Define art

so if someone answered a riddle correctly that would be art

what are aesthetics? what is expression?

Something that pleases the soul. Putting that which is in the mind out into the world.

It's always good and never bad.

what is the soul?

Any attempt at communication that contains aesthetic ideals.

The fine arts.

what if the attempt failed?

The thing that experiences. Brain, whatever.

My Ass!

wishing someone congratulations confirmed for art

Everything is art. Art has no rules. Which is why art is meaningless

Expressing conceptual moral truths and values in a sensible and intuitive form. Anything else is masturbation. True art is about good and evil, life and death.

>so if someone answered a riddle correctly that would be art
No. It doesn't take true creativity to answer a riddle because someone else already thought about the answer, in this case it's the guy who thought about the riddle.

a non-pleb way to express pleb feelings.

How does that definition encompass music? How can a composition express a moral truth?
>inb4 music is masturbation

Why? Music can make you love certain things, good or bad. Music makes you feel things, make you want things, and do things.

There really is no such thing as Art. There are only artists.

>logic101 not even once

art is the way human beings communicate. a superior way of language. those who cannot create it and only 'appreciate' it are incomplete human beings.

I define "art" by its Latin root, meaning "skill," there is no disembodied skill.

The knowledge or skill by which to make or do things.

From the Latin 'ars', 'craft'.

making useless things or adorning useful things with useless things

to reduce art to skill and communication (albeit a superior one) is piss-poor thinking

t. uneducated randie

>he thinks the communicative aspect of communication is what communication is about

aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/art.html

Done.

The quality of communication.

Art is the manifestation of a subjective truth.

That's technique, dear.

/v/ has control issues, the post.

>admitting your own post is meaningless

Why demean yourself, user?

You can't, you won't, you shouldn't. If you point me to someone who has I can point you someone equally qualified who has said something in contradiction of it.

I actually cant because I dont have time for that but you will have to trust or already know im telling the truth. Point is I personally wouldnt trust anyone who tried to define art unless they were just doing it for the sake of discussion. As in "lets say that art is X" and there is a common agreement between people discussing.

>qualified

You can't even define what those qualifications are.

What is your problem? Why wouldn't people be able to know the use of the word they invented?

I can point to what the qualifications are for someone to speak on what makes art, what do you mean. Philosophers, art historians, any one of these people most would say is qualified to speak about what art is.

the visualization of will

This is mental masturbation. You should be reading. I should be reading.

*materialization

How many words and phrases that people invented can you think of that we can't accurately define and struggle to every day. I didnt say you cant I said you shouldnt, my personal opinion. You could say something basic but OP is just going to keep trying to deduce it further till you get into a discussion no one wants to have probably and has 100 times over.

What are the qualifications for a "philosopher"?

kek.

You gotta be able to think these things through, buddy.

Example by the way in case you truly cant think of any. "Love", "Happiness", the concept of "The meaning of life". All human invented words and phrases

visualization is art within the brain. selfish, i know, but I'm not into capitalism.

All I was saying is that if YOU think someone is qualified to speak about art and you point me to his definition, I can point you to someone with the SAME qualificafions. I never said I think anyone is qualified, my post was nearly saying the opposite but not quite.

>qualifications are relative

Thanks for admitting your post is meaningless.

all words and phrases are invented by humans

hardly revelatory.

lol fuck her, I don't even care anymore--all women are whores--someone give me a goddamn high-five

I demean because Im demented

and not creative.

>being the arbiter of creativity

Art and Technique go together like skin and bone.

thanks for admitting I'm right

I never said you were wrong, but I think we can both agree that art is hardly worth taking seriously if it isnt done with skill.

>having no defense

I don't blame you.

Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments.

The purpose of art is to communicate truths about reality and of existence. Art isolates and integrates those aspects of reality which represent man’s fundamental view of himself and of existence. The worst thing art can do is nothing. To experience something, wasting your time and obtaining no emotional reaction.

I know I'm right. Thanks for agreeing.

Accepting a thank you is basic manners.

Blameless

A bit too eager there, lad. What happened to just having a discussion?

>communicate "truths"

The most meaningless, nebulous definition possible.

For example, that means every fiction novel is unartistic. lol

Sorry, I didn't mean to get you off track.

I have no way of pre-gauging your sensitivity, but now that I know, we can carry on.

...

Is inner dialogue artistic?

>For example, that means every fiction novel is unartistic. lol
Argh, this argument is old and boring. Every fictional novel is not a direct recreation of life, therefore it's unartistic, correct? Only non-fiction can be artistic?

Moore had a good description which I liked. Every story is fictional, but so long as the emotions are true and is reflective of the real world, it is accepted. What matters are emotions. This is why the quality of art is reflected on how much emotion is can give its audience.
If a story happens where everyone acts like complete robots, act contradictory to the real world without a coherent example, then it becomes unrealistic and unartistic, as it does not reflect the existence.

This is why 're-creation of reality' is important. It's not the fact that it is fictional that does not make it art.
Scribbles about nothing that give no emotional reaction is not art.

That's why art is defined as, "the quality of communication."

My post was saying you can't define art accurately, I dont see how you arguing about the semantics of qualifications changes anything about my post. Unless you are saying what I think you are and I really hope you aren't.

Apparently it is because a certain someone was saying "how can art not be defined if we made it".

I may have been wrong in my original post, im not necessarily saying you shouldnt define art, you certainly shouldnt in this thread though. There is definitions of art in the dictionary, and we can probably agree on things like it consists of creativity and self expression. But I can already tell, OP or someone (i see them replying in this thread) is going to lead this to a very shitty discussion of something not entirely related to art at all.

And id like to point out there isnt anything wrong with broad definitions. Thats all I really have to say here anymore.

Thanks for stopping by (and running away from the conversation).

Does it give you an emotional reaction or tell you a value about existence?
If yes, then it's art.
If no, then it isn't art.

I dunno about the quality of communication. Some art can be great while being hard to communicate its truths and values. Perhaps the quality of what is being communicated rather than the quality of the communication?

For example, Finnegans Wake is extremely hard to understand and is impossible to understand what it is trying to communicate. Can it be considered art?
Ayn Rand hated Joyce because she didn't consider tweaking other languages as being art but I don't agree. Her own definiton, that of recreating value judgement of reality, applies.
The quality of communication doesn't tell anything about art or its relation to existence.

I think you need a sense of humor.

To assume that art must be taken seriously means you won't achieve a full understanding of what it can encompass.

I will be in a few minutes because I said what I wanted to say and I cant fucking sit in this thread forever. Im taking a shit right now, a really long one so I have time to spare. Il send you pics when im finished if you want proof

Why does art have to give you an emotional reaction or a value about existence? Could you not create a style of art that denied these two axioms?
>inb4 ur not creative

I don't think anything should be taken seriously.
Why do you think I take art seriously?

I understand that you don't like the discomfort of challenging your own preconceptions.

It's not uncommon, but it can result in psychosomatic constipation.

What are you saying, did you read my post

"I may have been wrong in my original post"

Im honestly pretty sure your just fucking with me right now, because I said thats all I have to say. So your trying to prove that wasnt all I had to say or something

I don't think about you that much.

Thanks for agreeing that you do need, whether or not you currently have, a sense of humor.

>Why does art have to give you an emotional reaction or a value about existence
Would you watch a show or a movie where you felt nothing, didn't care about the characters and learned nothing?
I'm not talking about Seinfeld of 'it's a show about nothing' but something where nothing of importance was gained.

>Could you not create a style of art that denied these two axioms?
I dunno, can you?
The closest I can think of is some postmodern art where you do not fully get emotionally invested or gain anything, as it is obscured, but it doesn't mean that it isn't there.

Even gives a message about existence, even if it doesn't give an emotional reaction.

If you want all your posts to be identified, use a trip my friend, or another website that may be more suitable to your needs.

You replied to the post where I said that. You at least replied to the chain of posts where I said that. And it was pretty obvious if you follow the conversation.

emotion is everything. thought comes from emotion. it's not a separate entity, but us humans do try. art reminds us that thought and emotion are connected. we witness art, we experience an immediate shift in our emotional state and this invites us to think differently from our previous perspective.

Its questionable at best if the Dada school has any sort of value towards existence. The point could be made that by devaluing existence they are putting forth an answer for the meaning of existence, so in a roundabout way the Dada introduce a truth that would then have value towards existence. Funnily enough though the Dadaist(who dont unironically exist anymore, if they ever did exist unironically) would have to deny even the value that this truth of no value would have, in order to stay consistent.

So I would say yes, I believe the nihilists when they say there is no meaning to their art.

That's not the purpose of being anonymous.

You don't get this website at all.

We chase disembodied ideas, not whom said what.

You want credit: 1. trip 2. go somewhere else.

Artist here. Any questions?

belief and truth are polar opposites.

why?

dada, the post

Good question.

>Ebert

I was overjoyed when I heard on /tv/ that this charlatan had finally died, but I was also saddened by the fact that he hadn't suffered that much before deciding that he could insult film criticism no longer. The pain and suffering that he went through is only a fraction of the evil that he inflicted on the millions of cinematically illiterate teenagers. When I found out that the old fart had finally decided to not assault the public with his adolescent approach to art, I pulled off the framed picture of Armond White from my wall, kissed it reverently, and immediately embarked on a Korine marathon. Good riddance, you jawless hack.

I know! Almost artistic in its apparent simplicity.

/v/ doesn't appreciate freedom of speech

And then people accuse you of samefagging when you dont make it obvious you are the same person. So you trying to say I shouldnt represent myself vs others saying I should. Honestly I think your probably right but if I didnt why would your viewpoint be any better. Ive been here probably as long as you and have seen people follow this conversation style of posting despite being anonymous countless times.

I'm sorry that's it's hard for you.

Nobody promised that anything would be easy.

BIVE TONGUE TO MU BACKSIDE