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. — hypericin

I would say that there are two communities here, namely the one which rejected it and also the one which accepted it. You seem to have identified the one which rejected it as the community and then inferred that the status of Rite of Spring is therefore not communal. This seems to ignore the second community in question.

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. — hypericin

Well, they rest on the intention of the creator, and that intention bears on the ontology of the object qua history. But the whole question turns on what it means "to be used aesthetically." For example:

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. — hypericin

Why is "modulating the emotional state of the inhabitant" not a pragmatic function? This is but one example of the way in which the meaning of "aesthetic use" is elusive. It is also, I think, an indication that the dichotomies being proffered do not hold up when is comes to aesthetics, unless we want to say that aesthetic experience ceases to be aesthetic experience once it recognizes itself self-consciously and seeks itself "pragmatically."

For the Medievals the crux is that goodness and beauty interpenetrate, and in particular it is the fact that the beautiful is to be sought and enjoyed. We could think about the "pragmatic" as what is a means to an end, and art appreciation as an end in itself, but beyond that the two concepts will interpenetrate (and a schema which strongly divides means from ends will lack plausibility).

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. — Tom Storm

Yes, an object may be both beautiful and utilitarian, such as William Morris wallpaper. But these properties are independent of each other. The beauty of the wallpaper does not affect its function of covering over a wall, and it fulfils its function of covering over a wall whether or not it is beautiful.

A utilitarian object can also be artistic, but a utilitarian object doesn't need to be beautiful in order to be utilitarian.

Conceptual art is part of Postmodernism and Postmodernism specifically excludes the beautiful in its rejection of Modernism.

In what sense is conceptual art intended to be either beautiful or utilitarian?

In what sense is conceptual art intended to be either beautiful or utilitarian? — RussellA

Well, I don’t think art is about beauty. I think it’s about evoking an aesthetic experience in a particular context; one shaped by culture, intention, and the viewer’s own perspective. Beauty might be part of it, but it’s not the point.

Well, I don’t think art is about beauty. I think it’s about evoking an aesthetic experience in a particular context; one shaped by culture, intention, and the viewer’s own perspective. Beauty might be part of it, but it’s not the point. — Tom Storm

I agree. That is why I wrote on page 6

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".

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

In what sense is conceptual art intended to be aesthetic?

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. — I like sushi

A one view only perspective is a terrible approach when it comes to understanding anything with any reasonable depth. — I like sushi

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

?

I hope it's clear why the 1st two statements seem to contradict the next two.

I hope it's clear why the 1st two statements seem to contradict the next two. — J

I see no contradiction. Simply stating that Art is X does not mean it cannot be viewed in a variety of ways within X.

The artistic eye is not Art. The audience is disconnected and connected to the piece of art. The source of the emotion is nowhere other than in the people involved. The piece of art engages this emotional response.

This is one item of what makes an artwork an artwork. Obviously a leaf on a tree can give a sublime emotion of beauty, but it is not an artwork simply because it is beautiful. Many (or rather any) items can initiate such emotional responses, but it is the intensity of them that makes something more or less one thing than another.

A rabbit is not a car. A house it not a fruit. A concept is not art. Art can express concepts though, but that is not a defining principle of an artwork. There is no contradiction I have just let a lot unsaid because there is a helluva lot to say about this subject.

I do not need intent to produce an artwork. I do express myself emotionally when I do. It is an exploration of places and times between and around. The same goes for the audience. The artwork itself is merely a vehicle that appears concrete in and of itself. The solidity of it -- in whatever medium -- is enhanced by its beauty (or juxtapostion to beauty).

A urinal can be an object of art. It was designed and made in that particular form, by someone, and most probably expressed something beyond mere functionality to some degree. There is unwrit appeal imprinted upon every human production. We can look upon every object engaged with as Art in this respect, but then if every thing we touch is Art why use the term Art when Handmade or Machinemade serfves that purpose.

I feel like we might be going off track. I am willing to keep this going elsewhere if need be?

I feel like we might be going off track. I am willing to keep this going elsewhere if need be? — I like sushi

Actually, I'm trying to get an OP together that might be a better place. Let's hold off till then -- thanks!

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

Not dour, just proper English. It doesn't seem to make sense that something can both meet needs and be useless.

You seem to use "use" in a way that excludes aesthetic use. This seems unhelpful to me, neither humans nor any other animal behave in ways that are useless, that don't meet needs or serve any purpose. If from the start you presume the behavior is useless it will be impossible to understand. How can you understand a useless, meaningless behavior?

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. — Moliere

If we are clear that the use of art includes , for instance, making us feel certain ways, then the use and attraction of art are inseparable. That we are so strongly attracted to art is powerful evidence that art is useful, that it meets needs and serves a purpose.

You seem to use "use" in a way that excludes aesthetic use. This seems unhelpful to me, neither humans nor any other animal behave in ways that are useless, that don't meet needs or serve any purpose. If from the start you presume the behavior is useless it will be impossible to understand. How can you understand a useless, meaningless behavior? — hypericin

Not a useless, meaningless behavior -- but a useless meaningful behavior, or whatever else might substitute for "behavior"

If we are clear that the use of art includes , for instance, making us feel certain ways, then the use and attraction of art are inseparable. That we are so strongly attracted to art is powerful evidence that art is useful, that it meets needs and serves a purpose. — hypericin

Heh, I'm afraid I sit on the other side here. That people find uses for art is not what makes art, art. Even if art serves some purpose, and there's some evolutionary/sociological purpose that explains this -- that's not what I'm talking about. That'd be the space of causes, rather than reasons for attraction.

The use of art includes making us feel certain ways -- but that's also the use of propaganda, for instance, which we'd not call art.

The use of art includes making us feel certain ways -- but that's also the use of propaganda, for instance, which we'd not call art. — Moliere

Vietnamese propaganda posters are considered Art by some -- including myself. I think propaganda often makes use of art to portray a message. This point may make it easier to see where I am coming from in terms of conceptual art not being art. It is not that ALL propaganda and ALL conceptual art is not art, it is about the intensity of the Art elements -- one key aspect I refer to as 'moving' the subject.

Anyone dedicated knows that there are techiniques they use, intentionally or not, that play on human perception. There is always an element of 'deceit' (maybe too strong a word) in this. An instance of this woudl be how horror movies use low frequency sounds that cause all humans to feel like they are being watched. This is obviously useful if you are trying to induce a certain emotional response to the film they are viewing. An artwork has to draw the eye or ear and -- primarily -- the feelings of those exposed to it. If there is an area of sensory experience I am unsure of when it comes to Art it would be cookery. This I find hard to place within the realm of Art in the sense of Artwork. I think it is in areas like this that we have one term 'art' and another 'Art,' where the former is more in lien with the ancient Greek 'arete' rather than referring to something liek a painting. Of course, the problem is we can talk about the arete of the Art, or art of the Art. This is where I think the mongrel language of English causes confusion.

To get back to the whole issue of Drawing and Painting (got rather sidetracked there!) I do think the element of space comes into play quite substantially. A drawing is often much smaller due to the size of the tools and the application of material onto the paper. A painting has a much larger reaching scope.

An artist out to produce a work -- in any medium -- will often begin with pencil and paper; be this to write dialogue, capture a poetic moment or literally make a rough sketch. The daily use of a tool is not something we find readily in a paintbrush compared to a pen or pencil.

I think the main difference is likely in these elements. The size and scope, as well as the daily familiarity with both tools and materials used in the process. Paint can be made from many things, so there is more of a variety in terms of texture that does not readily lend itself to paintings. There is the fluidity of painting to and layering, that can be something form of ink drawing can produce but is not exactly prone to function in that way.

I do think with more impressionistic and abstracted styles there could be an argument that painters have adopted drawing techniques such as making use of hatching techniques in their own way. Saying that, more ancient forms of Art used such abstraction early on, so realism is likely the 'unusual' case historically for a number of reasons.

@hypericin

You've contrasted pragmatic function with usefulness. But when Oscar Wilde said that "all art is quite useless"—and I believe @Moliere is expressing basically the same thought—it is precisely art's lack of pragmatic function that is meant. The idea is that art's value is not contingent upon a measurable, definite, or clearly apparent outcome. So the concept of usefulness here is instrumental utility—basically another way of saying "pragmatic function". I think Oscar Wilde's use of useless might be better than yours, which seems too expansive to be ... useful.

That said, the statement that art is useless is intentionally provocative, since in modernity we are so used to justifying our practices according to their pragmatic utility; I believe people instinctively want to push back against it because they think it's a devaluation. What I like about Wilde's aphorism is that it challenges this instinctive (I would say ideological) association of value with utility, reversing it to imply that the higher the value, the less intrumentally functional something becomes. (It's no coincidence that the aphorism seems very Adornian)

...art is useless -at least when compared, say, to the work of a plumber, or a doctor, or a railroad engineer. But is uselessness a bad thing? Does a lack of practical purpose mean that books and paintings and string quartets are simply a waste of our time? Many people think so. But I would argue that it is the very uselessness of art that gives it its value -and that the making of art is what distinguishes us from all other creatures who inhabit this planet, that it is, essentially, what defines us as human beings. To do something for the pure pleasure and beauty of doing it. Think of the effort involved, the long hours of practice and discipline required to become an accomplished pianist or dancer. All the suffering and hard work, all the sacrifices in order to achieve something that is utterly and magnificently... useless.

Paul Auster

Postmodernist artworks certainly don't lack pragmatic function or practical purpose.

Feminist artists worked to create a different cultural narrative that gave women a place to be heard where they could express themselves through their art and engage with the world through encouraging various social and political conversations.
https://artincontext.org/feminist-art/

What I like about Wilde's aphorism is that it challenges this instinctive (I would say ideological) association of value with utility, reversing it to imply that the higher the value, the less intrumentally functional something becomes. — Jamal

Which seems to say that art is an end in itself rather than a means to an end:

We could think about the "pragmatic" as what is a means to an end, and art appreciation as an end in itself, but beyond that the two concepts will interpenetrate (and a schema which strongly divides means from ends will lack plausibility). — Leontiskos

But the nub is that things which are sought as ends in themselves are still valued. So moving on to the key and somewhat ambiguous claim of your post...

The idea is that art's value is not contingent upon a measurable, definite, or clearly apparent outcome. — Jamal

I would say that the value of a means lies in moving one towards an end, whereas the value of an end is self-apparent, i.e. the intrinsic value of enjoyment or rest in the end itself.

So if we break down your claim, we could say, "Art's value is not contingent upon [... an] outcome." That's actually sufficient, given that nothing, insofar as it is sought as an end in itself, is valued as contingent upon an outcome. With that sufficient condition aside, we could look at the other three:

1. Art's value is not contingent upon anything measurable.
2. Art's value is not contingent upon anything definite.
3. Art's value is not contingent upon anything which is clearly apparent.

(1) follows from the means-end analysis, given that measurement is never an end in itself. (2) and (3) are not obviously true. Of course, I am potentially obscuring your meaning by separating out the "contingent upon an outcome" aspect, but I want to say that all of these debates boil down to the means-end concept. Note too that the means-end analysis is always intention-relative, for example in the way that aesthetic appreciation is always susceptible to the degradation which subtly transforms one's intentional participation from that of end to that of means.

(This is very similar to moral debates in modernity, for in both cases there is the assumption that if there is no instrumental rationale then there is no rationale, and on that assumption any end in itself must be nonsensical. Moral obligation and aesthetic appreciation are two kinds of ends in themselves.)

Not dour, just proper English. It doesn't seem to make sense that something can both meet needs and be useless.

You seem to use "use" in a way that excludes aesthetic use. This seems unhelpful to me, neither humans nor any other animal behave in ways that are useless, that don't meet needs or serve any purpose. If from the start you presume the behavior is useless it will be impossible to understand. How can you understand a useless, meaningless behavior? — hypericin

I think "useless" is too vague a word for this debate, even though on linguistic grounds I think it is wrong to say that art is meant to be used. What is used is always leveraged to gain something else. What is used is a means to an end. Art is not meant to be used (although it can be used, and this is part of the confusion, namely that it is incorrect to attempt to prescind from intention when we speak about art). Similarly, it seems strange to claim that aesthetic appreciation fulfills a "need." I would say it fulfills a desire but not a need, or that at the very least one is stretching the notion of need/necessity.

Art is something which is meant to stand alone, as an end in itself. It is not meant to be instrumental to some further purpose, except in perhaps a rather mystical sense. But this does not mean that it has no value, or no rationale, or no desirability (i.e. goodness).

Vietnamese propaganda posters are considered Art by some -- including myself. I think propaganda often makes use of art to portray a message. This point may make it easier to see where I am coming from in terms of conceptual art not being art. It is not that ALL propaganda and ALL conceptual art is not art, it is about the intensity of the Art elements -- one key aspect I refer to as 'moving' the subject.

Anyone dedicated knows that there are techiniques they use, intentionally or not, that play on human perception. There is always an element of 'deceit' (maybe too strong a word) in this. An instance of this woudl be how horror movies use low frequency sounds that cause all humans to feel like they are being watched. This is obviously useful if you are trying to induce a certain emotional response to the film they are viewing. An artwork has to draw the eye or ear and -- primarily -- the feelings of those exposed to it. If there is an area of sensory experience I am unsure of when it comes to Art it would be cookery. This I find hard to place within the realm of Art in the sense of Artwork. I think it is in areas like this that we have one term 'art' and another 'Art,' where the former is more in lien with the ancient Greek 'arete' rather than referring to something liek a painting. Of course, the problem is we can talk about the arete of the Art, or art of the Art. This is where I think the mongrel language of English causes confusion. — I like sushi

So, to put it in a phrase -- that which is art is that which moves the subject.

That said, the statement that art is useless is intentionally provocative, since in modernity we are so used to justifying our practices according to their pragmatic utility; I believe people instinctively want to push back against it because they think it's a devaluation. What I like about Wilde's aphorism is that it challenges this instinctive (I would say ideological) association of value with utility, reversing it to imply that the higher the value, the less intrumentally functional something becomes. (It's no coincidence that the aphorism seems very Adornian) — Jamal

You understand me aright. I generally see the fetish of "use" as a sort of philosophical shrug -- oh, it's useful, so that'll do as far as reason is concerned.

When I think art, in particular, invents new values for itself -- in order for something to be useful it has to have some end, as @Leontiskos points out, and it has no end. Art is an end unto itself to the point that it judges itself bad or good on criteria it invents itself.

I'm good with saying it's an "end unto itself", i.e. that art has intrinsic value. To define intrinsic value I'd compare it to extrinsic value through the question: would you do it if money were no thing? If money is (EDIT: not) a part of the reason you care about something that's an intrinsic value. Blah, still confusing. I want to say "If money is the only reason you do something that's extrinsic value, and if you'd do something even if you're not paid money that's intrinsic value"

That's not to say that doing something for money annuls its intrinsic value -- the question is about what motivates the action, predominantly. If money were not an issue would you still do it anyways? If not, then that's an explicitly extrinsic value -- i.e. work. It's done for something else rather than the thing itself.

But I think "end unto itself" is about as vague as "family resemblance" -- so in either analysis, be it ends-means or family resemblance, there's still the question of "What makes a painting a work of art, in this analysis?"

I think Oscar Wilde's use of useless might be better than yours, which seems too expansive to be ... useful. — Jamal

Better? It's tricky. I think the quote works because it is clear while deviating from normal usage. In most contexts "useless" connotes no utility at all, not just no instrumental utility.

What if it were not Oscar Wilde, but a 19th century schoolmarm, or a Trump appointee, saying "art is useless". Or, a friend says "that movie was useless". The meaning would be pretty clear: art, the movie, has no value. Plenty of things are 'useless' in this sense, it is not so broad a meaning as to be useless.

But I think no one here believes that, that is not why I am objecting. Instead I'm arguing against the idea that art somehow stands on its own, intrinsically meritorious, disconnected from human need and purpose. The very fact that so many are driven to devote their whole lives to art's creation, and the fact that we are seemingly driven to saturate our environment with art, speaks instead to its deep connection to human purpose, instead of an inexplicable obsession with useless things. Even if we are not always explicitly conscious of what that purpose is. It is our job as philosophers to make the implicit explicit, only then can we actually understand what we are investigating.

What if it were not Oscar Wilde, but a 19th century schoolmarm, or a Trump appointee, saying "art is useless". Or, a friend says "that movie was useless". The meaning would be pretty clear: art, the movie, has no value. Plenty of things are 'useless' in this sense, it is not so broad a meaning as to be useless. — hypericin

That's the very thing that I'm speaking against in saying art is useless at its best -- it has value, though the schoolmarm or friend doesn't understand it.

I rather think they don't understand it because "use" is so often appealed to that they can't understand why something might be valuable aside from its "use".

Instead I'm arguing against the idea that art somehow stands on its own, intrinsically meritorious, disconnected from human need and purpose. The very fact that so many are driven to devote their whole lives to art's creation, and the fact that we are seemingly driven to saturate our environment with art, speaks instead to its deep connection to human purpose, instead of an inexplicable obsession with useless things. Even if we are not always explicitly conscious of what that purpose is. It is our job as philosophers to make the implicit explicit, only then can we actually understand what we are investigating. — hypericin

I'd only note that "making the implicit explicit" doesn't need "use" to describe a value. It's not for-this or for-that, but rather for-itself.

Similarly, we have sex because it feels good. We can find a purpose, like reproduction, but that's not why we do it. We do it because it attracts us, it feels good, and we want it. We have sex because we want to rather than for some purpose.

I'd rather say that the very fact that so many people decide to devote their whole lives to art's creation means that it's a human activity devoid of purpose outside of itself -- we do it because we like to.

The very fact that so many are driven to devote their whole lives to art's creation, and the fact that we are seemingly driven to saturate our environment with art, speaks instead to its deep connection to human purpose, instead of an inexplicable obsession with useless things. — hypericin

This does not even begin to address or even acknowledge my points.

It is our job as philosophers to make the implicit explicit, only then can we actually understand what we are investigating. — hypericin

But some of us think you're thinking about it wrong.

I'd rather say that the very fact that so many people decide to devote their whole lives to art's creation means that it's a human activity devoid of purpose outside of itself -- we do it because we like to. — Moliere

:up:

So if we break down your claim, we could say, "Art's value is not contingent upon [... an] outcome." That's actually sufficient, given that nothing, insofar as it is sought as an end in itself, is valued as contingent upon an outcome — Leontiskos

:up:

No. It is an element of what makes art Art. An essential one though.

Similarly, we have sex because it feels good. We can find a purpose, like reproduction, but that's not why we do it. We do it because it attracts us, it feels good, and we want it. We have sex because we want to rather than for some purpose. — Moliere

"We have sex because it feels good. We do art because we like it." In what sense is this supposed to be philosophy?

We have sex for all sorts of reasons beyond "feeling good", such as, to strengthen bonding with a partner, to affirm a claim upon a partner, for social status, to explore sexual identity, because it is socially normative to do so. But most crucially, you speak of the drive to reproduce as if it somehow stood outside of the way sex feels good, and the way we feel impelled to have sex? When in truth, these are two facets of the exact same phenomenon? How can you understand our feelings without the reproductive drive, and how can you understand how the reproductive drive is effectuated without our feelings?

That is "useless sex", sex divorced from all meaning, purpose, context, and understanding, so that it "just feels good".

"We have sex because it feels good. We do art because we like it." In what sense is this supposed to be philosophy?

We have sex for all sorts of reasons beyond "feeling good", such as, to strengthen bonding with a partner, to affirm a claim upon a partner, for social status, to explore sexual identity, because it is socially normative to do so. But most crucially, you speak of the drive to reproduce as if it somehow stood outside of the way sex feels good, and the way we feel impelled to have sex? When in truth, these are two facets of the exact same phenomenon? — hypericin

They may be two facets of the exact same phenomenon -- granting that what I want to focus upon is the non-purposive, the "useless", the "reason why something is attractive" beyond merely "feeling good" or "it serves reproductive functioning"

Mostly because I think those aren't the only reasons why art is attractive, or why we can see a painting as a painting: it's not just that the painting feels good, it's good for this or that reason.

EDIT: Or even bad for this or that reason, but still a painting for all that.

M'kay. So the reason conceptual art is not-art is because it lacks the essential characteristics of moving the subject?

But I think "end unto itself" is about as vague as "family resemblance" -- so in either analysis, be it ends-means or family resemblance, there's still the question of "What makes a painting a work of art, in this analysis?" — Moliere

It may be worth pointing out that recognizing that art is an end in itself does answer this current question of "use", but it does not provide the essence of art. After all, plenty of other things are ends in themselves, such as for example pleasure and friendship. By learning that aesthetic appreciation is not a means to an end, we have a better understanding of the phenomenon, but we have nevertheless not honed in on it in a truly singular way.

The other relevant question seems to be this:

Art is not meant to be used (although it can be used, and this is part of the confusion, namely that it is incorrect to attempt to prescind from intention when we speak about art). — Leontiskos

We can talk about an object apart from human intentions, and we can also talk about an object in a way that includes human intentions. In this thread there has been a great deal of equivocation between these two different ways of talking about an object. For example:

We have sex for all sorts of reasons beyond "feeling good"... — hypericin

If we talk about sex apart from intention then one can have sex for the sake of pleasure, or for the sake of procreation, or for the sake of bonding, or for some other reason, or for all of the above. And so sex can be used instrumentally, or it can be enjoyed as an end in itself, or it can even be both at the same time.

Art is similar, except that it is inherently ordered towards being enjoyed or appreciated as an end in itself. Thus when one instrumentalizes art they are no longer approaching it in the manner that it is meant to be approached. For example, in the film and book The Goldfinch, a rare painting is saved from a museum fire only to be used in various ways but never looked at or appreciated/enjoyed. A painting can be used as collateral in drug deals, but that is not the telos of art. It is not fundamentally what art is for. An artist does not sit down and say, "I am going to make something that will be ideal for collateral in a drug deal."

Now when we say the word "art" we are usually including the notion that it is to be approached aesthetically and as an end in itself. But a kind of reification can also occur where the word refers to the material object apart any such way of approaching it. So someone can say, "I am going to sell this piece of art and get rich," and thus use 'art' as an instrumental means to wealth. When someone uses art they are always doing something that falls away from the fundamental telos of art. This doesn't mean that it is necessarily bad or wrong - only that it is beside the real purpose of art, namely aesthetic appreciation. If we wanted to be very precise we would clearly distinguish art qua art from art qua use.

(And if @hypericin wonders what verb is properly applied to art rather than 'use', then I would recommend 'appreciate' or 'enjoy'. In the case of a painting we might say 'gaze' or 'contemplate'. It would be strange to walk up to someone viewing a painting at a museum and ask if they are done using the piece.)

Yes, I guess thats sums the emotional expression I am referring to. Just because I make this clear distinction it does not mean it is objectively discernable. We will have opinions on what degree of 'moving' is necessary and in what circumstances (as stated previously, I would not call a mountain Art but obviously nature 'moves' people).

We can look at a work of propaganda as possessing artistic qualities, be this through use of artistic composition or otherwise appealing to some indivdual beyond mere intellect. Just because the primary purpose of a work may be intellectual (in this case political) it can still be considered by some to possess enough 'movement' to influence the audience beyond the mere means of political/intellectual persuasion. In fact, many arguments are often dressed up in a pleasing aesthetic purposeless (or unconsciously chosen) so as to make the point hit home more cleanly. Metaphor and analogy can be put to good use in political discourse.

I see the use of art in propaganda as playing with artistic discourse/images so as to draw more appeal to an intellectual point. Of course, plenty of artwork does this too -- Banksy being an obvious case -- yet just because an artwork has a political message it does not necessarily detract from it being an artwork.

I think more confusion comes into play when art is performed rather than itemised. Going back to what I was referring to regarding the differences between static forms and temporal forms. Temporal forms of art (music, novels, plays, etc.,.) are more easily able carry political content without loses artistic significance, as they can play between 'scenes' and create interwoven narratives more than a painting or sculpture can. When Banksy shredded his work at the auction the Artwork became a symbol of a performance -- it gained a certain historical weight --- and if we refer the Act alone (the shredding) as Art we are effectively in the realm of what I would call a conceptual work NOT conceptual art.

I am curious what you think about my thoughts in the OP regarding the difference between painting and drawing? Where do you agree and disagree? Do you see much of a difference?

I agree. That is why I wrote on page 6

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".

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

In what sense is conceptual art intended to be aesthetic? — RussellA

Cool, sorry I didn’t see this earlier. I rate conceptual art as aesthetic, like any other art, because it engages our senses, and invites emotional and/or intellectual responses.

I'm not sure I would subscribe to the above definition of postmodern art - seems too proscriptive and limiting. Postmodern art is diverse and self-aware, tends to use irony and blurring of categories to challenge traditional ideas of originality, meaning, and distinctions between high and low culture. It often appeals to people who like puzzles, gimmicks, statements and ambiguities.