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.a drawing, painting, photograph, etc. — Janus
A pretty weak restriction, if what it does is allow some paintings not to be pictures.you said not all paintings are pictures, as though there were some fact of the matter, — Janus
But for now I'm trying to develop the ideas of aesthetic thinking, with respect to philosophy at least, at all. — Moliere
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
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.So, given this tripartite distinction, what makes a painting a painting? — 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.It's a good set of distinctions, IMO -- but I want to see them in operation. — Moliere
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
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
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
Seen from 300 years ago, TNR would look quite eccentric, and hence, "artistic". — hypericin
There's where I'm slightly inclined to think it's not art — Moliere
"Art" is a way of interacting with an object — hypericin
As soon as you put it in a museum, it becomes an object to be appreciated, contemplated, and reacted to, rather than used. — hypericin
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
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
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
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
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
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
Is it the way that the creator interacts with the object, or the way that the aesthete/viewer interacts with the object? — Leontiskos
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
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
"they", the art elite, who do the baptizing. — hypericin
Of course, with any of these, we are always free to disagree with what is canonized as good art. — hypericin
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
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
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
I am inclined to say that art is intentionally created as art by a creator. — 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. — J
Is it still art if no one sees it that way (except the creator)? Should we say, "intentionally attempts to create art"? — J
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'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
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
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."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
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 [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
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
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.