Define "art"

Define "art".

Making a great deal

Bart without any bs

That whch is created to inspire beauty and/or pity

its like a shart, but nobody shushes you while you do it

The most of the same of a same time a bout time to bout to to be to do to see to the to of to same to a be time do bout see you the most of the same of a same time a bout time to bout to to be to do to see to the to of

Conscious human creation that produces an emotional response

(no, just random daily events happening is not art)

A noun.

abstracted entertainment.

>Art is created
>Beauty and/or pity is present in all art

Next

>Art is conscious
>All art produces an emotional response

Next

Defiled art.

>>Art is conscious
No, but the creation part is conscious.

>>All art produces an emotional response
It is. I'm operating on the definition of "emotional" as anything that does not fall within the logical realm. For example, a picture of merely a triangle is not art. Physics equations aren't art either. They're purely logical.

Anything Wagner did.

>Art is consciously created

Nah

> For example, a picture of merely a triangle is not art.

Pffff

>They're purely logical.

What a stupid way to 'operate'

Underrated post.

Since you don't have any point I guess this discussion is over.

If mathematics and science is art, the very things that make up the universe, then it makes no sense to differentiate conscious creation with the already created, and thus "art" is a meaningless term.

thanks user. i like your numbers.

"Culture is all the things we do that we don't have to." - Brian Eno

The discussion never began because you didn't qualify your definition with any examples. How is geometric abstraction not art?

>If mathematics and science is art

Never suggested.

>the very things that make up the universe

Knowledge does not make up the universe.

What precedence is there for how you are defining things? With no philosophical precedence or reference to any actual art I have no idea how you came to your conclusions.

I like it.

Art can't bear a definition, apparently.

But is it art?

...

Performance

>The discussion never began because you didn't qualify your definition with any examples.

Ok, since I said "conscious human creation that invokes an emotional response", all of human culture, including talking, gesturing, working, eating, music, painting, sculpture, theater, cinema, literature. Anything that is created by the human will consciously and that has an emotional effect on you is art.

The modern corporate culture that creates a feeling of dread and dissatisfaction is art, because it consciously manifested itself via the actions of millions.

Mathematics and science is not art, even though it produces an emotional response, because they are purely logical endeavors. They reflect existence purely, not subjectively.

>They reflect existence purely, not subjectively.
this is purely untrue

So if modernist art tried to evoke a logical response, as some of it did, it wouldn't be art? Then what is it? For example, geometric abstraction.

>conscious creation

So surrealist automatism isn't art? Performance isn't art? Conceptualism isn't art? How do you contend with the argument that all these are actually art?

>Mathematics and science is not art, even though it produces an emotional response, because they are purely logical endeavors

Why the distinction?

>They reflect existence purely, not subjectively.

Nah

thin air

art1
ärt/
noun
noun: art; plural noun: arts; plural noun: the arts

1.
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
"the art of the Renaissance"
synonyms: fine art, artwork
"he studied art"
works produced by human creative skill and imagination.
"his collection of modern art"
synonyms: fine art, artwork
"he studied art"
creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture.
"she's good at art"
2.
the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.
"the visual arts"

That's a meme definition, to be honest.

Additionally, we can use mathematical and scientific concepts as tools in our art, i.e. the same way we use objects in nature as tools, but that doesn't mean those tools themselves are art.

>this is purely untrue

ok

>So if modernist art tried to evoke a logical response,

What is a "logical response"?

>For example, geometric abstraction.

If we're taking pic related as the simplest example, it was consciously created, it uses a mathematical form (square), and a color, to evoke an emotional response. Therefore it is art.

>So surrealist automatism

The artist is still consciously using his physical body to put his unconscious feelings into a physical form. Therefore art.

> Performance isn't art?

It is. Conscious. And produces emotional response.

> Conceptualism isn't art?

it is. It definitely is conscious, and it uses ideas as tools to produce an emotional response.

>Why the distinction?

Because if there is no distinction, then there is no reason for the word "art" to exist in the first place. If you call nature art, then what is art is not "nature" but your own conscious decision to consider the elements of nature as artistic. Therefore the nature itself is not art, but your subjective opinion.

Seeing as art is inherently subjective, purely logical endeavors CANNOT be considered art.

In other words, the PRACTICE of science and its sociological EFFECTS could conceivably and conceptually be considered as art, BUT THE SCIENCE ITSELF cannot.

while you are technically correct in that a definition is literally a meme, you are also mentally deficient. sorry i had to be the one to break it to you kid.

Why you no like technically correctness?

>Therefore the nature itself is not art, but your subjective opinion.

should be: "but your subjective opinion is the art, i.e. the conscious production"

In other words, we have to distinguish between the objective and the subjective for there to be any meaningful definition of art in the first place.

He doesn't understand art.

>What is a "logical response"?

To build up a rational world, rational individuals, to act in rational space.

>Mathematics and science is not art, even though it produces an emotional response
>it uses a mathematical form (square), and a color, to evoke an emotional response.

Contradiction.

>The artist is still consciously using his physical body to put his unconscious feelings into a physical form.

So where is the art? Not the thing that is created, but the conscious action? Or say someone records what another surrealist is saying -- that conscious recording is the art?

>It is. Conscious. And produces emotional response.
>it is. It definitely is conscious

But the 'art' is not created.

>Because if there is no distinction, then there is no reason for the word "art" to exist in the first place

No, why the distinction between art/logic? Why draw the line between these two unrelated concepts?

>conscious decision to consider

Not a creation, nor does it produce an emotional response.

And again, how do you contend with other ideas of what constitutes art?

>Seeing as art is inherently subjective, purely logical endeavors CANNOT be considered art.

Still an unqualified dichotomy.

>In other words, the PRACTICE of science

Science, meaning 'knowledge', can refer to any conscious system used to make sense of the natural world. So for example in religious contexts, evoking the form of Jesus or whatever in a mosaic is a pure representation of reality itself. In your system it is 'subjective'.

Attempted communication of non-verbal sentiments, by any means including verbal language; and the corresponding attempted interpretation of said communication.

>To build up a rational world, rational individuals, to act in rational space.

The decision to want others to "think logically" would be the resulting artform. But not the logical representations themselves.

>Contradiction.

I'm saying that the subjective RESULT is the art, but not the logical constituents. Those are merely the tools one uses.

>So where is the art? Not the thing that is created, but the conscious action?

The art is in the conscious decision to perform, the resulting subjective artform (because even though the thoughts behind the art were subconscious, they are the result of an uncountable number of conscious events in one's life. Even a manman can produce art. Or rather, only a madman can, depending on how you look at it).

>Or say someone records what another surrealist is saying -- that conscious recording is the art?

Yes. And the decision to record (conceptual), and the resulting subjective interpretation by the listener.

>But the 'art' is not created.

I would argue that it is. It's created by virtue of the human element.

>No, why the distinction between art/logic? Why draw the line between these two unrelated concepts?

Because humanity is inherently subjective. We look at everything subjectively. It is our perceptions that are the creators of the art, and the ultimate consumers and purveyors. The world as viewed through the prism of humanity is art, but not the world itself. There is no conceivable way to separate the subjective from the objective.

>Not a creation, nor does it produce an emotional response.

The thought itself is the creation. Once again, since it doesn't fall within the logical realm to consider nature as art, it naturally falls within the subjective emotional realm.

>And again, how do you contend with other ideas of what constitutes art?

Case by case

>Still an unqualified dichotomy.

By that virtue, everything is an unqualified dichotomy

I use science as a synonym for 'objective' reality

>By that virtue, everything is an unqualified dichotomy

No, the dichotomy between light/dark for example is qualified by observation; dark is an absence of light. Your dichotomy of art/logic cannot be observed because it does not relate to the natural world and cannot be said to be an accurate representation that derives from it (pure reality). Maybe your argument is that the universe is logical, your argument is logical, therefor your argument represents truth in the universe -- in which case I'd tell you to brush up on the difference between valid and sound arguments.

>The world as viewed through the prism of humanity is art, but not the world itself.

There's no sense in using the term 'art' if all conscious decision is a creation which in turn causes an emotional response. You're describing subjectivity/objectivity, not the cross-road of subjectivity and objectivity that is traditionally identified as art.

>I use science as a synonym for 'objective' reality

Geometric shapes can't be observed in the natural world because they are not naturally occurring. In what sense are they objective?

is "What Is Art?" by Tolstoy a good essay?
what works should I read to explore "art"

shitposting

A money laundering scheme.

making a political point in a round about aesthetic way

If i can masturbate to it, it counts as art.

Art is whatever is considered art

Exactly the opposite to this. If it's a human creation and it is still interesting after you've come, it's art.

>women are a human creation
>you lose quite LITERALLY every single interest in them for 5-10 minutes after you ejaculate/cum/come
Women are not art confirmed.

Well, I'll concede the method does lead to subjective results, but I'd also contend that you're not fucking the right women.

>right women
>right
>women

Never met one, only lefties.

LMAOOO

Anything (experience, objects...) presented by someone to others as valuable for other reasons than his informational value or his practical value.
I like this definition beacuse it preserves art subjectivity and shows that everything that has a an interaction with the human mind that doesn't involve logic or utility has potential to be art

You wouldn't say purely utilitarian objects can be art? I would.

>purely
ur dum

Well, exactly. The futile attempt to fabricate a purely utilitarian object would itself count as an artistic endeavour. Perhaps one of the highest order.

the spectacle

>artistic endeavour
The standards being? I can't even draw an ear, no matter how hard i try. My endeavour though does not mean much.

That is the difference between good and bad art, and not what OP asked.

Yo................................but what counts as good art? What are the objective measures?

>wanting me to summarizing an entire field of philosophy up in one post

This has to be entirely subjective. For example, user's badly drawn ear might be a masterpiece of pencil choice and pressure to another artist with a deep interest in the topic.

Do it.

R8

Self expression.

no

Prove me wrong

I am God.

It's certainly not without merit, user, and is definitely art.

I wish i could draw cute anime girls though.

god is self

God is himself truth and love; you
are shocked by the assumption that God could be like us poor
worms in furthering an alien cause as his own. ' Should God take
up the cause of truth if he were not himself truth?' He cares only
for his cause, but, because he is all in all, therefore all is his
cause ! But we, we are not all in all, and our cause is altogether
little and contemptible; therefore we must 'serve a higher cause'. -
Now it is clear, God cares only for what is his, busies himself only with himself, thinks only of himself, and has only himself
before his eyes; woe to all that is not well-pleasing to him !

Define "define".

I want to fight this god. He sounds like a cunt.

Art is the examination of craft beyond the utilitarian.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Any subjectivity beyond that is just value judgement not tied to weather the thing is art or not.
Pic related, art.

The word becomes too vague now.

Your moms cooking is too vague.

And the purely utilitarian is an impossibility.

Therefore all human action is art.

I am ok with that. This doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of art is bad.

Your mom doesn't cook because she's always so full of cum she's never hungry.

Agreed.

This honestly gave me a boner. Tell me more. I want to know how much of a slut my mom is.

>And the purely utilitarian is an impossibility.
Sure, but art relates to craft specifically, so there must be some concious effort that goes beyond the biological and the mundane. Me brushing my teeth or a woman giving birth are not inherently art, but those situations can be put in an artistic context by painting them or capturing them with a camera.
An action like walking down the street isn't artistic in itself, but it becomes performance art when you gather an audience to watch you do it in a concious way.

mfw when the philistine, 'I don't know much about art but I know what I like' becomes the only sensible position to adopt.

I don't think so. Is the Mona Lisa still art in a darkened room? Can you walk down a street without deciding on your clothes, your pace, your gait? Do you brush your teeth to try to guarantee a certain visage as well as to maintain the ability to chew? Do you not produce beauty by giving birth?

Art is a term derived from the Western art tradition (of object creation) that is now either an object or non-object, legitimised as art by its art context, which draws from both the history of art (i.e. of that context, the institutions of production, collection, display), and art theory (treatises about art production and teleology), especially as the latter relates and defines the former, and in turn are legitimised by its 'closeness to nature' however that is defined (i.e. not necessarily mimesis, and often evoking history). Good and bad art relates to the success of theory's realisation, whether intended or not.

Sensorial expression?

A is for anything
R is for rigorous
T is for thoughtprovoking

Why is rigor required for art?

Oh, short answer, yes with an if. Long answer, no with a but.

poiesis

Art is simply a physical representation of ones own personal expression.

artists aren't creating art. they're just doing what they love. people create art as an identity issue with thinking how great it is to be an artist. it's bullshit.

the greatest "art"? it's life, baby. and it's a gamble everyday you participate.

Envisioning unperceivable things in a perceivable way. Performing the ritual of "creating" things, although art is never created, it is only perceived as being created. Art is empathizing with God, looking at the greatest and lesser things.

The Ego and Its Own? e.e

formalists get out reeeeeee

Everything that exists is created though.

You cant.
But people will always recognize some things as being a work of art.

Everything that exists, exists. Creation from nothing is absurdity.

Its a bit old innit.

Just separate the design, the form, from the function.

>Your dichotomy of art/logic
You're simplifying my entire argument to some simplified dichotomy. That's not how it works. I'm not merely saying that everything that is not logical is art.

>There's no sense in using the term 'art' if all conscious decision is a creation which in turn causes an emotional response.
For it to be considered as art you have to FRAME it in some way. I already said that random events occurring to you on a regular basis are not art. You have to FRAME it as art.

For example, a thought can be art when one frames it as a conceptual idea that can be experienced by other people.

Culture can be art when one analyzes the culture of a group of people through a philosophical or sociological treatise.

BUT CULTURE IN ITSELF CANNOT BE ART. I'm specifically drawing a distinction between THE THING IN ITSELF (the objective world) and THE CREATED ARTFORM TO BE EXPERIENCED

>Geometric shapes can't be observed in the natural world because they are not naturally occurring. In what sense are they objective?

Geometric shapes are manifestations of logic. Not all logic is naturally occurring, but all of it is objective. We use geometric shapes in our artforms but that doesn't mean that on their own the shapes are art themselves.

>Art is created
Art is imitating nature. True beauty is in nature.
>Beauty and/or pity is present in all art
There's bad art.