Which is more likely:

The War of 1812 was art?

the mona lisa was created as a piece of art. the intent of the creator is all that matters.

In the artist's reality, perhaps, but that has no effect on the "art's" status as art in my reality.

I'll allow that the artists can believe his work to be art, but that doesn't make it automatically art in the reality of the viewer. Only the viewer's acceptance makes it so. If the viewer reject's the art label, it is not art in their reality.

there is only one reality.

also you don't exist btw.

*disappears from this reality*

Heh, nothin' personal, kid

that was a fast shitpost

Everything has the potential to be art
Some things are art

Looks like someone hasn't read Barthes

Did the things that are Art have the potential to not have become Art?

Where is the point at which something becomes Art?

When David was being sculpted, was the original block of material Art? Is it only Art once the artist stops making it?

Art I think is the communication of an idea through a different medium than language, sometimes you can't really explain how you feel with words, so you do it through an extended metaphor like a book, or if you replicate the embodiment of an idea through the essence of a painting.

Okay, so what makes art good, well - two things, if it cannot be easily replicated by someone else, and if it makes the viewer feel something unorthodox that they cannot explain in words, the essence of the painting, which would have been validly translated from the artist to the viewer.

I don't think its productive to say which is more likley if nothing or everything is art - it's a false dichotomy that would lead you no where when trying to define something as cerebral as art.

>Art I think is the communication of an idea through a different medium than language

Poetry, Literature, and vocal music are no art?

>sometimes you can't really explain how you feel with words, so you do it through an extended metaphor like a book,

Sometimes you can't explain it in words, so you explain it with an extended metaphor made up of words?

If a tree falls in a forest, and nothing is around to hear it, is it art?

I meant, you can't explain how you feel directly with words. Same thing with poetry and literature, it would have made more sense if I said it that way.

>you can't explain how you feel directly with words

Says who?

>Art is an arbitrary and shifting category that only has meaning insofar as we assign that meaning to it.

Answer OP's question or get the fuck out.

Christ, you're worse than those Democrats who show up at parties and instantly start messing with the playlist before they've even had a drink!

>Did the things that are Art have the potential to not have become Art?
sure
>Where is the point at which something becomes Art?
yes
>When David was being sculpted, was the original block of material Art? Is it only Art once the artist stops making it?
depends

What a useless person you are

Beuys is always right.

>if everything is art, nothing is

neither. art is created by artists. if you go hiking and appreciate a sublime landscape that's not art, though it is beautiful and can make you feel strongly. only when you take a picture, create a painting, etc. that it can become art.

>If everything is a car, then nothing is a car

What?

Some things are art, you fucking buffoon. What would be the use of a term that everything and nothing?

He's not saying it's everything and nothing, he's asking if it's either everything or nothing.

>everythings is a car now
>you can't distinguish between anything
>you point to a car and say "hey what a nice car"
>nobody knows what you're talking about because you're a car too

neither make sense. a term has to separate certain things from others, otherwise it has no meaning

Are is skill applied in a creative way.

If someone was skillfull at peeling potatoes and did it in a unique and interesting way, you could say they were creating art. Only peeling potatoes and being conscious of it does not make it artistic.

To have skill is to be an artisan. To apply that skill in creative manners is to be an artist.

>you can't distinguish between anything

Unless everyone and everything has become a single car, this is not the case.

Can you not tell the difference between two identical vases if they're put side to side? Even if you can't denote differences, they're still two separate objects.

>nobody knows what you're talking about because you're a car too

So people can't distinguish things that they are? If I pointed to a baby and said "Nice human being", people wouldn't understand what I'm saying?

>a term has to separate certain things from others, otherwise, it has no meaning

Says who? If I say everything exists, that has meaning, even though we have no experience with something that has absolutely no existence from which to contrast with.

Neither of them are true but everything being art is more likely. The idea of 'art' was something describing the result of some process implemented by some specialist along some pre-existing, likely codified, conception of the functioning of reality. It used to be 'imitating' reality (either by mimesis its appearance or, through consolidating appearances, the 'ideal' or 'metaphysical' nature of reality) and has since been expanded to include the 'reality' of personal expression (conscious or unconscious).

Beuys is interesting, but I don't agree that anything with some sort of considered application of thought (i.e. 'design', not to be confused with 'disegno' -- the close study of nature through drawing and the application of compositional principles to represent underlying reality) is art. Art seems to be to be a meditation on reality, whether natural or cultural realities. It requires (but not always takes the form of) a material existence, reconfigured by the free will in accordance with an understanding of a deterministic world (some will say ethics and aesthetics are related). Art exists, even as a social construct to describe the 'result' of an activity. If nothing is art that means that there is no material existence from which to develop an idea of art, therefor nothing exists. But since something exists, and art is a process enacted on this physical existence, then something is art. The step to say that 'everything is art' ('everything exists') requires the scope of art (i.e. the frame, which currently sits at 'the gallery') to expand further and include 'everything' by way of, I don't know, the Absolute Spirit or something.

The 'reconfiguration' I described earlier seems to be purposeful, or teleological, so it may be the case that art is a way for the Absolute to realise itself, given the space for 'anything' (eventually 'everything') to be 'allowed' within a frame. A fair amount of critically-relevant contemporary (and postmodern) art does this; the randomness of the universe existing as an object of study, even sometimes allowing things other than the will of the artist to be included in the work (chance, etc.) as a part of its form and content.

Art still requires that specialist though, and we haven't really thought of a way to include 'everything' as art while still considering the role of the specialist. It is more likely though that 'everything' and 'art' can exist at the same time (perhaps a way of realising the everything) than 'nothing' and 'art', which is impossible.

The moderating factor between artist and viewer are the conventions used to communicate between the two, which includes a conception of 'art'. These conventions are accessed by both but neither completely dominates them, so the artist may consider his work art and the viewer doesn't, but the key to understanding the status of the 'artwork' is by considering the conventions themselves rather than the limited opinions of either artist or viewer. This is why we have critics and art historians after art became more of a public affair in the 18th century rather than patron - artist relationship (where common opinion didn't matter, only the person who commissioned the work) as it was prior.

Yeah this is the sensible position. Also I'm having a deja vu right now.

> Is it only Art once the artist stops making it?

This was the traditional view. After the 'finish' was added the art was technically complete. This isn't really the case now and often the creative process and the reception of the viewer becomes part of the art.

Art is the addition of beauty to the world and nothing else. There is no other meaningful definition of the word.

A beautifully peeled potato is beautiful. So yes.

>Everything and everyone merges into a single automobile
I call it the End of Carvangelion

Everything is art. That's just how i see it.

>Addition of Beauty

Is Francis Bacon art?

Why could just 'talking' as a proper medium of communication not be art though?

'Beauty' can mean a lot of things, and when someone says a 'beautifully peeled potato' they generally mean that the potato is peeled optimally, rather than the potato appearing beautiful. In this case a work of art is something 'optimal', which can be applied to both the purpose of the work and the means by which that purpose is realised. So a work can be 'ugly' but done 'beautifully', therefore contradicting the idea that it is the addition of beauty to the world, but still otherwise remaining true.

The relationship between beauty and art is comparatively recent anyway, when aesthetics was written about by philosophers. Art prior to the Renaissance was not necessarily predicated on fulfilling a function as something beautiful, but instead something devotional, or some other purpose than being simply an object to look at.

this is how you get a bucket of shit being called art

beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so your definition is pretty meaningless and holds no weight in a discussion trying to ascertain a real meaning to the word art

>reconfigured by the free will in accordance with an understanding of a deterministic world

This sounds nice, but since there is no prove that free will exists doesn't that mean that we have no certain criteria to decide if art exists?

not all art is good. some of it is shit.

ask pointless questions, ...

Even if it does or not, the idea of free will existing has played such an important part in how we consider ourselves within nature and society, which includes our roles and the best ways to perform them within these spheres (e.g. the artist). So art 'exists' in the way that justice exists, or whatever, by assuming that free will exists and plays a part in the workings of the world.

Not really. Like Picasso and Warhol, Bacon isn't truly an artist and to consider him such does a disservice to the Arts as a whole.

They're performance pieces, actors taking the role of artists without the skills or talents of artists, just those of well-trained mimes.

btw as a stem, the original "does it make a sound" is already proven. it does not make a sound. it makes a sound wave. to be a sound it itself needs to be perceived with ears

Art is a performance as much as any role, but the rules that govern that performance have changed along with the philosophy behind them. The ideas behind art are different between the early Italian Renaissance, High Renaissance, Mannerism, the Baroque, etc. (without even introducing regional variations on artistic practice) and can't really be read as the linear development of more and more accurate depictions of visual reality, which with still lives and landscapes occupied a lower spot on the hierarchy of genres in the Academies anyway.

who gives a shit? all this discussion is gay

definitons are irrelevant, artistic quality can be perceived with a glance

Artistic quality can be perceived with my glans.

Define what you mean by artistic quality

Everything is art if and only if you are basking in the splendor of God's creation

Well the barrier to entry is that art isn't accidental. Even found objects must be selected, arranged, and displayed in a context they are never otherwise seen in.

so the universe is art?

>Well the barrier to entry is that art isn't accidental

Says who?

What if I believe that nothing is accidental?

Art is just kind of vaguely defined. That's just how natural language is. I don't really think there's any value in arguing the definitions of words.

user, don't bullshit. Art is necessarily a transformative and deliberate act. if I'm slathering paint on something with a cock I'm still choosing which paint, how much, which side of my cock I'm touching it with, what kind of material I'm touching my cock to, and which locations I'm dragging my cock across. It's a cock painting and may not be a good one, but it is a something which wasn't there until I got the idea to put paint on my cock. It's necessarily human, so even if you attribute the natural world to the divine will it still isn't art, it is just nature or creation. (Of course humans may be manifestations of divine will, but that still makes their arts different from the natural creation)

>Art is necessarily a transformative and deliberate act.

Says who?

Give me what manifesto you're pulling this from?

Or is this your own manifesto?

lol?

How do we know we're on the same page unless we have a common agreed upon mode of communication? How can we form concepts without concretely outlining what it is we are talking about?

I presented my argument already, can you read?

Lol, as you can see by citation of "user's Manifestl", (9 September 2017, boards.Veeky Forums.org/lit), we can see the true nature of art

Lol, get the fuck outta here nigga, nothing is art, art doesn't actually exist.

The label of "art" of exists, but our applying of it to certain things doesn't change the fact that art can't exist.

We don't know we're on the same page, and threads like this are a good example of that. You can argue endlessly about what the 'true' definition of something is without reaching a conclusion because there is no right answer. Natural language is a bunch of heuristics and vague agreements, not some exact science.
Language is inexact, but it seems to work well enough for most things.

You didn't even attempt to address my argument. Anything you see in a gallery is there on purpose. Even if you put a rock from the street in a gallery you're transforming the context in which people see the rock. Do you have any basis whatsoever for this "lmao nigga everything is art" hogwash? Why is it then we call some particular things art and other things we do not? Would art not be an entirely meaningless distinction if "everything" was art?

Nigga, it doesn't matter what we do and do not call art.

Art doesn't exist.

Why should I concern myself about what plebians mislabel?

What do you call the things in galleries? How are we to address the phenomenon of human beings making aesthetic creations and displaying them in certain contexts? How does anything of what you're saying resemble an argument?

>What do you call the things in galleries?

Paintings, nigga

>How are we to address the phenomenon of human beings making aesthetic creations and displaying them in certain contexts?

Autism, nigga, nothing is actually artistic, you just think it so because you mistakenly believe art exists

>How does anything of what you're saying resemble an argument?

Lol, nigga, why you gettin' so mad?

How about they're not mutually exclusive you knave

user your inability to form sincere thoughts coincides with your inability to form coherent thoughts. I'm well aware you're shitposting but being ironic doesn't make you any less wrong.

If everything has the quality of A, then there is nothing that doesn't have the quality of A, meaning the statement "Nothing is A" isn't true when "Everything is A" is true

Whatever you say, nigga, how 'bout you go spend another decades of dollars on "Art" museum memberships

>help i accidentally make an art

o shit

The label 'art' exists and is commonly applied to objects or activities for which no other term is adequate. When we think of art we have a fairly good idea of what the term refers to. I don't know how you can say art can't exist without actually proving it, which ironically you can only do by defining what we commonly refer to as 'art' before saying it is inaccurate.

subjective
u
b
j
ec
at
skiiidslmaw
weqwive

Everything is art, but not every art is good art.

All wars are Art.

Almost

>Everything is Art, but because not everyone is an artist, not everything is well-done Art

FTFY

The problem with this discussion is that we try to capture art as a situation when it's mostly just a momentum.
Art doesn't lie in the work, it lies in the conjuction between act / artifact (the work), the artist / gallerist / curator (the actor) and the spectator / critic / viewer (the acted upon).
There's no materiality to art, things that aren't made as art can be "consensed" into art (I always use this guy's work en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Bispo_do_Rosário as an example).

Everything can be art, although not everyone is an artist.

Define "good art".

saying that "everything is art" would mean that "art" is just a synonyme for "everything".
the group of things called "art" would be the same as the group of things called "everything".
so the question would be why then we need a second word for the exact same thing.
similarly,in your second proposition "art" would
be the exact same thing as "nothing".
so,in conclusion,art has to be something else entirely.

Same reasone we can say "Everything" and "All things"

You can have two terms for the same thing.

Just because Art and Everything are synonymous doesn't make one untrue.

>so the question would be why then we need a second word for the exact same thing.
So you are dismissing both propositions because you don't know about the existence of synonyms?

Sztuka is Τέχνη.

art objectively exists so "nothing is art" is immediately disqualified

>objectively

How can an abstraction objectively exists?
How do you prove the existence of an abstraction?

abstractions are the only thing that really exists
it's just self-evident

kys

Even if its art, then what?

I win

>Not really. Like Picasso and Warhol, Bacon isn't truly an artist
the absolute state of this board

>The artist is the creator of beautiful things. To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim...
>Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.
>Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope. They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only beauty...

>The nineteenth century dislike of romanticism is the rage of Caliban not seeing his own face in a glass. The moral life of man forms part of the subject-matter of the artist, but the morality of art consists in the perfect use of an imperfect medium. No artist desires to prove anything. Even things that are true can be proved. No artist has ethical sympathies. An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style. No artist is ever morbid. The artist can express everything. Thought and language are to the artist instruments of an art. Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art. From the point of view of form, the type of all the arts is the art of the musician. From the point of view of feeling, the actor's craft is the type. All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital. When critics disagree, the artist is in accord with himself. We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.

Picasso, Warhol, Bacon, and their ilk are not artists

why don't you consider the relative state then?