I perceive it as art. :cool: — jgill

But why?

Surely the act of saying something is art is the alteration. — Punshhh

I know what you mean, but I'm not sure it suffices. I don't have an answer as to how much an artist has to actually manipulate things in the world in order to transform them into art... At least, no more than I could tell you how many grains of sand it takes to make a pile. But it seems to me just like we know that 1 sandgrain does not count but a thousand do, that a sunflower pointed at is not art, but Van Gogh's Sunflowers is.

Duchamp's position was that an object need only be recontextualized, by for example, putting it in a gallery. Roger Scruton suggested even most photography may not count because there is not enough creating happening in the production of a photograph. The knee-jerk reaction to Scruton may be that of dismissal, but I recall his arguments being pretty darn convincing....

I think the artist can also present something as it is when everyone else around is busy with changing it into something else. Realism in art comes to my mind. Great art is a manifestation of courage and it takes the greatest courage to present reality as it is.

But why? — Brett

Because it moves me in a way difficult to describe. I see it and I think,"This is art."

But I see some of the imagery I create with my math and computer programs the same way, even though I have little if any intention of creating art. Merely curiosity, which apparently is the wrong intention, according to Artemis.

I think one of the things an artist does is renews our vision or perception of things. There are many painters but not all of them are artists, as there are many dancers but not all of them are artists. Great artists also create work that is instantly recognisable as being from that artist, the work and their name become synonymous with each other. This is why crafts are not generally regarded as art because they tend to have a repetitive nature, probably bound by their construction. However some craft people do break out of that restriction and use the materials in an unexpected way.

So on that basis there are very few “artists” and far too many people calling themselves artists. @Wittgenstein talked about the trauma of artists. I think that comes from the demands of operating in the field of total originality, an area you can never be sure of; is it real, is it great, or is it just rubbish? And then exposing that work to the public who react to originality in fairly predictable ways; shock and dismissal being just two responses.

Because it moves me in a way difficult to describe. I see it and I think,"This is art." — jgill

Do you see how that just takes us back to the beginning.” I don’t know what art is, but I know what I like.”

Do you see how that just takes us back to the beginning.” I don’t know what art is, but I know what I like.” — Brett

Sure. It's a product of the artist's conscious and subconscious mind which resonates with both my conscious and possibly subconscious mind.

I think martial art will give us an interesting insight into art. It can be kept hidden from being used yet it is still there in the person. The greatest fighters are the ones who can avoid fights.

I trying to determine why the artefact is not a work if art. — Brett

Well, first we should not assume that there is some set of features that all artworks have to have in common in order to be art.

What I am proposing is not a definition, but a procedure for testing whether something is a work of art (though a procedure that is not 100% reliable). It is a good procedure, I think, because we are first and foremost aware of art via our reason and this test is a way of accessing its least corrupted deliverances on this matter.

From what you say you believe that these artefacts from the past, these totems, have no relationship to art, and, possibly, that there was no art then. — Brett

I have said nothing so strong as that. My thought experiment is regularly put into practice. That little totem is an example. It was dug up. And it seemed and seems to most of us to be a totem, not a work of art. Looked at objectively, then, it doesn't seem to qualify as art. Which is good grounds for thinking that it is not art - for what better grounds could we ever have for thinking that something is or is not art than the disinterested judgements of rational beings?

It does not follow from this that there can be no relationship between totems and art or anything else and art. Nothing in my proposed test prevents an object from being classified as both a totem 'and' a work of art. My point is just that in this particular case, it seems just to be a totem - that, when looked at objectively, it does not seem to be art, just totem.

Nor does it follow from this that I think there was no art in the past. I am unclear why you think my test commits me to that view? If the mona lisa was dug up it would be considered a work of art, regardless of the age from which it was thought it came.

If the mona lisa was dug up it would be considered a work of art, regardless of the age from which it was thought it came. — Bartricks

This is the test, I guess. Why would it be regarded as art 20,000 years from now?

I still need to know what aspect of reason is helping us.

This is the test, I guess. Why would it be regarded as art 20,000 years from now? — Brett

If archaeologists dug it up now, and because of where they dug it up from conclude that it is 20,000 years old, would they consider it a work of art?

Yes. Obviously.

So why do you think archaeologists 20,000 years from now won't also consider it a work of art?

Note, the whole point of the test - why it is a good test - is that it helps us overcome the prejudices of our current age and look beyond the norms of our own culture.

That's why it is a good test now, and will be a good test 20,000 years from now. And anything that passes the test now, will almost certainly pass it at any time.

Note, the whole point of the test - why it is a good test - is that it helps us overcome the prejudices of our current age and look beyond the norms of our own culture. — Bartricks

I understand that and I appreciate your test. But can you be sure that your own contemporary views about art are not prejudicing your opinion against “The Venus”, can you be sure that you’re not bound, unconsciously, by the norms of contemporary culture?

I understand that and I appreciate your test. But can you be sure that your own contemporary views about art are not prejudicing your opinion against “The Venus”, can you be sure that you’re not bound, unconsciously, by the norms of contemporary culture? — Brett

No, not completely - one of the reasons why it is not a perfect test. But taking that possibility too seriously amounts to just being a radical sceptic.

If four or five independent witnesses report seeing James stab Sarah, then that's pretty darned good evidence that James stabbed Sarah. Now, yes, how can we be sure that the witnesses aren't corrupt? Well, we can't be entirely sure. But that doesn't mean we aren't very well justified in now believing that James stabbed Sarah.

Similarly, if four of five archaeologists dig up that venus thingy and each one independently judges it to be a totem not a work of art, then that's pretty good evidence that it is not a work of art - for the rational faculties of five independent people delivered that verdict.

Now, that's not conclusive proof because our reason is not infallible and is liable to corruption by the influences of the age in which we live. But this test can reasonably be expected to overcome many such corrupting forces precisely because the judges in question - the archaeologists - are passing judgement about something they believe to belong to another culture.

But this test can reasonably be expected to overcome many such corrupting forces precisely because the judges in question - the archaeologists - are passing judgement about something they believe to belong to another culture. — Bartricks

And by declaring what an artefact is and is not they are equally deciding what is and is not art. So what we have is a body determining what art is. Which is art by committee.

Brett and i were discussing the relevance to art and culture and we agreed that art has some influence, and no doubt that it dose. It was quite influential 30 years ago, but its influence today is surely diminished. Not that its influence is irrelevant, but surely less so.
My children have grown up with a screen in their face, so surely social media is the dominant influence on culture today. This leads me to believe that if art wants to continue to be relevant to culture it must move to the digital platform, and in many ways it has

I originally deemed this thread a work of art in jest, but have since been seriously thinking about its viability as a serious art form.

If art is an expression of human consciousness, then what better demonstration of that then this thread in a philosophy forum.

It has all the elements we deeply value in a work of art :

It explores the idea of what is art
It provides a definition
It demonstrates the difficulty of acceptance of the definition
It is a great resource for a casual inquirer wishing to acquaint themselves with what art is.

It also has human drama.
through posts a sense of the other person emerges.
Their consciousness is slowly revealed.
Like characters in a play they interact , clash, dominate, submit, but over time they learn to respect and care for each other

It shows humanity as a thinking feeling creature. Consciousness at its best.

I would challenge anybody to suggest an art work that would stand up to all that this thread contains.

they are equally deciding what is and is not art. — Brett

They are not 'deciding' it, but discerning it.

If we can just 'decide' these things then just decide that art is a piece of cheese and be done.

It's like saying the witnesses just 'decided' that James stabbed Sarah.

Realism in art comes to my mind. Great art is a manifestation of courage and it takes the greatest courage to present reality as it is. — Wittgenstein

Yes, I agree that courage to say something interesting and important would be a quality of great art.
But not all art is great. Some of it (most?) ranges from good to passable to ugh. :rofl:

are many painters but not all of them are artists, as there are many dancers but not all of them are artists. Great artists also create work that is instantly recognisable as being from that artist, the work and their name become synonymous with each other. — Brett

Again, I agree with your burgeoning definition of "great art and artists" here. But bad art is still art.

The definition of "art" is a pretty low bar and pretty lenient. But as to what art is "great".... well, let's just say I have pretty strict and high standards for that.

I guess my suspicion is that people expand or restrict the definition of art too much because they think along with that word comes some kind of quality judgement. But I think "art" is just a fairly neutral category.

I would challenge anybody to suggest an art work that would stand up to all that this thread contains — Pop

Well, it's no Hamlet, but you're right that philosophical dialogue has a lot of the merits of art, specifically plays.

On a side note, dialogue as a form for philosophical books is on the up-and-coming once more. A step in the right direction, if you ask me.

@jgill you might be interested, I cant remember her name, but a photo lab assistant accidentally exposed some large 6x4 photo paper, people were so pleased with the result that it turned into a career.

I would challenge anybody to suggest an art work that would stand up to all that this thread contains. — Pop

Let’s call it a Harold Pinter play.

They are not 'deciding' it, but discerning it. — Bartricks

But ultimately determining it.

That would take a special sort of person, no?

On a side note, dialogue as a form for philosophical books is on the up-and-coming once more. A step in the right direction, if you ask me. — Artemis

What do you mean by that?

'Determining it' is ambiguous. It can be used to mean the same as 'discerning it'. (The witnesses determined that Sarah was stabbed by James). If that's how you're using it, then yes - they are determining it, in the sense of 'discerning it' (though with the proviso that it remains possible that their judgement is mistaken).

But they are not 'constitutively determining' it. That is, its status as art is not of a piece with its being judged to be art by objective judges. If it is art then we would expect objective judges to discern this about it, but their judgements and its status as art remain distinct.

It seems to me that your idea is that art is a concept and certain artworks are evidence of this concept and that through reason we can discern this art and separate it from work which is not art. We know that art exists and we know through reason what it looks like.

Correct me or add to where you think necessary.

Edit: and culture doesn’t determine art.

It seems to me that your idea is that art is a concept — Brett

No, I've said explicitly that art is 'that which answers to the concept of art'. The concept of a chair is not a chair. Chairs are chairs. Concepts are concepts.

Art is not a concept. Art is art. We have a concept of art - an idea - and it is by applying this idea to the world that we are able to recognise that it contains some art.

Note, the word 'concept' is actually one of these bullshit words that turns up all over the place and fairly reliably indicates confusion.

Replace it with its synonym - idea - and things become clearer (or do for me).

We have an 'idea' of art. But art is not an idea. It is the object of the idea of art.

Edit: and culture doesn’t determine art. — Brett

'Determine' is ambiguous, but yes, culture does not 'constitutively' determine what is or is not art. We can all recognise this insofar as we recognise that many artists go unrecognized as such in their own culture.

Most of the artist that we have in the mainstream are all about buisness and not about art.Bad art is worse than nothing. When you have nothing infront of you. You probably feel normal but when you see some terrible stuff, you feel disgusted and abhor it. That's why l have a tendency to not even regard terrible art as art and one of the biggest BS told is that art depends on taste of the perceiver but l think every art has some standard and time will always preserve great art if people develop the right perspective to see it in line of the artistic tradition. This view also answers the question of artist being neglected during their lifetime and only achieving the status of a great artist after passing away. I hold the view that most of the great art will always rise to the top as long as the artist tries to present it to the society.

No, I've said explicitly that art is 'that which answers to the concept of art'. The concept of a chair is not a chair. Chairs are chairs. Concepts are concepts. — Bartricks

Yes, I realise that now. My laziness.

Edit: so the art produced must respond to, or fit, the idea of art.

Most of the artist that we have in the mainstream are all about buisness and not about art.Bad art is worse than nothing. When you have nothing infront of you. You probably feel normal but when you see some terrible stuff, you feel terrible and abhor it. That's why l have a tendency to not even regard terrible art as art and one of the biggest BS told is that art depends on taste of the perceiver but l think every art has some standard and time will always preserve great art if people develop the right perspective to see it in line of the artistic tradition. This view also answers the question of artist being neglected during their lifetime and only achieving the status of a great artist after passing away. I hold that great art will always rise to the top as long as the artist tries to present it to the society. — Wittgenstein

I'll second that

I hold that great art will always rise to the top as long as the artist tries to present it to the society. — Wittgenstein

A corrupted society, what then? Is it possible art is already dead? Not in making a painting but in achieving its ideal.

:up: