↪Brett
I agree with you, art sends a message. — Schzophr

But is the message sent by the artist the same as the message received by the audience? :chin:

But it's the audience that judges art, not the artist. — Pattern-chaser

Yes it’s true that the audience passes judgement on a piece of art. And they may judge it as entertaining in many different ways, but that’s only a response and it’s their subjective response. They may pass judgement in all ignorance of what they’re looking at. Is that proof that art is entertainment?

And if the audience judges art, not the artist, does that mean the audience determine what art is and that being entertaining is all that’s required?

It’s a bit like the tree falling in the forest: is it art if no one else sees it?

They may pass judgement in all ignorance of what they’re looking at. Is that proof that art is entertainment? — Brett

No, it's just a consequence of being the judge(s) of art.

And if the audience judges art, not the artist, does that mean the audience determine what art is and that being entertaining is all that’s required? — Brett

No, they don't decide what art is, the artist does that. The audience judge whether they like it or not.

I’ll go along with that.

Of course Zhoubotong will argue that ‘Transformers’ does exactly that. — Brett

Yes, ‘Transformers’ are a piece of art. But as I wrote previously:

"Being entertained is certainly a slice of what you can get through art. But it's a very small segment out of all experiences you can get. And I would say, among the most shallow, fleeting experiences at that."

So, a movie like ‘Transformers’ that does a lot of entertaining and not much of other things, is not an art with high value. But it's still an art.

Maybe to add, while it's not an art with high value in terms of whole art universe, it's a piece of art with high entertainment value. The difference between quality of it as an art generally and quality of it as an entertainment product is such that people don't even address this and similar products as art. But they are.

The primary difference (I believe) between the first and second painting is that the first is primarily about the subject and the second is about the artist (self portrait aside). — Brett

But what about the subject and the artist is it?

You could also extract an information in terms of race, and say, the difference is that one painting is about black person and the other is about white person.

But what is it actually about, beyond this surface identification?

What I'm saying is that art is not about an information, but about something that's being transferred beyond it's information or raw message. And that something is intangible, an experience.

That question aside for the moment, if the viewer can get out of a film what the filmmaker put into it then there is shared meaning, full stop. Quibbles along the lines that the meaning in the viewer's head is not "numerically identical" to the meaning in the film, which is not numerically identical to the meaning in the filmmaker's head on account of their different spatiotemporal locations would seem to be quite irrelevant. — Janus

When I made the book comment, for some reason you were focusing on the semantic aspect of that. I didn't bring that up for that reason--I wasn't thinking about the "semantic content of a book" at all. The idea is rather that two copies of the "same" book aren't identical, they're just similar. That's just like two electrons aren't identical, they're just similar, and two refrigerators the "same" make/model/etc., produced by the same factory on the same day, aren't identical, they're just similar. And so on.

I don't have a categorical objection to any-arbitrary-thing-we're-calling "shared meaning," as if I simply have a problem with that term, whatever it refers to. What I was saying is that two people can have meaning in mind that's as similar as two refrigerators can be similar (of the same make/model/etc. made by the same factory on the same day). If we want to call that "shared meaning," that's fine. I buy shared meaning in that sense in that case.

It's just that there's a need to clarify just what we're saying when we posit "shared meaning," because we can be saying very different things, especially since there are so many realists on universals/types around, whether they're realists on that issue uncritically or not.

But is the message sent by the artist the same as the message received by the audience? — Pattern-chaser

Generally speaking, yes. With the distinction that artist doesn't send a message but an experience.

Art (a piece of art) is complex product, but it's a product. When a chair maker creates a chair, customers are not scratching their heads wondering what to do with "the contraption". When a news writer publishes an article, readers are not bewildered in how to interpret sentences they read.

Essentially, it is the same with art. There is more complexity to art than to chair or news article, so an explanation can be expanded, but essentially, what author creates, the audience gets.

Art is complex product, but it's a product. When a chair maker creates a chair, customers are not scratching their heads wondering what to do with "the contraption". When a news writer publishes an article, readers are not bewildered in how to interpret the markings on a screen. Essentially, it is the same with art. — Henri

Art is not a product, I don't think. [A work of art can perhaps be seen as a product, but not usefully or meaningfully (IMO).] Art is a form of communication. A unidirectional communication, from the artist to the audience, without direct interaction. Art is beauty too, sometimes. And other times it's just anger or frustration (Picasso's Guernica?). Often, art simply challenges cultural values that we have, perhaps, come to take for granted. Art does lots of stuff that mere 'products' don't.

As you rightly point out, a chair is a product, and we don't puzzle about what to do with it, because we already know. And we already know what art is, in general terms. But that doesn't apply to an individual work of art. When we see art for the first time (or hear, if it's music, etc), we don't know what it's for, or what it means, or is intended to mean. But we know whether we like it or not, which is our role in the proceedings. We can judge products in a simple and practical way. I'm not convinced that we can (meaningfully and usefully) treat art in the same way.

Art is complex product, but it's a product. When a chair maker creates a chair, customers are not scratching their heads wondering what to do with "the contraption". When a news writer publishes an article, readers are not bewildered in how to interpret sentences they read.

Essentially, it is the same with art. There is more complexity to art than to chair or news article, so an explanation can be expanded, but essentially, what author creates, the audience gets. — Henri

Art is a product that we need to learn how to use. And it cannot come with instructions, though an introduction might give us some tips. It is a product but not just a product. It is an expression, it can be self-revealing, it is about things that it is not about on the surface. We think of art, at least great art, differently than we think about products.

Art is not a product, I don't think. Art is a form of communication. — Pattern-chaser

It's a product as "a thing that is the result of an action or process". A man made thing. It doesn't just happen. It's produced. Maybe more precisely to say - a piece of art is a product.

I wouldn't say it's communication, especially not in terms of literal messages. It does communication as means to transfer experience, which is the goal. So it's a transfer of experience. If you want to call that communication also, ok.

When we see art for the first time (or hear, if it's music, etc), we don't know what it's for, or what it means, or is intended to mean. — Pattern-chaser

If you have listened to classical music but never heard "Ode to Joy", and then you hear "Ode to Joy" for the first time, I would find it hard to believe you'd tell me you "don't know what it's for or is intended to mean." And you don't need to know the name. You wouldn't be confused to name it "Ode to Sadness" or something like that.

Art is about things that it is not about on the surface. — Coben

Yes, I agree. I meant product as a "produced thing". A piece of art as man made creation.

It's a product as "a thing that is the result of an action or process". A man made thing. It doesn't just happen. It's produced. Maybe more precisely to say - a piece of art is a product. — Henri

It's certainly produced, intentionally. One might argue that views of nature (say) are art, but I think this is a refutation of that: art is intentional...

I wouldn't say it's communication, especially not in terms of literal messages. It does communication as means to transfer experience, which is the goal. So it's a transfer of experience. If you want to call that communication also, ok. — Henri

...but why is it intentional? Because it carries a message. Not a literal message, as you say. If a painting is intended to carry a literal message, it's reduced to a poor and inaccurate copy of a photograph. I can't see how it transfers experience, though. Guernica offers a message to me: the savagery of war is wrong! To you it might say something different. It doesn't matter. But there is a message there, not experience. To me (again), the experience was an air raid; the painting is a comment (i.e. a message) on the actual event, which I don't think Picasso experienced. :chin:

Which one of the two provides more experience, a sense, a feeling, of "war is wrong"?




The second one is not subtle, which is often a minus in art, but war is not subtle, so war gets treated as war is.

With first one, I don't even get much of a "war is wrong" as a literal, intelectual message. It's quite flat.

Last century, as it continued in this one too, was a century for destruction of meaning. There is no meaning. There is no God (by the way, God is He). There is no objectivity. There is no family. There is no gender. There is as you think it is.

So we also got meaningless art. Full abstraction promoted as highest value.

This Picasso is not full abstraction but it is high abstraction. And it doesn't hold much value nevertheless, as I see it. Not that there is no value. But it's puffed up to heights it doesn't belong to.

I think much of the value of this kind of art is a result of political, in a broad sense, movement. When people get swayed that meaninglessness is "the shitz", then abstracted paintings get the glory.

But it's an emperor with no clothes.

Which one of the two provides more experience, a sense, a feeling, of "war is wrong"? — Henri

A message? :wink: That depends. Are you asking in relation to me? To you? To someone else? To all humans? The answer might be different in each case. That's the joy of art!

And it doesn't hold much value nevertheless, as I see it. — Henri

It's the last 4 words that make your statement true. Others may disagree, no? Again, that's the joy of art!

I didn't ask what is the difference between literal message of the paintings (which is always secondary thing), but what is the difference between two paintings having a feeling of "war is wrong". If you think that we just can't say, that it simply depends on a person, well, that's what promotion of meaninglessness does to people.

I add "as I see it" because I speak for myself. But I don't negate objective reality. I believe I have a good hold on what is good and bad, objectively, but I don't get it 100%, as human, so I add, "as I see it.". More precise phrase would be, "as I see it from here", where "here" is perspective that is both human and specifically mine.

I didn't ask what is the difference between literal message of the paintings — Henri

That's good, because I didn't answer that particular question. :up:

I don't negate objective reality. I believe I have a good hold on what is good and bad, objectively — Henri

Then I have nothing more to offer on this subject that you will be able to hear. :sad:

Take care! :smile:

That's good, because I didn't answer that particular question. — Pattern-chaser

But that joke is on you. You present these two paintings to people who didn't see them, with just a name of the painting and the painting itself. First one is named Guernica. They won't even have to know the name of the second, which in fact has "war" in to, to explain the second one in terms of war. For the first one, they (many, most, practically all?) wouldn't even get to the war. It's just what seems like some people and horses.

You present these two paintings... — Henri

No, you presented two paintings; I merely offered Guernica as one of (very) many examples.

I merely offered Guernica as one of (very) many examples. — Pattern-chaser

You offered Guernica as an example of a message without experience. You said: "Guernica offers a message to me: the savagery of war is wrong! To you it might say something different. It doesn't matter. But there is a message there, not experience."

I agree that there is not much experience to get from Guernica. Because it's a low level art.

Art is about the experience, not the message, so I provided an example of a piece of art about war that's more potent than Guernica. Guernica doesn't even provide a message about war unless you know extra information about it.

The fact that there is not much experience you get from Guernica, and the thing you get, a message, is after you learn some extra info about the painting, hints at how low of a quality that painting is.

It shouldn't be used as an example of good art, to demonstrate what art is. That's what I'm saying. It's an example of very limited piece of art, and one can make wrong conclusions about art if he extrapolates what art is based on Guernica.

The fact that there is not much experience you get from Guernica, and the thing you get, a message, is after you learn some extra info about the painting, hints at how low of a quality that painting is. — Henri

The reason I define art as I do is that all other definitions I've come across have the same fundamental failing. They end up concluding that only members of some elite are capable of recognising/appreciating art. I reject all such conceptions of 'art' because of this unfortunate and incorrect feature.

I don't negate objective reality. I believe I have a good hold on what is good and bad, objectively — Henri


Then I have nothing more to offer on this subject that you will be able to hear. :sad: — Pattern-chaser

You keep quoting me incompletely, making the thing I said it's opposite. I said - I believe I have a good hold on what is good and bad, objectively, but I don't get it 100%, as human, so I add, "as I see it".

Precisely because I don't claim to know it all, neither I claim to believe I know it all, I add, "as I see it".

But anyway, art being an experience transfer doesn't make it some exclusive fit to "members of the elite".

Maybe you could just be humble that you don't have great understanding about what art is, and once you do, you'll get much more from all the art you'll discover. As I recall, you were a hardware/software engineer. Becoming a hardware/software engineer demanded humbleness in learning and discovery, not pridefulness in ignorance.

Art can be a message, or just pure entertainment; it can ward off enemies (such as with martial art).

Art doesn't have to be one piece; it can be a collection of pieces, or a universe.

It's about interest.

If you intended to send a message, and gained a lot of interest for that reason, some able judge may determine your painting is art. If you never have interest from an able judge, you'll never know the art factor.

Some art remains locked away in people's minds, maybe sharing the person's interest or third party energies.

This is a discussion probably never had with a client:

Client: I have made my own definition of what hardware engineering is, because all definitions I saw seem to lead to a conclusion that only members of some elite are capable of recognising good hardware engineering. So, build me a chair.

Pattern-chaser: But Mr. Client, hardware engineering is not for building chairs. Let me explain you what...

Client: Don't act like some objectivity-trumpeting know-it-all. Just take your computer boards, stack them one on the other, and build me a chair to sit on.

Pattern-chaser: (To himself) What pattern is this?

Well then you’re talking about entertainment. That’s different from art. ‘Transformers’ is entertainment. So is Shakespeare, or was. Now it’s an idea, of what art is. Once you begin viewing everything through the prism of entertainment then you have a few basic parameters to judge it by: dollars and asses.

So your attitude to art is very warped by your entertainment expectations. Other than that you have education: art as an instrument of instruction. So for you art is just utilitarian. — Brett

Can you give an example of a work of art that "entertainment" is not part of it? Show me art where a message is delivered, and there was no more direct way to deliver it? That "indirectness" is the entertainment. Why else would we not say it directly other than to make it more interesting/engaging/entertaining? I get those 3 words do not have identical definitions, but when applied to art, I can see very little distinction (if I am interested, it goes without saying that I am entertained).

a triceritops who's colour changes to repent other predators.

Deja vu

a triceritops who's colour changes to repent other predators. — Schzophr

A solid effort, but for me, that doesn't seem to fit the definition of art:

art: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

I am happy to drop the "human" from the definition but not "creative skill and imagination". I am sure some biological interpretation could see this behavior as creative and intentional...but isn't that just the consciousness argument (ie which animals are conscious and to what degree relative to humans)?

Any examples that almost everyone would accept as art? I don't think most people will accept nature as "art" until a human puts a frame around it (whether a literal or figurative frame).

Art, in my opinion, is a term used to credit someone's creative skill through some agent, plus interest. Genesis of universe could be considered an art. It is not, generally, any painting, any drawing, only good paintings, etc.

Yes, then 'art' is a short lasting, ephemeral term; lasting appeal of a piece is down to interest keeping art hype alive. See what I'm getting at?

Art is more the hanging on wall phase of some creative work: rather than the process.


It takes a keen eye to know how to respond to this question.

It takes a keen eye to know how to respond to this question. — Schzophr

I think most posters in this thread would argue that my thoughts are not keen enough...:smile:

Generally though, I would just say that your definition of art is unrecognizable to me. I am not saying it is wrong, just not very close to what I think when I read definitions of art.

lasting appeal of a piece is down to interest keeping art hype alive. — Schzophr

I think I very much agree with this.

I think your definition of art is just too artistic for me, haha. It seems like trying to "feel" what a word means. I just use words/definitions (this might be because I have emotional deficiencies, I often act similarly to someone with mild Asperger's, autism, etc).

OK, I don't disagree with anything you said here.

I feel reasonably confident in saying that art mocks philosophy.