Thread: What is Art?

Art is something that you can make, that is unique to your interpretation, often. Art can be anything you draw, paint, scult, make, etc.

That is like saying that any sound that comes out of your mouth is language. I was hoping that we had got beyond Webster.

Well, I was trying . You say it in your own words, then.

I did better, I referenced one of the great artists in history. Plato. You can listen to him, I put audio-books on the Archive. Why ask someone who can do little more than scribble when there is Rembrant?

I usually just say anything you want to be art is art. If you want to call your poop art, fine call it art. I do that to shut up annoying intellectuals while I was in art school

But just because anything 'can' be art, it doesn't mean its 'good art' or even worthy art. There is truly crappy art out there that shouldn't or need to exist

For me the highest forms of art is:

1: Not living. To call a tree a work of art, for example, is disrespectful to the trees independent being. Sure if you love a tree call it beautiful, but give living things the respect they deserve. They are living things, not works of art.

2. The self expression of a living being. Poop isn't self expression, it's just the waste product of your body. Art is self-expression. We can self-express in many ways, through words, through sound, through color, through form, and even movement like dance. Even the artist who draws video game characters is self-expressing, through the style of drawing, or the type of characters they choose to draw.

3. The desire to create something. Technically speaking, everything we say and do is self-expression. Getting angry at someone and yelling at them is self-expression, the expression of your anger. But art doesn't just aim to self-express, it also aims to create something. Something beautiful, something ugly, something new, something boring.

Take for example if you wanted to yell at someone, self-express and create something - the end result wouldn't be random angry yelling - but something like a free pose poem or even an angry song.

4. Number Four is the most important for something to be a high form of art! It's the difference between crap, literally, and true art. Art serves a purpose to enrich mankind (or the individual) emotionally, spiritually, or intellectually

Take for example an artist who takes a dog, chains it up to a wall, abuses it, starves it, takes photos of the dog as it dies - and calls the entire charade art. Call it art all you want. But this is bullshit crap art that doesn't need to exist. Abusing a dog doesn't enrich mankind. It doesn't enrich the individual. Or the dog!

Now I'm not saying it's wrong for artists to draw gory or horrific things. Dark surrealism plays a role for the individual to help overcome their own skeletons in the closet. BUT. There is a huge difference between an individual drawing frightening things, for the purpose to explore their own subconscious, and an individual who aims to promote horror or fear in the consciousness of others.

The actual desire, or intention to horrify people goes against number 4. Art in the form of movies, music, video games, and even paintings can instill fear and apathy into the viewer. These states of mind benefit no one.



How can we ever end human suffering if we are also addicted to horror and violent (FICTIONAL) movies, stories and songs? We can't. If we desire for art to be horrific and violent, then we as a people aren't doing everything we can to end violence and horror in the real world. We are literally allowing suffering to exist when we desire our art to be about/even promote suffering.

Works of art that create an apathetic audience (apathetic to real suffering) are works of crap that are detrimental to the evolution of mankind.

For any art to be good art, to be worthy art, it needs to uphold number 4, and enrich us.

It's okay for forms of art to speak about suffering, if it's done in a way to spread awareness of suffering so that we can end suffering. And that is usually the role of journalism.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

The reason that it is correct stems from the fact that A=A as applied to the fact that man is not different from man, therefore, there is no doctrine of any kind that would place a distinction between man and man.

This is not necessarily correct. It would depend, entirely, on what one meant by the word "different."

There are many ways in which man is "different" from man. You simply have to understand such a shallow concept as "individuality." What is art, to some, is not, to others. Different life experiences beget different tastes. Different perspectives beget differences of opinion as to what makes something "art."

By the way, if you're going to pimp out Plato, as much as you are, at least have the courtesy to do it in threads which amount to more than "Read Plato."

You asked "what is art", and hinted at an explanation, yet gave none. Unless you are asking others for their own opinions as to what art is (as opposed to simply trying to entice us to read Plato....again), then this thread is a farce.

"Art serves a purpose to enrich mankind (or the individual) emotionally, spiritually, or intellectually"

A piece of toast could be said to do the same. Or a breath of air. etc.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

This is not necessarily correct. It would depend, entirely, on what one meant by the word "different."

.

But not qua man.

Anything really. It's kind of cliche... but art can be anything. It's can't be nothing though... it can be the idea or concept of nothing... but art has to be something. Really anything that can be percieved can be art. Nothing can, to some extent be perceived... so nothing can be art. But art can't be nothing.

The short of it. This is useless. Art can be anything. It's completely up to the individual.

I do have a respect for philosphers and like, but to some extent it's rediculous in my opinion. Stupid ramblings about what love, hate, pain, joy, god, art etc are are completely useless to the whole. An individual (the philospher) could get something out of it... but really... all these questions have to be answered for yourself. It's that simple.

So again, I completely respect people who meditate on stuff like this... but I also respectfully find a lot of it to be stupid. Just my two cents... take it how you will.

edit:

Here's an example. Here is a 'song' I put together a while ago. Some may listen to this and here brilliance... call it art... call it abstract. Others might listen to it and find it unbearable garbage that is no more art than it is a candy bar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mElnwbiVvas

edit2:

Philosopher8659

To actually demonstrate the art of critique, how one critiques not by opionion but by rules of art--standards. Opinion means nothing, it is the finding and employing rules of art that I have been centered on.

Could you expand on this? What do you mean by rules of art and could you give some examples? Also, opinion matters to some and don't matter to others. The whole enigma and fascination surrounding art is largely due to art's lack of rules and art's subjective nature! Do you agree? You can't honestly believe there should be guidelines, rules etc for art? I really want to here what you mean by this "rules of art".

I don't think I know, but I do know this.

I am not willing to say that a work of art is art. In other words that the effect is the same as the cause.

I also know, that if Art is a thing, it can be defined, if it is the form of a thing, or the material difference of a thing, it cannot. So, if art is a thing, it can be defined, however, that which is a product of art, may be beautiful, it may be ugly. It may be useful, it may not. It may be a good, or it may not.

I am not willing to say that a work of art is art.

So you're saying that the admitting of art being art makes something not art? Or that the label "art" makes something not art?

So, if art is a thing, it can be defined

Well now that begs the questions of what a "thing" is. A thing, as I see it, is something. Nothing is a thing, something is a 'thing', everything (every thing) is a thing.

And why are you so set on defining art? (which in my opinion, can't be done without being extremely general and vague, and even then... it is ,again, subjective)

Can't you think of at least a single rule, or possible rule of art? You're making a very bold statement, yet you seem to lack the means to back it up. Where's the substance to this claim, or theory, or hypothesis or whatever you'd like to call it?

You do not seem to be aware of the basics of reasoning. However, I am trying, myself, to learn.

How many synonyms are there, for example for "word."? and how is it that some people believe that choosing one synonym over another makes what is desiginated different? One of the ways that the mind accepts relation to self, because it cannot follow a train of thought, is through the use of synonyms. Very few are good at synonyms.

Have you ever considered how slowly the mind matures. In order to do that it must incorporate ghost functions--the appearance of function, but actually simply bridges. Some call it self-deception, fantasy, etc., but these ghost functions are vital--otherwise the mind would not have a chance to mature.

This brings up an important expression of art-mythology. An artist is aware of this and knows how to construct the mythology so that from it, important concepts are abstractable and thus present in the mind when needed.

Plato, for example, created myths, not because he believed them, but he was demonstrating how to construct them through the art of dialectic.

A thing is any material difference in some form. A thing is composed of these two elements, form and material difference--each of which is not a thing.

And so, I believe, if I were so bold, is that art is the knowledge and ability to bring together material difference and form to create some thing.

The purpose of every environmental acquisition system of a living organism is to construct from material and form, things which maintain and promote the life of that organism. The human mind is no different.
Man is the material difference required for art, and knowledge is the form applied to his behavior.

I am probably wrong in what I said, but that is where I am at the moment. At the moment I see Artists and works of art. Thus it makes me believe that art resides with the artist, and not with the work. Works of art can be either good or bad, beautiful or not, but art itself never changes. Thus, I guess I was wrong. That which never changes is form, that makes art a form, a form of behavior which, means only knowledge.

Art is good math.

We just happen to react to it emotionally.

Math, as understood today, is a collection of languages, not yet come into their own as certain principles of language are still not resident in the mind of man. Right now, we may be called proto-linguistic. This is one of the reasons I do the audio-books and future critiques in math. Only because they are languages.

For amusement try this.

A number is no more than a name constructed by an ordered naming convention.

Every member of a class is a member of that class determined by the definition of that class, thus one can substitute number and name.

What is a real name, a whole name, a transfinite name, an imaginary name, etc?

Then this, There is no process or idea in a grammar system which is true grammatically if it violates the original naming convention.

One cannot preserve assertion and denial when one violates the naming convention. One can hardly expect consistency in grammatical skills if they are unaware of the naming convention, nor when they have violated it. Thus, in order to advance grammatical skill is to learn and teach the fundamentals of the conventions of names themselves.

Just for the sake of curiosity: Measurement is no more than the mechanical means of assigning arithmetic names.

Alright. . . And how exactly does that show art is not good math?

Because Math is not yet an art. Secondly because the part is not the whole.

Math is an art, not art. (Or I should say, as practiced, becoming an art)

A member of a class is not the class of which it is a member.

Or again the form is not the material, nor is the material the form.

By the way, what is Good Math and Bad math? Does craft by math take the adjectives? Or does the products of what one is attempting to achive with the craft take them? I assume what you mean is the product which actually does not comply with the principles of math, but in that case, it is not math, but an attempt at math.

The problems of just learning to become language users, is that in order to become linguistic, we must learn to distinguish the names of things, the names of a things form, and the names of the material differences in those forms. If we cannot do this, we can only use language by memory, but not by craft.

I just think our subconscious is a canvas-- white from zygote stage-- that's been painted by everything existent and non-existent. Everything we interpret and express is art-- the way we sense, the subtleties in our personalities; all of these details, to me, feel like the details of a painting that to is made individually to fit ourselves perfectly.

Perhaps that's just me. I often interpret everything in ways I consider artistic.

Myself, I do not think that of that which we are ignorant of, we can predicate anything of. Predication is the inverse function of abstraction. Thus to say you are unaware of it (subcon.) you cannot abstract from it. Perhaps ancient psychologist were more advanced than the double talking current ones.

Language is based on a convention of names, thus a shared environment, not the lack of it. When you assert that which you simultaneously deny, your mind has performed a NOP function.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

"Art serves a purpose to enrich mankind (or the individual) emotionally, spiritually, or intellectually"

A piece of toast could be said to do the same. Or a breath of air. etc.

My idea of 'good art' have to follow ALL FOUR RULES, not just one

And unless you have some sort of toast fetish, toast only serves you physically. And air is not the created.

I don't believe that a set of rules constitutes a definition.

However, as I said, although form cannot be defined, that would be self-referential, it works out to be a definition of a definition, One can describe something from which the abstraction can be made. Description is more fundamental than definition. I think that is what you are aiming at. The problem with description is the requirement of abstraction which one may or may not be able to do from the given examples from which the abstractions are to be made. almost ever argument being claimed to be over definition, has actually been over description. As description is to material, definition is to form. Descrption then is relative, but definition is absolute.

But if Art is something, the definition must contain both the names of material difference and the names of form equated to something. That is why I said it is a form applied to behavior. To be complete, it would have to be something like forms applied to behavior such that the results is a product that maintains or promotes our life. Something along that order. This is the reason that the product can be good or bad, because the utility of things is circumstantial. Once one has a product, which is a thing--then we have closed the circle because its utility to a person depends once again, what they abstract from it.

Thus Art is often called subjective, when in fact, one is confusing art with utility. Pleasure being the most recognized.

There are two connotations for the use of the term definition that I am having a battle with. This comes down from the inception of the Two-Element Metaphysics. Both I have exampled. That definition is a form, i.e. that which determines class membership, and that definition is a thing. A thing which preserves the original naming convention. If only things can be definied, which is true, then a definition, is more than form. form by itself is not a thing, i.e. nothing.

My problem may be one of dimensional stepping as you see in Geometry. In one dimension, a point is a boundary a line segment a thing. In two dimentions, a line segment is a boudary, but plane bounded by these segments a thing. etc.

A typical mistake in geometry is when one says "a segment in a plane" Well, one cannot claim that the boundary is in the material difference. Two-dimensions simply cannot be predicated of the single dimensional segment.

You didn't read my post!!

I already said I wasn't defining art.

My post was about what is GOOD ART. What is the difference between GOOD art and CRAP art. If we just say "everything is art, end of story" then we leave ourselves open to a can of worms. Because there are psychopaths out there, and they think its art to rape, murder and then make a hand bag out of their victim.

Someone has to be anal and say, look, it doesn't matter if everything can be called art. That doesn't mean all art is equally same. That doesn't mean all art is worth appreciating or respecting or even promoting. That doesn't mean that art is more important than life.

This definition that I've given for 'Good' art is help protect life from abuse. When we say it's 'okay' to call a living being a work of art, well this kind of mentality leads to minks being tortured, their meat thrown away, all for their fur - the luxurious work of art that is mink fur.

Another artist kills mice, gerbils and other familiar rodent pets - to stuff them up and dress them. I don't care if killing mice just to stuff them is artwork. It's not good artwork, its crap that doesn't need to exist. And no this isn't the same as when pet owners stuff their pets after they die. They did not murder their pets (life) for the sake of art (not alive). So for the sake of all living things, life proceeds art.

The purpose of art is to enrich us. At the end of the day it's why we create art. It's why we've always created art. All the way back to rock paintings.

I don't know why people are in such denial about this, except that they are asses, or asses tricked them. The kind of people who present gas in a can as artwork are just jerks who thrive on pissing people off. They're deceptive, they're manipulative, their pranksters. They know that gas in a can means absolutely nothing to them - it holds no emotional value to them - it holds no intellectual value to them - it holds absolutely NO VALUE to them except the joy of seeing peoples faces when they present their gas in a can as artwork.

In other words, they get pleasure out of creating certain negative reactions out of people. This is is a disgusting behavior.

These asses think they are better than the rest. They write art essays, arguing page after page and after page why anything and everything can be art. By using big words and a lot of pages, they bypassed the logic center of the art world, and had the 'distinguished' art world at their heels.

At the height of this stupidity, of not being to define good art from crap. Crap in a can was sold. Still being sold. Air was sold as art. Literally. Just like that. Some 'artist' convinced his audience that the air above his head was the greatest work of art ever. He sold the air above his head with a piece of paper "I now give you my work of art, air". And, he made money! He made money, selling the air above his head as artwork, by writing it on a stupid piece of paper!

They're con-man.

Universities, proud and egotistical, haven't had the balls to admit that they were conned.

We can avoid this kind of stupidity by admitting, honestly, that art is created, it's self-expression, and most importantly, art serves a purpose.

Art serves a purpose, always has, always will. That purpose is to enrich us individually, or collectively.

We are not on the same page. I did read you post and asked you can "art" take an adjective?
I approach definitions as being independent of man. You approach it as "Man is the measure of all things." Which has been proven a fallacy a long time ago. It is in the works of Plato.
All you can do, in a grammar system is assign names. Syntax and usage of that name is determined by reality. The names do not determine reality, the reality determines how a name can or cannot be used.

This is my point, I am pointing to something outside of man. Every environmental acquistion system of a living organism processes the environment.

There are three, and only three, primitive categories of names. Words if you will, labels if you want, symbols if your preppy. All synonyms.

So, your mind is dealing with these three categories of names. Names for things from which there are two, and only two abstractables, elements as they were called. Names of a things form and names of a things material difference.

From these two "first principles" aka "elements" all of logic, any logic, any grammar, that ever was or can be is constructed. Because, the name of a thing is equal to the names of that things various forms and the various material differences in those forms. From things things are made. Very simple, very powerful.

Dia-lectic. The foundation of all thought is through language.

Therefore, all one has to do is learn how to give your word and learn how to keep it. I really don't see how something this simple can be stated more simply. "In the beginning was the word." It is the foundation of Truth. And Truth is a craft. Reason follows from a chain of tautologies--no matter if you start with material and add form, or start with form and add material--in the end you create just another thing.

It really bothers me, these things, at the foundation are so simple, yet it was written that man would not understand them for a long time. I am confused. it is not different from arithmetic. You learn how to construct 1, then learn how to add 1 and 1, etc.

If Arithetic were taught right, at least one would have an example.