useless, then surely their iPod is too!

* You could also use it to learn a language or something, but most people don't.

You could say though that technology is based on ideas which can apply to non-artistic useful things. The mechanical engineering principles used to design levers and counterweights in a piano overlap with those used to design a siege engine. (Assuming you find siege engines non-artistic and useful...)

The generic continuum theory/model/definition involves gradual quantitative changes without abrupt transitions, changes or discontinuities. So I guess we'd have to ignore the quantitative part. Now, I can take art and form a coherent continuum starting with the first 2D renderings of antelopes on cavern walls, coursing through drawing and painting and ending with photography, albeit I've already demonstrated in this set that it's not comprehensive to all of 'art' (perhaps my continuum should instead be named "creative 2D depictions of physical reality?) Then I can make a technology continuum starting with the wheel, moving through the industrial revolution, into the age of computers and pop out at the iPad.

But what I can't do is form a cohesive explanation of how to get from the iPad on my technology continuum into the those cave drawings (or vice-versa). There's a discontinuity. The nature of the gradient of small changes on each those two continuum are not even qualitatively similar, nor is there a meaningful line of predecessors.

The art continuum is heavily dependent on the technology continuum though. Even ignoring obvious examples like photography: a modern toddler thinks nothing of painting a blue sky, but before the industrial revolution (a mere three centuries ago), the only known sources of blue pigment were incredibly rare and expensive. Even the best artists could only use blue sparingly, for rich clients.

All kinds of music (except perhaps singing) depend on technology. Everything from primitive flutes to pianos to electric guitars to iPods had to be invented before Beethoven or Freddie Mercury could use them for art.

[Azrael]

ITT: No one seems to know what the fuck a continuum (either usage) actually is.

Yes, art and it's mediums are influenced by the advancement of technology. Much like art is influenced by the advancement (not the best word) of society. That doesn't put them on the same continuum. Or, more to the point, that doesn't make them the same thing.

[Malconstant]

@Dream, Yeah, I would have been pretty shocked if noone had done these ideas, though I do like the implementation of the outdoor one you mentioned. This was my point, I rep perception of art as the defining criterion.

[Dream]

This was my point, I rep perception of art as the defining criterion.

The primacy of the viewer and the equality of the viewer's perception with the artist's intentions have been established for a very long time. It's what "the death of the author" was all about. I'm really glad you and others are on board with it, because it irritates me no end when people expect to be led by the hand through decades of criticism and theory in order to understand that "my five year old could have done that" both is and is not true, all at once, and that asserting that fact is less than insightful. I've been expecting an outbreak in this thread from the moment I first saw it.

[jules.LT]

If fans pick some random stuff from an artist's garbage can and call it art, but the artist never intended it to be art, is it art?
If a crowd gathers around an air vent in a museum and think it's art, does it become art?
The viewer's vision doesn't have to be same as the artist's, but I'd still consider the intention of the artist important.

[Malconstant]

In both of those examples you've got groups of people pondering an object, wondering about its form and function, wondering what it adds to the artistic narrative. If they wanted to, they could write essays about these pieces, and offer the curator money to buy them. Why would that qualifying as art ever be considered controversial?

[CorruptUser]

Depends on whether they think it's art because they see a meaning in those pieces, or if they think it's art because they don't understand it so it must be profound.

In the first case, it's art. In the second case, it's idiots.

[Malconstant]

What if you made a piece that was specifically meant to inspire a sense of obscure and unapproachable profoundness? What a commentary on uneducated art culture. If that doesn't count then I don't know what does. As usual I assume this has been done, probably to death.

[CorruptUser]

If you understand that it's profound, then it's art, possibly. If you declare it profound merely because you don't understand it, you are an idiot, or at most a gullible fool.

[Malconstant]

"Gullible" is such a weird idea to ascribe to art. If it's worth $2 million to someone because they think it will make them look artsy, then alright, it turns out that piece was worth $2 million to that person. Doesn't mean it has to be worth a dime to you. No need to deride this hypothetical fellow, he just let his money do the talking, and now more of those pieces might be made in hopes of other buyers, and so this may effect art as she is produced. It is what it is, no need for negative elitist judgement. Especially when your elitism should be telling you that it is all just subjective anyway.

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

The viewer's vision doesn't have to be same as the artist's, but I'd still consider the intention of the artist important.

The artist is simultaneously creator and viewer. Their interpretation should be no more privileged than any other viewer's.

[infernovia]

The primacy of the viewer and the equality of the viewer's perception with the artist's intentions have been established for a very long time. It's what "the death of the author" was all about.

You are getting ahead of yourself. Death of the author doesn't imply equality of any kind, it just kills the notion of Author-God (or the intention of the author) or the necessity to worship the creator's intent. It is the admission that in certain context, a bible will be more useful as a projectile/club/warmth by burning/horror stories more than something useful to study for morality.

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

The entire point of the essay was to move the focus away from the author and onto the reader, not just to destroy traditional literary criticism.

[Dream]

doesn't imply equality of any kind

Of course it implies equality. Once the work is finished, then everyone, artist and audience, merely absorbs it, bringing whatever of their own context is relevant. Each context is entirely unique and none can be set ahead of any other. As you said, sometimes that means a book is better considered fuel than literature. That's if the audience were freezing cold in winter, and had only books. They bring that context to their relationship to the work.

[infernovia]

Each context is entirely unique and none can be set ahead of any other. As you said, sometimes that means a book is better considered fuel than literature. That's if the audience were freezing cold in winter, and had only books. They bring that context to their relationship to the work.

It doesn't prove that each and every context is entirely unique.It accepts that context is dynamic and that one may not have the same context as that of the author, it doesn't have anything to say about the uniqueness of every context as if they are discrete operators with no relation to each other. LIke I said, you are moving ahead of yourself. More than that, of course one context can be pushed ahead of the others, within another context.

The equality angle is more like these guys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reader-response_criticism

The proliferation of context means the death of meaning and increases the alienation of man from his fellows. I see no reason to accept such trivializing hypothesis.

[Dream]

It doesn't prove that each and every context is entirely unique

That doesn't need to be proved, it's axiomatic. People are unique, and their thought processes, experiences and understandings are too. That's the context in which they interact with art, and that context is therefore unique.

[Azrael]

The proliferation of context means the death of meaning and increases the alienation of man from his fellows. I see no reason to accept such trivializing hypothesis.

Speaking of things that need to be proven...

[gmalivuk]

ITT: No one seems to know what the fuck a continuum (either usage) actually is.

Indeed. In particular, whether two sets have intersecting and/or disjoint parts has exactly zero to do with whether they are on the same continuum.

To actually show that art and technology are not the same continuum, it's only necessary to imagine decreasing one kind of characteristic and seeing if you necessarily end up with the other. And unless TristanC contends that a pair of pliers automatically becomes art as soon as it rusts shut and becomes useless, I think we have the answer to that.