Which usually means I'm missing something -- what is it about this that so many other people like that I'm not seeing? — Moliere

I like it. It is just not Art. That is my primary point. Anyone can call something 'art' but that does not mean it is. I have seen the same thing in poetry too to some extent where people write a single word and call it a poem. No! It is not a poem. Is it interesting and trying to get a point across? Perhaps, but that does not make it a poem. The same goes for most 'conceptual art'.

Maybe it would be better to refer to such works as spandrels. They do not occupy the space known as Art, but they fill in some structural gaps - in a very loose analogous sense - between how the intellect can inhabit space and how aesthetics can.

He blurred the line between art and philosophy. For him, a work of art can be a piece of philosophy as well, it can teach us something specifically philosophical -- so a philosophical sortie, if you like. — J

I am not saying it cannot. An example like the one I gave I would never call Art though. I found the ideas she was trying to express wholly philosophical. There was nothing about a random plant and several printed emails stuck on a wall that I find emotionally moving in any way shape or form.

There was nothing about a random plant and several printed emails stuck on a wall that I find emotionally moving in any way shape or form. — I like sushi

I would likely have the same reaction, if I saw this work. But are you open to the idea that emotional response is not criteriological? That objects aren't divided into "art" and "non-art" based on whether they are emotionally moving to someone?

I guess this connects with this as well:

Artwork is not primarily focused on the intellect — I like sushi

What I learn from 20th century art is that general, semi-definitional statements like this can't hold water. There's simply too much artwork doing too many different things, in endless combinations of visual, intellectual, conceptual, and emotional dimensions! It's the Wild West! -- and enormous fun.

The only way we can make categorical judgments about what kind of thing can be art, or what kind of experience art must engender, would be to challenge the description I just gave as a description of art. We could declare war, in effect, on the artworld, and offer an explanation for why it has been so misguided for so long in what it deems art. I know there are a few critics willing to try this, but the collateral damage is immense, and I've never found the conception convincing anyway.

Again, none of this is about quality. It seems quite possible to me that the plant-and-email artwork is simply poor art. But I'd have to see it.

I would likely have the same reaction, if I saw this work. But are you open to the idea that emotional response is not criteriological? That objects aren't divided into "art" and "non-art" based on whether they are emotionally moving to someone? — J

100% NO. If a work is not emotionally moving it is absolutely not art. There is no exception.

That is not to say every emotional instance has to be artistic or art led.

Again, none of this is about quality. It seems quite possible to me that the plant-and-email artwork is simply poor art. But I'd have to see it. — J

I think this is where you are quite simply wrong. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, and this is where I think people get confused. There is a huge difference between looking upon some object with an artistic eye and an actual artwork.

If you want to see it just look at your desk or a wall. If we are callign literally everything 'art' then the term has no practical use. Also, it is a mistake to confuse an elegant idea for a beautiful image, simply because we are used to framing those words without a similar field of context.

It just takes some careful thought across all mediums of art to see what it is and what it is not. White noise is not art, but white noise can be used in a muscial composition to excentuate this or that rhythm by punctuating what is harmonious and musical with what is not. 'Conceptual art' is this kind of White noise. On its own legs it is an artless amalgam of atomised items put to use to express an intellectual thought. A true piece of art 'moves' people not merely stimulates them to 'think' and/or um and ah about something clever.

If a work is not emotionally moving it is absolutely not art. There is no exception. — I like sushi

There has to be a line drawn somewhere, — I like sushi

So do you have a story, or explanation, for what happened to (so-called, in your view) art in the 20th century? Why were the lines not drawn where you clearly see them? Are you suggesting that the artworld did not see those lines, though they were clear, or that they saw them but disregarded them? Just trying to understand how to fit your view into a historical narrative.

Suppose this "provisional offering" of silence/ambient sound as art had been roundly rejected. And suppose Fountain was laughed out of the gallery.... can art really be a private language, something that only the maker can speak? — J

At this point, the question is difficult to ask. Duchamp showed that anything can be visual art, Cage that anything can be audible art. Therefore, art is not something intrinsic to the object, but rather how the object is put to use.

I have a large collection of music I wrote but never did anything with. Is it still art, if no one else ever hears it? I think so; despite being unheard, there is an artworld it readily plugs into, were it heard. It would unproblematically be accepted as art (good art is another matter).

But what about your case? Something for which there is no artworld to accept it? Here, the creator relates to it as art, no one else does. Is it art? I think there is nothing more to say than

The creator relates to it as art, no one else does.

Whether that counts as art, to you, is just definitional. The reality remains the same either way.

(it was a statement, nonetheless, my man). And is that a position you take, or was the conclusion just part of conversation?

I'm hesitant to justify art by its purposes. If anything I think it's entirely useless, and that's sort of the point. — Moliere

People do not generally spend useful money on useless things. Yet, the art industry (inclusive of Pop art) is booming, as always. Art is full of purpose: to stimulate thinking, expand perspectives, gain insight, to entertain, to feel, to beautify spaces, to occupy idle time.

The difference is that it has no pragmatic purpose. Take a piece of purported art, and subtract away the pragmatic purpose: what remains, if anything, is the art.

In general tools modulate the world while art modulates the viewer.

I'm hesitant to justify art by its purposes. If anything I think it's entirely useless, and that's sort of the point. — Moliere

Concerning purposes involving other people, I agree that most art doesn't have to be understood that way, though many artists value communication as a goal very much. But "entirely useless"? That seems to say that if I create an artwork, it's useless even to me, even as a process. Do we have to be that rigorous about it?

The difference is that [art] has no pragmatic purpose. Take a piece of purported art, and subtract away the pragmatic purpose: what remains, if anything, is the art. — hypericin

OK, sort of what I meant above about "purposes for other people." And I think it's 99% true. But as always, we can find interesting exceptions. Satie claimed that his "furnishing music" was strictly pragmatic -- it was meant to add to the decor (great quote from him on Wikpedia: "Furnishing music completes one's property"). This sounds like he wanted it understood as non-art, but no one agrees!

I have a large collection of music I wrote but never did anything with. Is it still art, if no one else ever hears it? I think so; despite being unheard, there is an artworld it readily plugs into, were it heard. It would unproblematically be accepted as art (good art is another matter). — hypericin

Yes. This intuitively reasonable position has to be accounted for by an institutional or artworld theory of art, and it's not easy. I think we need some discrimination between the artworld's role in "baptizing" individual works within a recognized tradition, versus its role as a consensus-builder around new approaches and problematic examples, like Fountain. I haven't worked out anything like this, though I think it's on the right track. We want to be able to say confidently that your un-listened-to music doesn't require a listener (or an artworld) for it to count as music -- which already counts as art. The artworld's function here came earlier, so to speak.

Maybe a good question is: Is there a risk of some art being a private language, something only the artist speaks? Or are we just frightening ourselves with extreme hypotheticals?

I've had this experience too. Part of me wants to put on my Philistine hat and say, "Enough is enough! This looped video of a woman sucking her toes simply isn't art. The artworld is wrong about this." If I resist that impulse, as I believe I should, I could also say, "Yes, I'm able to engage with this work in the Space of Art, I'm willing to accept the invitation to that special sort of seeing that art requests. Having done so, I judge it to be not very good or interesting art."

At this point, the questions about "What am I missing?" become relevant. Can I honestly say that I know enough, am experienced enough, in the particular milieu or conversation in which this art-object exists, in order to be entitled to an aesthetic judgment? If my answer is yes (as it often will be in an artworld I have a lot more expertise in, such as music or literature), then so much the worse for the art object -- but again, this doesn't jeopardize its status as art. If my answer is no (as is likely with conceptual and other post-modern visual arts), then it's on me to get educated, if I care enough.

And one more factor: Do I like it? This is a dimension where I've really noticed changes over the years. Perhaps because I have tried to better understand and experience some of this unfamiliar artworld, I more and more find that there's a sort of primitive, pre-judgmental delight I feel when exposed to (some) conceptual art. It is not at all the same delight I associate with Monet. But once I get over the "hermeneutics of suspicion," and allow the object to just suggest whatever it suggests -- call it a charitable intepretation! -- it's a lot easier to get a kick out of it. — J

I agree with all of this.

Where I say I don't connect I rather put the fault on my viewing of the artobject, though sometimes I have to say "Well... I can't see anything else, so if forced to say what I think now..."

But then there are artobjects that I would not have considered before due to this permissiveness which doesn't care about the definition as much as the particular work of art itself -- which seems much better overall for a creative artworld.

Some of my skepticism derives from the monetary value, tho that's in a very idealistic sense. That art is exchanged on the market for such and such a value means that such and such an artwork is equivalent to such and such an amount of linen, at least in a Marxist analysis. So the artwork as an object of value-accretion is undeniable due to the mechanism of capital -- since there's a market a bank can easily invest in a few artobjects of a paltry million dollars or so.

But then -- at least since the Rennaissance, tho there are more controversial arguments available -- artproduction, in the "Western" world at least, has often depended upon a wealthy class which finances people who do art, whatever that is.

Concerning purposes involving other people, I agree that most art doesn't have to be understood that way, though many artists value communication as a goal very much. But "entirely useless"? That seems to say that if I create an artwork, it's useless even to me, even as a process. Do we have to be that rigorous about it? — J

No. (EDIT: to the last question -- we do not have to be that rigorous about it)

Even in philosophy, no.

In a way it's an ideal to me -- but really I'm always interested for some reason :D

I think that people have lost the ability to see things outside of it's "usefuleness" sometimes. Not really if you mention it, but that's such a frequent default for evaluating something worthwhile that I've become disgusted with it, in a way.

Not in the broadest sense, but generally -- "Well, if it's not useful, then it's worthless!" -- no! No no no!

But of course artists, and philosophers, can and must choose varying degrees of "usefuleness", or whatever aesthetic quality they're pursuing.

People do not generally spend useful money on useless things. Yet, the art industry (inclusive of Pop art) is booming, as always. Art is full of purpose: to stimulate thinking, expand perspectives, gain insight, to entertain, to feel, to beautify spaces, to occupy idle time.

The difference is that it has no pragmatic purpose. Take a piece of purported art, and subtract away the pragmatic purpose: what remains, if anything, is the art.

In general tools modulate the world while art modulates the viewer. — hypericin

I disagree with premise 1 -- I think people spend money on all manner of useless things. Tarot readings? Cigarettes? Kellogs Frosted flakes?

The industry is worth a lot, for sure. But that's not necessarily a good thing, or an indication towards its use. I'd hazard that the accreted value within those artworks will, in the worst climate scenarios, decline so drastically that they'll be found to have been bad investments -- in the long run.

EDIT: But I ought say that tho art is full of purpose -- which I agree with -- that's not the thing that makes a painting a painting. A painting need not have purpose. It need not be a good investment, or useful for anything at all. We look for uses for art, but a lot of them really don't have a use -- yet are art for all that.

I like it. It is just not Art. That is my primary point. — I like sushi

How do you get to that point? Assertion, or do you have an argument?

I'm not sure I like it(EDIT: conceptual art as a whole) -- I'm arguing on the categorical side that it is art, good or bad.

The man paints a wall red. How do you know what is in his mind? — RussellA

As of 1 January 2025, there were about 8,250,423,613 different artworlds, in that it seems true that no two people have identical minds. As they say, the world exists in the head. — RussellA

I disagree with that assertion -- but I don't want to get into it here because I refuse to do yet another realism/anti-realism diversion.

Not metaphysics, but aesthetics(or Axiology, as the tripartite division was taught to me: axiology/epistemology/metaphysics) is first-philosophy here.

But sooner or later, some words cannot be described using other words, such as "Wild loose dabs" or "fierce brushwork". The meaning of words such as "wild" and "fierce" cannot be said but can only be shown.

And they can only be shown as family resemblances. — RussellA

Sure!

Them family resemblances can be further specified through showing.

After that, they can be said with more relevant meaning.

100% NO. If a work is not emotionally moving it is absolutely not art. There is no exception. — I like sushi

You still standing by that one?

Asking here because I suspect that this is an intuitive belief held by many -- in some sense art must engage the emotions, transcends the intellect, is beyond the sensual in its proper way in that it allows us to feel the sensual as sensual in various capacities.

The philosopher in me will say "Well.. since you done said that it seems we can reason about it. And I'm very certain that what we just watched, which involved us emotionally, did not involve them at all -- so is it art?"

Open question there -- how do you resolve those differences in experience of art, given your strong stance that if a work is not emotionally moving it is not art?

I'm thinking of B-Horror movies here -- there's a select few who enjoy them, but...

Not merely an "odd" consequence, but an absurd one. Van Gogh's works are rich, beautiful and intelligently composed images which are markedly different than anything created before. — Janus

It is absurd.

That's why I bring it up: the institutional theory of art solves many questions we might have about art, and while doing so reveals things about what makes art art that we would not have considered before.

But when we get strict -- unlike artists do, but like philosophers do -- we might reflect upon the aesthetics of the oddity -- that perhaps this general theory is merely general, and not predictive.

Things like pottery and architecture may be considered to be art, and yet serve practical purposes. An American architect called Sullivan said in an essay that in architecture "form follows function". What I think all art has in common is that it attempts to bring an idea or vision into concrete being. We might say that some modern works embody an idea or vision which is quite trivial, aesthetically speaking and that their cultural value consists only in their reflective critical relationship with what had come to be considered "the canon" in an institutionalized monolithic, linear view of art history. — Janus

I'd follow along with your thought -- though only on the pretense that it's one of the aesthetic ways of bringing sense to art.

In the end -- well, you know artists. They'll figure out a way to dismantle the thought, given time. And won't even have the courtesy of telling you how.

I disagree with premise 1 -- I think people spend money on all manner of useless things. Tarot readings? Cigarettes? Kellogs Frosted flakes? — Moliere

It seems a very dour usage to call everything unpragmatic "useless". All these things may be unpragmatic, but they all serve needs.

By "art industry" I was mainly referring to the entertainment industry, which is exclusively in the business of producing art (I'm assuming we are past "mass art isn't art"). It seems odd to say that a multi trillion dollar global industry consists in creating useless things. Games are useless? Novels are useless? Music is useless?

But as always, we can find interesting exceptions. Satie claimed that his "furnishing music" was strictly pragmatic -- it was meant to add to the decor (great quote from him on Wikpedia: "Furnishing music completes one's property"). This sounds like he wanted it understood as non-art, but no one agrees! — J

I don't see this as an exception at all. Decor serves no pragmatic function, it is perfectly possible to live in an abode with no decor at all. Decor serves only to modulate the emotional state of the inhabitant; this is thoroughly, unproblematically art.

Frankly, Im ready to abandon all this talk of "artworld" entirely, and institutional theories of art. It seems oriented around the question of "what is fine art" rather than "what is art". Perhaps this was the interesting question in Danto's day, but today, to me at least, it seems far too elitist. What separates "fine art" from everyday art frankly doesn't seem as philosophically interesting as what separates art as a whole from non art.

I will try to be concise.

So do you have a story, or explanation, for what happened to (so-called, in your view) art in the 20th century? — J

Politics, technology, economics and numerous other items. Pretty sure you can extrapolate from the dynamic changes over the past century and a half that there has been substantial changes in how societies function and interact on a global and local scale. Art is part of the human exchange and experience so will necessarily reflect these changes in some form or another (some even believe art preempts these changes).

Why were the lines not drawn where you clearly see them? — J

I am pretty sure they were drawn by many and over human history have been something of debate and interest. The difference in the current era is likely more about the rate of change due to the numerous factors briefly outlined above.

Are you suggesting that the artworld did not see those lines, though they were clear, or that they saw them but disregarded them? — J

I was not suggesting either. Since you have brought the historic lens into play here I would probably say yes to both. Some did see, some didn't. Some did disregard them, some didn't. Again, my emphasis on this historical perpsective would be on the rate of change.

Just trying to understand how to fit your view into a historical narrative. — J

Hopefully that sketches out roughly what I think about the historical aspect?

When folks play dumb, sometimes I buy in and explain, other times I don't bother. It's only mildly annoying.

How do you get to that point? Assertion, or do you have an argument? — Moliere

I will have to think about how to answer this more fully. It is a deeply serious question and there is a deeply serious response (I will avoid the word 'answer'). Hopefully I can articulate this more by responding to your other points. Hopefully!

100% NO. If a work is not emotionally moving it is absolutely not art. There is no exception.
— I like sushi

You still standing by that one? — Moliere

Yes. The only caveat being that I fully understand this is not a binary item. It is a gradable item. I am by no means stating that I regard ALL conceptual art as non-art because some of it has aesthetic qualities to it that are parallel to paintings, poetry, etc.,.

In further opposition someone might argue that many other human experiences involve 'being moved' and therefore they are art too. That is not what I am saying either.

To get to the initial question you asked I think it is precisely this kind of Venn diagramic thinking that misses the point. The quantities are not legiable intellectually, yet the message within some artwork can certainly provoke intellectual thought and contemplation.

The philosopher in me will say "Well.. since you done said that it seems we can reason about it. And I'm very certain that what we just watched, which involved us emotionally, did not involve them at all -- so is it art?" — Moliere

The question is the degree to which we can reason about that serves our purpose.

Open question there -- how do you resolve those differences in experience of art, given your strong stance that if a work is not emotionally moving it is not art? — Moliere

Experience; meaning perspective and exposure. Everyone is different and tastes vary. Nothing extraordinary about this.

Something is not Art to someone if it does nothing for them. This is purely about the artistic eye rather than the artwork. When I say the majority of 'conceptual art' is not Art I say so not due to my artistic eye -- and admittedly I could change my mind in the void between the non-existent terms of Art and Non-art in the purest sense -- rather I am looking at the intent and purpose of the work not judging it based on taste.

The real life example I gave of the plant and emails is precisely what I mean by the Work being about the Concept and wholly absent of aesthetic qualities. It does not move the observer, it only makes them think about the rationality of the item/s on display. It is not Good or Bad, it is making a point only not expressing anything on a level of emotional intensitive beyond the mundane.

IF a conceptual Work really reaching into someone and insensifies a previously mundane experience, then it is shifting towards Artwork.

I have even gone into the whole area of the different mediums of Art and my thoughts on how static art and temporal art moves people in different ways in respect to space and time. I can explain that further, not sure if you recall what I said about this before? As examples, paintings and sculptures are static while poetry and dance is temporal. The former is captured in a static moment yet can be perceived spacial in differing ways (a talented artist will lead you through a piece of artwork) expanding beyond its singular definition, whereas the latter is experienced across time from beginning to end (a talented artistic will also capture you in static moments) contracting the temporal space into an emotional singularity. We can look into various mediums such as film, music and various combinations and genres much, much more deeply to gain understanding of this too.

Here it becomes more apparent what conceptual work is doing. It is clearly working to provoke thought above and beyond feeling. We are being asked to understand it either by stretching it out or by reducing it down (depending on the medium).

A static conceptual work (object) sits still for us to observe. We contemplate it and analysis it with a dull sense of aesthetic sensibility at best.

A static Artwork does not sit still, it encapsulates feelings and carries us with them.

I'm not sure I like it(EDIT: conceptual art as a whole) -- I'm arguing on the categorical side that it is art, good or bad. — Moliere

What makes it Art for you then?

Which usually means I'm missing something -- what is it about this that so many other people like that I'm not seeing? — Moliere

I would say it is the intellectual exporation rather than its aesthetic appeal - because there is no sensorial beauty or emotional movement.

I think if we just believe what people say (ie. "It is Art!") then there is a problem. A plea to our own ignorance does nothing to reveal what the reasons are for them holoding the stance that all conceptual work is actually artwork.

Someone placing a crucifix in a jar and filling it with their own urine is more or less a poltical statement of sorts that encourages people to engage with theological views, views on Art and aesthetics and could even be an example of the human use of symbols and icons in modern society. All of this is intellectual at its heart; and possibly an interesting exploration of religious life and secular life. If it shocks or provokes negativity then there is emotional movement, but I would look upon such reactions as being inflicted on the person rather than being experienced wholesale. The viewer, if appalled, is not in emotional engagement, they are looking upon the item as a piece of propaganda.

One could argue that this is still emotionally engaging the viewer, so it is Art in some respect. I could agree with the point that it 'moves' the viewer, but I would still not call it Art as many things can move people. It was produced to be viewed, yet the emphasis is strongly upon the intellect rather than taking someone on an emotional journey. I have no real issue with people disagreeing the finer points, but I have issues if people insist upon Art being Art where it lacks reasonably prominent emotional content.

What is an artwork?

A Modernist artwork may be defined as any object real or imagined that has no utilitarian purpose that has been observed or thought about by a human as an aesthetic, which is about a sense of order within complexity.

A Postmodernist artwork may be defined as any object real or imagined that has no utilitarian purpose that has been observed or thought about by a human as a metaphor for social concerns, which is about the collapse of grand narratives leading to plurality and fragmentation.

Modernism and Postmodernism
Step one. Any object real or imagined, such as a hammer or Voldemort

But, objects like hammers are thought of as utilitarian rather then art. Therefore remove any utilitarian purpose to the object and just consider the hammer in the absence of having any purpose

Step two. Any object real or imagined that has no utilitarian purpose

But, if such an object has never been observed or thought about by a human it can never be an artwork

Step three. Any object real or imagined that has no utilitarian purpose that has been observed or thought about by a human

But, even so, this doesn't mean that the human observing or thinking about the object treats it as an artwork.

From now, there are two different directions, Modernism and Postmodernism.

Modernism
It only becomes an artwork if the human responds to the aesthetics of the object. Note that an aesthetic response can be of beauty, such as Monet's "Water lilies", or can be of ugliness, such as Picasso/s "Guernica".

Step four. Any object real or imagined that has no utilitarian purpose that has been observed or thought about by a human as an aesthetic.

But what is an aesthetic. Francis Hutcheson amongst others describes it as a sense of order within complexity.

Step five. Any object real or imagined that has no utilitarian purpose that has been observed or thought about by a human as an aesthetic, which is a sense of order within complexity.

Postmodernism
It only becomes an artwork if the human responds to the object as a metaphor for social concerns.

Step six. Any object real or imagined that has no utilitarian purpose that has been observed or thought about by a human as a metaphor for social concerns.

But what are social concerns. Jean-Francois Lyotard wrote about the collapse of grand narratives leading to plurality and fragmentation.

Step seven. Any object real or imagined that has no utilitarian purpose that has been observed or thought about by a human as a metaphor for social concerns, which is about the collapse of grand narratives leading to plurality and fragmentation.

Hopefully that sketches out roughly what I think about the historical aspect? — I like sushi

Yes, roughly. Is it appropriate for me to ask into some specifics? (You don't have to pursue this with me if it's a pain in the neck.)

The difference in the current era [about where lines are drawn between art and non-art] is likely more about the rate of change due to the numerous factors briefly outlined above. — I like sushi

I'll take "current era" to mean the era in which something like Fountain, or the plant-and-email piece, could be considered art.

Some did see [those lines], some didn't. Some did disregard them, some didn't. — I like sushi

To me, this implies that there's a sort of counter-artworld, or shadow artworld, in which works like Fountain are not considered art. Is that what you mean? My question was meant to focus on consensus, on why conceptual art, understood in the broadest terms, is now accepted by the artworld as an important type of art. On your view, this would have been a mistake. So how did this mistaken consensus carry the day? I guess I'm asking if you could be more specific about "rate of change" and the other factors you mention. What do you think actually happened when, say, Warhol offered his "Brillo Box" as art, and the artworld, at first reluctant, came to agree?

I'm assuming that neither of us would be satisfied with the "My kid could paint that" response. You don't think that gullible gallery owners were hoaxed by mischievous and rapacious loft-dwellers wearing berets -- or so I assume. So what did happen?

Yes, roughly. Is it appropriate for me to ask into some specifics? (You don't have to pursue this with me if it's a pain in the neck.) — J

Not at all. Hopefully not derailing the thread.

I'll take "current era" to mean the era in which something like Fountain, or the plant-and-email piece, could be considered art. — J

The last century or so. The shift has picked up momentum with the advent of globalisation and technological developments.

To me, this implies that there's a sort of counter-artworld, or shadow artworld, in which works like Fountain are not considered art. Is that what you mean? — J

I am not at all interested in talking about some abstract Art World.

My question was meant to focus on consensus, on why conceptual art, understood in the broadest terms, is now accepted by the artworld as an important type of art. — J

Maybe it is by The Art World, but there are people who do not regard a lot of conceptual art as art. Roger Scruton is one prominent example.

Do you think the concensus in the street would be the same? If you asked the average joe to to say what is or isn't art would they agree that a urinal is?

On your view, this would have been a mistake. So how did this mistaken consensus carry the day? — J

I do not think it has. I think more than anything abstract artwork riled some people, but then they came around to it, and then conceptual work did a similar thing. The difference with conceptual work is that it is often nothing to do with art as it is an intellectual exercise (very fascinating but not art).

Brillo Box is something that does something quite unique and is a better example of a work that straddles both areas. It reveals beauty in the mundane and presents how common day-to-day trappings can bleed into pop-culture giving higher value to something often less appreciated.

Perhaps to understand what I mean you would not call a single sentence a novel, nor a paragraph nor a page. You could write something that resembles a novel on a page perhaps, but in sentence I doubt it (unless the sentence is a page long!). This shows how there is a poitn where something is or is not art, and I frame this in regards to the weight of emotional engagement.

Anyway, baby playign up. Later :)

A Modernist artwork may be defined as any object real or imagined that has no utilitarian purpose that has been observed or thought about by a human as an aesthetic, which is about a sense of order within complexity. — RussellA

Is this right? Can't utilitarian objects also be understood as art? Think of works by William Morris, for example, or Greek Attic vases. And then there’s conceptual art.

Decor serves no pragmatic function, it is perfectly possible to live in an abode with no decor at all. Decor serves only to modulate the emotional state of the inhabitant; this is thoroughly, unproblematically art. — hypericin

I can see it that way. "Pragmatic" can be understood in a variety of senses.

Frankly, Im ready to abandon all this talk of "artworld" entirely, and institutional theories of art. It seems oriented around the question of "what is fine art" rather than "what is art". Perhaps this was the interesting question in Danto's day, but today, to me at least, it seems far too elitist. What separates "fine art" from everyday art frankly doesn't seem as philosophically interesting as what separates art as a whole from non art. — hypericin

This is really interesting to me. I'm going to try to write an OP that will go into some of this in more detail; we've already hijacked @Moliere's thread for too long! Been rereading a lot of Danto and have noticed some nuances in what he's saying that might make sense of the whole "fine art" question. For instance, in his essay "The Art World Revisited" he disavows a strict "institutional theory" interpretation, which he calls "a creative misunderstanding of my work by George Dickie." And he says we need "a set of reasons" for why something is art, not merely a baptizing by some in-group.

I am not at all interested in talking about some abstract Art World. — I like sushi

You raise the same concern here as @hypericin: Are we being too parochial in caring what a designated artworld might think?

In general, I read you as wanting to set up some criteria to divide art from non-art, based on audience response. This is a different strategy from using criteria based on the object itself (what is it made of, who made it, how difficult was it, etc.) but shares the idea that art can be discovered. This idea is what Danto and others question, as do I, but maybe I'll go into that some more in another post.

I'm going to try to write an OP that will go into some of this in more detail; we've already hijacked Moliere's thread for too long! — J

:up:

What makes it Art for you then? — I like sushi

I'm pretty much in favor of an institutional theory of art -- though my notion of "institution" is wider than "museum".

By my thinking on that theory -- Duchamp's Fountain did not quite make the cut to art in his time, though I think it admirable he didn't influence others' judgments on the matter in the committee he was a part of. But then it did after the notion of "conceptual art" became a part of the artworld. (this all very off the cuff -- I'm not an art historian, I'm reading wikipedia while thinking aloud with friends) -- the Stieglitz photograph and the sort of late appreciation of Duchamp is what makes it part of the artworld such that Duchamp could even be seen as a sort of ubermensch of that artworld.

"conceptual" as defined against "retinal" art -- very much in reaction to the traditional notions that art must adhere to such and such on pain of being not-art.

Categorically: if it's in a museum of art as an artobject then it's art. LIke it or hate it, it's in the museum. And some conceptual art ends up there too. So, like it or hate it, it's part of the category, and so can serve as a counter-example to any descriptive theory of art that refuses it unless that descriptive theory of art justifies its exclusion.

Categorically: if it's in a museum of art as an artobject then it's art. LIke it or hate it, it's in the museum. — Moliere

I tend to agree. The debate about what counts as art seems largely pointless. It's more interesting to talk about what is influential or vital art, versus what is forgettable, while recognising that all of this is contingent on values and tastes. If it's presented for aesthetic appreciation, it's probably art.

The debate about what deserves to be called art is a kind of gatekeeping, based on the idea that for something to be art, it must be exceptional. But art can be dull or shit and still be art.

It seems a very dour usage to call everything unpragmatic "useless". All these things may be unpragmatic, but they all serve needs. — hypericin

I'd rather say that it's dour to insist that what serves needs must be "useful"

I'm doubtful of the aesthetics of use as a justification for why to include this or that artwork. "serving needs" is OK enough, but I'm hesitant due to it looking like the same structure of justifying art due to it being useful for this or that.

By "art industry" I was mainly referring to the entertainment industry, which is exclusively in the business of producing art (I'm assuming we are past "mass art isn't art"). It seems odd to say that a multi trillion dollar global industry consists in creating useless things. Games are useless? Novels are useless? Music is useless?

Not really -- they have uses. I want to separate those uses from their aesthetic value, though. At least in order to consider something aside from use in evaluating something as a work of art.

I'm all for the wider artworld -- games, novels, music, whatever -- I just don't think it's valuable due to its use, or would rather shy away from the uses of art towards the reasons we're attracted to it.

In general, I read you as wanting to set up some criteria to divide art from non-art, based on audience response. This is a different strategy from using criteria based on the object itself (what is it made of, who made it, how difficult was it, etc.) but shares the idea that art can be discovered. — J

No I am not. This is one facet of art. My view is based on the artists intent, the audience, the effect on people who view and produce art, and looking upon items with an artistic eye.

Brillo Box can be seen as something like someone noticing something in nature and framing it is a certain way to show it to people. The primary point of Art is to make an emotional connection.

An institute is a poor example of the essence of something. It is open to nefarious political manipulation, not something in the Public Sphere. If you want to cage an animal you can it behave in very predictable ways. Art is like an animal and to frame it as some institutional item is frankly ridiculous.

I actually deleted a paragraph earlier but now I think it is appropriate to mention this straneg habit people have of using an individual lens to view nebulous ideas. I am not looking at this from ONE position. I have considered many items and my complete answer woudl be an amalgam of many things. A one view only perspective is a terrible approach when it comes to understanding anything with any reasonable depth. I have mentioned ONE primary criteria of many.

Edit: Meaning I think it is not simply about the audience or the artist, it is about both and the relations between. In some sense any institutionalisation of Art is moving the experience away from the human experience. In the Art World critics of across every medium of Art have voiced disapproval only to change their minds due to the majority. The question is then how much of this is pandering to popular opinion and how much is genuine in the critique of Art. The critique of Art is parallel to Art in general. It is a rationalisation of a highly irrational realm. This is where the problems arise in asigning value to a work as Art or Non-art.

With technologies such as photography Art seeps into other mediums. We should not confuse the variety of mediums as expressing anything other Art.

My first response to the OP was to consider the tools we use. The drawing is more closely related to writing apparatus, whilst a paintbrush is historically associated with replicating images, both realistically and abstractly.