my idea of art is that it:

1. is something created by someone out of an urge or desire, and appreciated by people that also have urges or desires. like, it's not meant to ensure your survival or physical well-being, but it can make you less depressed and more fulfilled.

2. directly appeals to the senses. like, inventing a new scientific theory definitely would be fulfilling as well, but it's not exactly fun to look at or listen to, unlike a song or comic.

in contrast, a stone ax is probably not a piece of art because it's solely created to destroy (but also, build) stuff. there's also not much about it that can be appreciated with your senses.

on the other hand, a song can be a piece of art because it's made by and for certain human urges, and can be pleasing to listen to.

also, i don't think how big the audience is determines whether or not it's art, so nothing ''starts'' or ''ceases'' to be art.

Much of art can be considered an abstract metaphor about existence. The beauty can be found in the artist's idealistic interpretations of same.

I don't think you have to understand all of art to create it ( or to be creative in anything for that matter). For example in music there are plenty of musicians who cannot read music or understand complete music theory, nevertheless, can be creative; improvise, embellish, or otherwise come up with truly novel ideas about same.

(With respect to music no contemporary philosopher that I'm aware of other than Schopenhauer, attempted to explore that kind of creativity and what effects it has on consciousness. Cognitive science generally has a bit more to say about the creative mind- AH Maslow... . )

And how do you wrap your head around something that is so abstract. — pet

By making a (well-informed, one hopes) decision about it. Art and appreciation is a creative act performed by both artist and auditor/viewer. As such a particular kind of communication.

when does something start being art. For example what are your thoughts on conceptual art?

Art has had a difficult time ove the last century. The rise of modernism and conceptual art has ripped open what art was supposed to be and what constitutes contemporary art. This has resulted in various forms of retrograde art and a loss of direction. In some sense art is dead, although fortunately it is not up to the critics to define art. It is up to the artists and they are far to creative to sink into artistic depression.

Now we are in a new era of post post-modern art, where even conceptual and abstract art is seen as outdated, as a dead end.

Now we are in a new era of post post-modern art, where even conceptual and abstract art is seen as outdated, as a dead end. — Punshhh

Mostly, perhaps, but not completely. (I've music, dance, theatre & poetry in mind more so than visual, graphic or plastic arts.) Some musings on (understanding) art in general from an old thread ...

I think it's important to note that there isn't an observably, historically satisfying definition of art. In something like Greek Mythology, the lines between art, religion, philosophy, and some kind of legendary, mystical expression of ancient history are blurred. Art served a religious function in the west dating back into the middle ages (earlier??), but it began to take on what we now categorize as a "high" form of art around the enlightenment, while still existing to serve the church and express religious concepts. "Secular" art did exist (love ballads whose melodies were later borrowed and made into sacred hymns, i.e. Be Thou My Vision), but the evolution of modern art in the west is descended, I think to a large degree, from the church: If you follow the historical thread of an art form, classical ("art") music, for instance, it moves from someone like Handel writing sacred music for the church (as well as secular operas), gradually all the way to someone like Schoenberg, who experimented with the 12 tones of the chromatic scale in a purely analytical way, completed removed from any religious context.

All this history might not seem significant, but what seems important to me here is that the way to interface with what I'll here call creative expression (rather than "art", provisionally), has shifted in step with the shift from a sacred to a secular world. In other words, there's been a shift of emphasis from what is expressed to how it's expressed; a shift away from function and towards form. Conceptual art was the logical conclusion of this shift, but it's already past it's peak, culturally.

I see no reason not to assume that creative expression will continue to shift in step with how the world changes philosophically. For instance, amongst us millennials (to my constant chagrin), how we think about and use creative expression has shifted to the concept of a person being a "creative". A "creative", as an individual person, in our parlance, is someone who uses creativity generally for a capitalistic purpose (advertising, tech start ups, branding, graphic design for corporations etc), rather than to express what we would, in every day usage, consider artistic: something expressed for it's own sake, and not specifically for profit. Even popular music largely falls under the branch of something made by a "creative" rather than an artist, although maybe it's not there yet linguistically; however, the need for artists to increasingly market themselves at higher and higher levels on increasingly transient social media platforms squarely places them, functionally, within the same class as "creatives" who work for corporations, rather than artists.

Eh. A rant from a disillusioned artist.

Thanks for your clarification, which I agree with. I was thinking primarily of high Art. I have a bit of an axe to grind myself.

If you go by the lexical definition then art is intimately linked to beauty/aesthetics. There are many art forms but they must all be aesthetically endowed to qualify as such. Essentially it is a question about what beauty is. What is the nature of beauty?

Is beauty purely subjective or can we be objective about it? Such times are times I wish we had a well-crafted poll on what people take to be beautiful in order to gain an insight. Unfortunately I haven't come across any well-crafted study to gauge aesthetic sense. So, we must turn to simple, less-than-perfect measures of our aesthetic sense e.g. checking out what passes off as art in the internet. The internet is a "good source" because of it's global reach.

If one reflects, even perfunctorily, on the internet art scene, we see that there's such a mind-boggling diversity there that precludes any attempt to discover where art begins and where it ends. Nevertheless, in my humble opinion this diversity is explicable in a very easy way.

Art requires an artist; the artist's main goal is to take an object, not necessarily physical, and represent her view of that object to an audience who must then find beauty in that representation. You may have already noticed but there are two points in art where beauty can appear: either the object of art is itself beautiful or the way the artist represents the object is beautiful. A rough approximation of what I want to convey is to be found, linguistically speaking, in the object-verb structure: either the object itself is aesthetic or how the artist represents the object is beautiful. To repeat myself for clarification, we can kiss a beautiful woman but we can also kiss beautifully.

From personal experience and I'm only guessing it's the same for all of you, there isn't much of a disagreement on the beauty of objects. A simple proof would be that if people did disagree on the beauty of objects then the modeling industry would never have existed. However, the other kind of beauty I mentioned - the one that appears in the way an object is represented - gives artists unlimited access to all conceivable objects under the sun. It is this complete and unfettered freedom that makes demarcating the boundaries of art utterly meaningless. We can kiss a beautiful woman but we can also kiss an ugly girl beautifully. Both are art.

Art is anything presented by the artist to evoke a reaction in an audience. It is "good art" to the extent that it is successful at provoking the intended reaction -- where the intent is subjective, and can differ between the artist and the audience, between different members of the audience, between any of them and society more generally, and between all of those and whatever (if anything) objectively ought to be provoked.

I'd say the most foundational forms of art are rhetoric and design (as in industrial design or architectural design), in that they are both all about drawing attention toward and away from things regardless of their contents, emphasizing and de-emphasizing.

What kind of art represents the meaning of art. When does something stop being art and when does something start being art. For example what are your thoughts on conceptual art? Does someone need to understand the true meaning of art to create something that is worthy of the title. And how do you wrap your head around something that is so abstract. — pet

Art is a manifestation of relationship between the subjective experience of an artist and their medium, intended to then be experienced by an audience/viewer as shared meaning beyond the medium itself.

I think something starts being art when it approaches this shared meaning, and stops being art without opportunity to approach shared meaning.

I think any ‘conceptual art’ that doesn’t enable the audience/viewer to find meaning beyond the medium alone is not art: it’s just material.

Someone doesn’t need to understand the true meaning of art to create something worthy of the title - they just need to be aware of potential and have the courage to connect with an audience by collaborating with material.

As for wrapping one’s head around the abstract: I think sometimes the relationship between the artist and their medium is so abstract that there is little opportunity for the audience/viewer to approach shared meaning. It’s a matter of opinion as to whether the fault lies with the artist’s disconnection from their audience, or with the audience’s disconnection from the potential of the medium. This is where ‘high art’ can challenge the audience/viewer to open their mind to greater potential in the world, but they’re treading a fine line.

Of course, the commercial aspect of high art is another matter.

Art is mostly ideological, so you can't really tell. It is "an act of expressing feelings, thoughts, and observations." There is a beauty in it not everyone will always see. You have an idea you can't express with words, so you express it through art.

If an artwork 'touches' our heart. That touch sets up a ripple of thoughts and feelings through our consciousness. The understanding of the artwork is that it is somehow alive, because it touched what is alive in us. We may not understand the story, or the truth, of the artwork, but we understand it 'touches' us.