a drawing, painting, photograph, etc. — Janus

I'll go over the thought again, I guess. Any definition given for art will invoke a counterplay by some artist. The act of defining art - and by association, painting or drawing or picture - stipulates a view that can be overturned.

The analogue in logic is that any axiomatic system sufficient for arithmetic will exclude some truths.

It's always open to you to stipulate that this is art, that isn't... But that'd be pretty arbitrary, and we need not accept your stipulation.

It's more fun not to.

Except I was not the one offering restrictive definitions―you said not all paintings are pictures, as though there were some fact of the matter, and not that it is merely a matter of how 'picture' and 'painting' is defined as to whether all paintings also count as pictures or not.

you said not all paintings are pictures, as though there were some fact of the matter, — Janus

A pretty weak restriction, if what it does is allow some paintings not to be pictures.

I'm finding this conversation a tad tedious.

I'll allow for paintings that are not pictures. If you see that as too restrictive, I don't much care. It's you who insists that Black Square is a picture as well as a painting. I think it's a black square, as opposed to a picture of a black square.

You misunderstand entirely then. Perhaps it's my fault for not expressing myself clearly enough. I've not been claiming that all paintings are pictures, as though there were some context-independent fact of the matter, but that all paintings can count as pictures, given certain interpretations of the terms.

I think abstract paintings and drawings are representational in a difference sense in that they represent abstract objects or images. — Janus

Agreed.

@Banno Can you give an example of a painting that isn't a picture? Also, are you using 'picture' differently from 'image'?

But for now I'm trying to develop the ideas of aesthetic thinking, with respect to philosophy at least, at all. — Moliere

A simple division is to split paintings into the Modern, artists such as Derain, and the Postmodern, artists such as Cindy Sherman.

Typically, Modern art specifically includes the visual aesthetic and Postmodern art specifically excludes the visual aesthetic.

The philosopher Francis Hutcheson wrote about aesthetics and beauty. For Hutcheson, beauty is not in the object but is in how the object is perceived, and stems from uniformity amidst variety. Diverse elements come together in a way that feels balanced and harmonious, a dynamic process where we sense order within complexity.

If beauty is the sense of order within complexity, this can apply to more than paintings and can apply to any thought about the world, including philosophical thought.

The OP asks "What makes a painting a painting?"

When you say "aesthetic thinking", do you mean either i) philosophical thoughts that may not be aesthetic about aesthetic objects or ii) philosophical thoughts that are aesthetic about objects that may not be aesthetic?

I might put doubt on a printed paper using Times New Roman saying "This is Art", but painting letters is part of art at this point. — Moliere

Yes, I agree that painted letters might not be considered an art at all but rather a writing technique. Nonetheless, I read about Japanese Shodō, and most of the people who do it are regarded as artists, but the 'Shodō' itself is not considered an art, paradoxically. :sweat:

Another interesting thing: Back in the day, most of the Japanese prime ministers were very good at doing 'shodō', but folks call them 'master' rather than 'artist'. For example, Noboru Takeshita was a real master of that Japanese art (can we consider an art painting the Japanese kanji of your name?):



As explained to me, yes, we can considered it an art* because the Japanse Shodō is intended as paintings, not signs.

Edit*: and, therefore, a painting per se.

So, given this tripartite distinction, what makes a painting a painting? — Moliere

The painting is an artwork; therefore, it requires media, including canvas and the color materials used in the painting. There is also an idea presented in the painting, through the proper placement of colors on the canvas, so-called form.

It's a good set of distinctions, IMO -- but I want to see them in operation. — Moliere

It starts with an idea in the mind of a painter. S/he then decides how to present the idea. This includes the size and form of the canvas, colors s/he is interested in, and how to place the colors on the canvas to present the idea.

I might put doubt on a printed paper using Times New Roman saying "This is Art", but painting letters is part of art at this point. — Moliere

Yes, I agree that painted letters might not be considered an art at all but rather a writing technique. Nonetheless, I read about Japanese Shodō, and most of the people who do it are regarded as artists, but the 'Shodō' itself is not considered an art, paradoxically. :sweat: — javi2541997

Even Times New Roman, I would consider art, but art that has crystallized into use. The creation of Times New Roman involved innumerable choices, building off the templates of previous fonts. If you look at TNR compared to a list of random fonts (I see this for instance when I choose a font in paint.net), TNR looks quite "normal" compared to many of the others, but that is just a choice collectively made: TNR is in the spectrum of "neutral" fonts, for us, in this time. It is just like accent: "accent" is just a deviation from the dominant accent, but there is nothing privileged in the dominant accent, outside its dominance. It is just another way of speaking. Seen from 300 years ago, TNR would look quite eccentric, and hence, "artistic".

I'd consider the font art, yes.

I was thinking of someone printing out "Times New Roman" in Times New Roman on 8.5"x11" paper, putting it up in art museum and claiming "that's art!" EDIT: in our time, that is.

There's a certain limit, that I do not know how to navigate (and am excited that @J is along for the ride on this thought adventure for the reason that I do not know how to navigate) to the notion of an artworld that I can imagine, but it may just look as stupid as someone saying "Modern art is bad because it doesn't look like anything, and my 3 year old could draw it"

I was thinking of someone printing out "Times New Roman" in Times New Roman and 8.5"x11" paper, putting it up in art museum and claiming "that's art!" — Moliere

I would say that would absolutely be art. As soon as you put it in a museum, it becomes an object to be appreciated, contemplated, and reacted to, rather than used. Even if the reaction is "This is bad because it doesn't look like anything, and my 3 year old could print it", that is a reaction to art, not to a utilitarian object. To escape this, you would have to react with something like "Why is that there? Is someone testing their printer?", but that is just a misunderstanding of its context.

In truth, the actual reaction would probably be a rolling of the eyes, because that kind of gesture has been done before, and would be seen as trite and cliche. But again, those reactions, "trite" and "cliche", are exclusively reactions to art.

In truth, the actual reaction would probably be a rolling of the eyes, because that kind of gesture has been done before, and would be seen as trite and cliche. But again, those reactions, "trite" and "cliche", are exclusively reactions to art. — hypericin

Good point.

Heh, even though I put forward difference between the categorical/evaluative use of "work of art" I fall prey.

What's interesting in your point to me is that it could be a work of art, but since it's kind of already been done it's unlikely to be "baptized" into the artworld of museums.

***

Now, suppose someone were to hang the same within a local coffee shop that featured local artists. It couldn't be their first entry, but after some years of producing paintings and such the local shop for hanging local artwork decided to give it a go, with a pricetag of "$250" and everything.

There's where I'm slightly inclined to think it's not art, but a reproduction of a cliche in order to sell something that's easy to produce as a sign of sophistication -- when if we look at what they just bought we know that's stupid.

Seen from 300 years ago, TNR would look quite eccentric, and hence, "artistic". — hypericin

Yes, I agree. What a shame that they are not here to see it!

There's where I'm slightly inclined to think it's not art — Moliere

I think it is still art.

There are two independent axes that are easily conflated:

good art <---> bad art
art <---> non-art

"Art" is a way of interacting with an object, that is distinct from how we interact with other things. Once we interact with something as art, part of that interaction is appraisal, where we place it on the "good art" / "bad art" spectrum. But to do so is to already consider it fully as art.

It is common for people (art snobs especially) to say "that is not art!" of "bad art". But that is confusing art with quality and prestige. And that is, I think, what leads to the whole confusion of "what is and isn't art", because that judgement implies a rarefied, mystic quality that art possesses, non-art lacks, and only the refined critic can pick out.

"Art" is a way of interacting with an object — hypericin

Is it the way that the creator interacts with the object, or the way that the aesthete/viewer interacts with the object?

As soon as you put it in a museum, it becomes an object to be appreciated, contemplated, and reacted to, rather than used. — hypericin

You might therefore say that anything that is found in an art museum is, eo ipso, art. But this seems to overlook the fact that someone decided what is allowed in the art museum and what is not allowed in the art museum.

someone printing out "Times New Roman" in Times New Roman on 8.5"x11" paper, putting it up in art museum — Moliere

As soon as you put it in a museum, — hypericin

If either of these things happened just as described, it would be vandalism, not art, and the person would presumably be arrested. :smile: Seriously, one individual cannot "put something in a museum." It takes some kind of collective agreement, some "we," in order to do the baptizing.

But with that said, the issue is far from solved, or even well understood. Danto's "artworld" is one way of trying to get a grip on it. The difference you mention between art as category and art as evaluative becomes important here. It's a bit more comfortable to agree that "what the artworld calls art is art" if we're not also being asked to agree that it's good art. The artworld can be wrong about that, on this theory.

So, is a local coffee shop with an interest in painting, part of the artworld? I don't have a strong opinion either way. Is there a clear line between "bad art" and "so meretricious it isn't even art but rather commercialism"? I doubt it.

Even if the reaction is "This is bad because it doesn't look like anything, and my 3 year old could paint it", that is a reaction to art, not to a utilitarian object. — hypericin

Usually, yes, but the reactor often wants to say something more by that remark. They want to say, "This isn't art at all. You're either the victim of a con job, or you're trying to con me." They're reacting from the traditional understanding of art as defined by some combination of terms like "hard to make," "reflects an ability to draw well," "beautiful/sublime/original," "requiring X, Y, Z materials and media," "the result of a single individual's unusual degree of talent," and more.

I sympathize. I like those kinds of art a lot. I think the quality percentage is often higher in the traditional forms. But if we're philosophers trying to understand what art is and what it means, we can't stick with those traditional criteria -- not unless we're also able to make a plausible case that pretty much every innovation in the Western artworld since c. 1919 has been fabulously wrong about what art can be.

Seriously, one individual cannot "put something in a museum." It takes some kind of collective agreement, some "we," in order to do the baptizing. — J

Of course by "put in a museum" my meaning included all the gatekeeping. But to most of us, it is not a "we" but a "they", the art elite, who do the baptizing.

It's a bit more comfortable to agree that "what the artworld calls art is art" if we're not also being asked to agree that it's good art. The artworld can be wrong about that, on this theory. — J

I wonder if you are understanding the "artworld" as the high or elite art world. I think the idea is that there are multiple artworlds, only partially overlapping. For instance, high art, graffiti art, country music, black metal music, harry potter fan fiction, philosophical essays. Each gatekeep with notions of what belongs and what does not, and what is elevated and what is not. Of course, with any of these, we are always free to disagree with what is canonized as good art.

So, is a local coffee shop with an interest in painting, part of the artworld? I don't have a strong opinion either way. Is there a clear line between "bad art" and "so meretricious it isn't even art but rather commercialism"? I doubt it. — J

Not "the artworld", but certainly "a artworld", maybe many. To say something is "so meretricious it isn't even art but rather commercialism" is just a way of condemning it as bad art.

They want to say, "This isn't art at all. You're either the victim of a con job, or you're trying to con me." — J

Fair. But they are still evaluating it as art, and finding it lacking in some way. That is an artistic judgement. They would never think to do this of a stop sign, for instance.

Is it the way that the creator interacts with the object, or the way that the aesthete/viewer interacts with the object? — Leontiskos

Good question. Right now I am inclined to say that art is intentionally created as art by a creator. When the viewer misunderstands art as non-art, or non-art as art, that is a misfire.

You might therefore say that anything that is found in an art museum is, eo ipso, art. But this seems to overlook the fact that someone decided what is allowed in the art museum and what is not allowed in the art museum. — Leontiskos

Why overlook? Museums, galleries, and critics function as gatekeepers of high art, and so yes, someone is doing the gatekeeping. But high art is hardly inclusive of all art. To experience an object in a museum creates a powerful pull in the viewer towards experiencing it as art. But that is just one of many ways of experiencing art.

I wonder if you are understanding the "artworld" as the high or elite art world. I think the idea is that there are multiple artworlds, only partially overlapping. For instance, high art, graffiti art, country music, black metal music, harry potter fan fiction, philosophical essays. Each gatekeep with notions of what belongs and what does not, and what is elevated and what is not.
. — hypericin

Yes, this is right. I was implicitly importing my idea of which "artworld" would be appropriate in a discussion about a possibly-museum-worthy painting. But the thing is not monolithic, as you say, especially when we're talking popular art.

"they", the art elite, who do the baptizing. — hypericin

Troublesome, for sure. Some of my favorite contemporary visual art is so-called "outsider art" or "visionary art." The standards there are very much counter to NY-gallery-type art elites. But it illustrates your point about multiple worlds: There is nonetheless a "we," an artworld, that develops a consensus around outsider art too.

Of course, with any of these, we are always free to disagree with what is canonized as good art. — hypericin

I think this is the saving grace of the whole conception. We can separate out the use of "art" as some kind of honorific or compliment, and just say, "Yeah, this particular artworld has helped us see certain kinds of things as art; now the conversation can begin about how aesthetically valuable it is."

But they are still evaluating it as art, and finding it lacking in some way. That is an artistic judgement. They would never think to do this of a stop sign, for instance. — hypericin

I could go either way on this. And of course the criticism comes in different flavors and strengths. I'm not sure whether we should call such criticism an aesthetic judgment, or a judgment about what is art. Maybe it's got two prongs: "This crap isn't art in the first place, but if you really insist on asking me to call it art, then it's terrible art." No one is offering the stop sign as an art object (usually!), but the critic is upset about the whole concept of "offering" something as art. It's this crazy pretense (from their point of view) that they object to.

Good question. Right now I am inclined to say that art is intentionally created as art by a creator. When the viewer misunderstands art as non-art, or non-art as art, that is a misfire. — hypericin

Okay.

Why overlook? Museums, galleries, and critics function as gatekeepers of high art, and so yes, someone is doing the gatekeeping. But high art is hardly inclusive of all art. — hypericin

But doesn't everyone and every group distinguish some things as art and some things as not art? In that sense is everyone a "gatekeeper" of art? Or does this just imply that "art" means something substantial, and therefore not everything counts?

Unless you want to say that every creator who intends their creation to be art imbues that creation with the ontological status of "art" whether or not anyone recognizes this ontological status, and that anyone who makes identification-mistakes is "misfiring."

I'm not convinced that something becomes art based on the creator's intention. I want to say that art is a communal practice that is vetted by a community, whether high or low. If that is right then "gatekeeping" is not bad, and is probably not even avoidable.

Well, I paint and draw and that's how I think of the distinction between them. Objects (which may be abstract) are separated by changes in colour or texture (painting), or by lines (drawing), or both. Examples of 'both' include ancient Egyptian art, many paintings by Picasso, line and wash, etc.

Most people seem to want to talk about art vs non-art. I recommend Grayson Perry's Reith lectures on that.

I am inclined to say that art is intentionally created as art by a creator. — hypericin

Is it still art if no one sees it that way (except the creator)? Should we say, "intentionally attempts to create art"?

Also, the verb "create" is very fraught in this circumstance. If we agree that the status of something as an artwork is not dependent on its physical nature, then "creating" an artwork can mean simply a consensus that declares the object to be so. Putting a frame around it, in other words. Are you OK with that construal of "create"?

I could go either way on this. And of course the criticism comes in different flavors and strengths. I'm not sure whether we should call such criticism an aesthetic judgment, or a judgment about what is art. Maybe it's got two prongs: "This crap isn't art in the first place, but if you really insist on asking me to call it art, then it's terrible art." No one is offering the stop sign as an art object (usually!), but the critic is upset about the whole concept of "offering" something as art. It's this crazy pretense (from their point of view) that they object to. — J

I could go either way too, but the more I think about it the more I am convincing myself.

"Not art" and "bad art" are constantly confused. Both the hoi polloi and elite do this, about modern and pop art. Even though a fellow schlub calling Jackson Pollock not-art, or a beret-wearing hipster calling Kinkade not-art, might feel to them like a judgement about what art is, it can in fact be an aesthetic judgement. Since the distinction is not clear in most people's minds, they can be expected to substitute one for the other. Moreover, they likely don't even have a clear idea on what art is. So, we are under no obligation to take these declarations seriously.

Also note, "This crap isn't art in the first place, but if you really insist on asking me to call it art, then it's terrible art." doesn't work in other contexts. "This apple isn't a house in the first place, but if you really insist on asking me to call it a house, then it's a terrible house." No, it's just not a house.

"Pretense" is exactly right. Part of the problem is the offending piece is masquerading not just as art, but prestige art, exalted in museums and expensive galleries as the best of the best. But that is just an aesthetic judgement: "this art does not deserve this praise", not "this is not art". In a different context, for instance, your kid starts experimenting with drawing abstract shapes and patterns, you might instead leap to its defense as art. Also note that "pretentious" is used either on people, or on art. Hammers are never pretentious.

Is it still art if no one sees it that way (except the creator)? Should we say, "intentionally attempts to create art"? — J

I think so. It is still an object created for aesthetic, not practical, use. Moreover, as a creator you always have a special relation to your creation, your enjoyment of it as not just art, but your art. (Or, disgust with it!)

Also, the verb "create" is very fraught in this circumstance. If we agree that the status of something as an artwork is not dependent on its physical nature, then "creating" an artwork can mean simply a consensus that declares the object to be so. Putting a frame around it, in other words. Are you OK with that construal of "create"? — J

I think so. For instance, some one finds a strikingly beautiful feather. They frame it, and hang it on the wall. Here, the "creation" consists in literally framing the natural object as art. I would say this is as much art as anything else. This is consistent with art not as some innate ontological status some objects have, but as a social context around some objects.

I'm not convinced that something becomes art based on the creator's intention. I want to say that art is a communal practice that is vetted by a community, whether high or low. If that is right then "gatekeeping" is not bad, and is probably not even avoidable. — Leontiskos

I wouldn't say gatekeeping is "bad", and art is certainly a communal practice. But I don't think community vetting can ever be a reliable arbiter of what is and isn't art.

Take Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. To my knowledge, not only was this soundly rejected by the critical establishment, but its performance even resulted in a riot. Yet now it is treated as a masterpiece. If community vetting is the standard, then it wasn't art then, and is art now, which doesn't seem right at all. And it does not leave room for the community to be wrong.

I think "art" is akin to "artifact" and "tool". An artifact is distinguished from an ordinary object by the fact it was created with intention by humans. A tool is distinguished from an ordinary artifact by the fact it was created with the intention to facilitate physical manipulation. Art is distinguished from an ordinary artifact by the fact it was created with the intention to be used aesthetically. None of these distinctions rest on some ethereal ontological essence latent in the object. Rather, they rest on the history of the object.

Also note, "This crap isn't art in the first place, but if you really insist on asking me to call it art, then it's terrible art." doesn't work in other contexts. "This apple isn't a house in the first place, but if you really insist on asking me to call it a house, then it's a terrible house." No, it's just not a house. — hypericin

Good point. What should we say, then? You go on to note

Since the distinction [between non-art and bad art] is not clear in most people's minds, they can be expected to substitute one for the other. — hypericin

Perhaps that's good enough; the distinction isn't clear, usage-wise, and it's no wonder people use them somewhat interchangeably. We could imagine more and more cases like this, using the "house" example, the closer we get to a comparison that's "in the 'house' neighborhood" -- for instance, "This hovel made of detritus isn't a house in the first place, but if you really insist on asking me to call it a house, then it's a terrible house."

If this isn't good enough (for us philosophers), then we need to recommend a more precise set of terms. I vote for something along the institutional, Danto-esque lines we've been discussing.

But . . .

Is it still art if no one sees it that way (except the creator)?
— J

I think so. It is still an object created for aesthetic, not practical, use. — hypericin

This would be an objection to an "art as consensus" model. I can't remember if Danto addresses it; I'll try to look back at some of his work and see if I can find it.

Maybe it helps if we frame the question like this: Is it possible for me to create (taken as loosely as possible) something for aesthetic use, only to discover that the "we" who generally look at such objects do not consider it art at all? That would be rare, but possible. This gets to the heart of one of the difficulties with the "artworld" model. Exactly how many "I's" does it take before we get a "we"? Presumably "consensus" doesn't have to mean 100%, but what does it mean? Evidently it needs to stop short of "only one person (the artist)," though -- and that's what you're questioning by asking if intent alone is enough to do the baptizing.

Your Rite of Spring example of a change in "community vetting" is also relevant here. And the confusion between non-art and bad art returns: That 1913 audience did not, as far as I know, castigate Stravinsky and Diaghilev for not being artists at all. The audience thought it was outrageously bad art, but they knew it was music and dance. A better example might be the reaction to Duchamp: "You've got be kidding! This is a urinal."

(BTW, there's considerable evidence that a big part of the audience's reaction to the Rite can be explained by its being such a bad performance. That score is well understood and appreciated now, but can you imagine mounting a performance for the first time?! None of the players would have heard, literally, anything like it before. "What is this supposed to sound like?" Very plausible, then, that as a performance it barely held together.)

This [framing the feather] is consistent with art not as some innate ontological status some objects have, but as a social context around some objects. — hypericin

Good, glad you see it that way too. We have to emancipate "creation" from necessarily meaning "moving around physical stuff."

A painting is a picture whose predominant medium is paint. — Janus

I've not been claiming that all paintings are pictures, as though there were some context-independent fact of the matter, but that all paintings can count as pictures — Janus

They are not all pictures but can all count as pictures.

Ok.

We could imagine more and more cases like this, using the "house" example, the closer we get to a comparison that's "in the 'house' neighborhood" -- for instance, "This hovel made of detritus isn't a house in the first place, but if you really insist on asking me to call it a house, then it's a terrible house." — J

I think this is a clarifying example. You can imagine a series, from a typical house, to houses in worsening states of disrepair, to a heap of rubble. Starting from the typical house, you get houses, bad houses, worse houses, and finally non-houses. I think this is why bad art and non-art are confused: with functional objects, such series are typical. As a functional object deviates from its proper form, it gets worse and worse, because form is essential to its function, and so the functionality declines along with the deviation. Deviate enough, and it stops being functional completely, and is instead just trash.

From this perspective, it is natural to call Duchamp's Fountain non-art. It has deviated so far from the form of art, that it has lost all "art function": it isn't pretty or enjoyable to look at. It required no technical skill, anyone could have done that. It doesn't depict anything beyond what it literally is.

We are accustomed to thinking that certain types objects *are* these types of objects by virtue of the function they fulfill. But we agree that this is a mistake, when it comes to art. Any functional requirement we can come up with will turn out not to work, and we could fill a hundred pages of this thread that way. Art is not a function of an object, it is a context around an object. There is no function art must fulfill, since art is not functional, but aesthetic. It is a way of apprehending an object, not as useful, but as the subject of contemplation. Therefore literally anything is a candidate for being art.

Yet, that alone is too broad. Even though nothing is excluded from being art, merely being a potential object of contemplation doesn't make art. Everything is a potential object of contemplation. And so I still maintain, art is an object specifically created to be an object of contemplation, where "creation" can include reframing an existing piece of non-art as art. And so, there was never a point where Duchamp's Fountain failed to be art: in the bathroom, it functioned, an may never have been given a moment's consideration. Moved into the museum, it did nothing, and received no end of contemplation.

Right it's like the 'Ship of Theseus' and 'Sorites'...just a matter of definition not ontology.

Ontology is definition.

On your definition of ontology, perhaps. Ontology is usually understood to be concerned with what exists, and what exists is usually considered to be not a matter of opinion or interpretation. Do you think there exists a fact of the matter as to whether all paintings are pictures? Of course I'm not denying that there might exist different opinions dependent on different interpretations of the terms.

Take the "Ship of Theseus': there is no fact of the matter as to whether the ship with all its parts replaced is the same ship or not, so not an ontological, but a semantic, matter. What does exist is the ship: that's ontology.