Do you think it is appropriate to accuse of 'psuedophilosophy' someone who has expressed and robustly defended views all of which are defended in the literature?

The problem is that you come along with an unusual philosophy and then argue with people as though they are wrong you you are right. This also extends to accusing them of being mistaken when they are defending a well established view.

It would be fine if you exhibited some politeness and humility until you had presented your position at least. It would then be ok to argue the case, because your interlocutor would know what you are talking about.

All the examples you mentioned (Picazzos cubism, Marcel Duchamp, Fennings wake) are not exceptions. Their works are still art and they still require an audience to instill a particular emotion or thought. It can be any kind of emotion. In the case of picassos cubism, its classified as a form of aesthetics and supposedly is meant to resonate an audience.

We need to know when to draw the line between a work of art and a work that is not art. Lets say for example an architect made a particular construction like a building. His purpose was to build a shelter, nothing else. His work is not considered art. Now, if the architect hired an interior and exterior designer, his work would be considered art because the patterns and decorations he adds to the architect would have to be something that can resonate with us emotionally. A beautiful pattern would be something for example that would attract us because we are evolutionarily pattern seeking animals, and we are atteacted to colors and shapes. This is the point when we can call something art.

Their works are still art and they still require an audience to instill a particular emotion or thought. — Susu

A thought maybe, but an emotion is not the intention of those artists, nor do they expect an audience to instil an emotion when that is not their intention. That’s you putting a subjective spin on it. If you want to ignore the artists’s intention then your wasting everyone’s time.

All the examples you mentioned (Picazzos cubism, Marcel Duchamp, Fennings wake) are not exceptions. — Susu

Not exceptions to what? They are exceptions to the idea that art is about emotion, because the particular work I’m referring to is not about emotion, it’s cerebral, intellectual, certainly not primitive, which I use as the opposite to cerebral.

This is really just a clash of definitions. In the case of your definition, things like science books, 3D model prototypes would be considered art. Both examples are have a cerebral and intellectual purpose. If this can be defined as art, then I am fine without. Art is subjective anyway.

This is really just a clash of definitions. — Susu

No it’s not. Read up on Cubism, Duchamp. Unless of course Picasso and Braque we’re deluded in their intentions.

We need to know when to draw the line between a work of art and a work that is not art. — Susu

Art is subjective anyway. — Susu

Which one? You can’t have both.

Art is agility-based, lest aid.

to be agile enough to put paintbrush to canvas.
to be agile enough to paint arc'd eyes.

An agile artist draws more precise eyes.

I struggle to define art, I think we need a new 'para' word.

Perhaps art is about the seed and the peer, and we're choosing side.

A seed may be the most agile artist, but the peers might prefer the jester's silly works. Does a good artist require a good peer?

Art is created by an artist. Does this statement even stand? Am I false when I say 'Art is'?

Art can be seen an expression of the self and of the environment from whence it originated, though it can also exist as its own mouthpiece. It is recognisable without a name or set definition, but simply by an inner, inexplicable connection. Art is limitless because it is impossible to elucidate, but the difficulty lies not in this, not in defining art, rather in finding art that we can appreciate and deem valuable.

Eye's are artistic, they make dreams which are what? If not the clear image you describe when you define art.

You name the comoddity, what is it? It can broadly describe all artwork or mean the inner movement of the artist or peer.

The idea I was trying to convey is as follows: since defining art is an elusive task, the more valuable question should be 'what is good art?' Any number of things can be pulled under the great umbrella term 'art', but this does not necessarily make them of any value to the artistic world or vision.

Defining art is a subjective task and is thus impossible to reach a clear consensus on; defining valuable art is a far clearer aim.

Cannot an artwork which copies something still be good art. Most landscapes and portraits are copies — Invisibilis

By copy I mean a copy of another work of art. If I take a photo of a van Gogh painting, that photo is obviously not a work of art and I’m not an artist. If I try copy the van Gogh with a brush and paint and somehow manage to do it perfectly, that’s no more a work of art than the photo (although I’d be an excellent craftsman if I could do it.)

Painting a landscape is not the same as copying it. It will always be an interpretation from the artist’s perspective and so a unique and original creation (even when it appears to be highly realistic).

Cannot an artwork be good art without conventional art skills, — Invisibilis

Sure, unconventional skills are also skills and can produce good art. The only problem is that it is not easily recognized. How would I know that it is skillfully made if I have nothing to compare it to and don’t understand it. Whenever an artist uses unconventional skill, he in fact introduces a new genre of art. Until we have learned to understand this new genre, there’s no way to decide if the work is good or bad. I think some artists take advantage of that and make trash hoping to be recognized by an ignorant audience.

Relativist games. How does it work for you on the street, in a bar? — Brett

You can't think of any examples where lying is beneficial? Feels like absolutist games to me.

You can't think of any examples where lying is beneficial? — ZhouBoTong

Of course I can. But you’re just playing philosophy games. In this world you need to know when you’re being lied to, deceived and misinformed. Sure people lie, but I’m talking about a person who is a liar all the time, who deceives you then takes your watch.Trying living without that understanding and reality. Maybe you spend your days in your bedroom, I don’t know, but try living the way you imply with your dancing around words and sentences and see where it gets you. So let’s try and stick to the world outside your front door.

Of course I can. But you’re just playing philosophy games. In this world you need to know when you’re being lied to, deceived and misinformed. Sure people lie, but I’m talking about a person who is a liar all the time, who deceives you then takes your watch.Trying living without that understanding and reality. Maybe you spend your days in your bedroom, I don’t know, but try living the way you imply with your dancing around words and sentences and see where it gets you. So let’s try and stick to the world outside your front door. — Brett

Sure. which is why in my initial post I said we could come up with comparable "suggestions" for good/bad art. As long we don't think they are anywhere near absolute objective rules.

My post wasn’t about universal agreement on good or bad. It was about the characteristics of a person you couldn’t trust. I’m not sure but I think someone who cannot be trusted might be considered bad by many people. You’d be wise anyway to steer clear of them.

My point about a bad person was that unless you lived some sort of life you’d be ignorant of what this person had in store for you, the coat off your back, for a start, later maybe your wife. Whatever, you’re going to come off second best, again and again and again, until you learn. Education by the school of hard knocks. So you need to learn to recognise these things in people. It takes time, many mistakes, many losses, but by and by you’ll learn to recognise these characters. You might be able to see where I’m going here.

If you want to understand art, tell good from bad, then you need to educate yourself.

Sure, unconventional skills are also skills and can produce good art. The only problem is that it is not easily recognized. How would I know that it is skillfully made if I have nothing to compare it to and don’t understand it. Whenever an artist uses unconventional skill, he in fact introduces a new genre of art. Until we have learned to understand this new genre, there’s no way to decide if the work is good or bad. I think some artists take advantage of that and make trash hoping to be recognized by an ignorant audience. — Congau

What if the artwork, regardless of skill or content, is pleasing to the eye.

Yes, I agree with your last sentence (above). I've seen such work, and the artist always points out they are successful artists, as if that was the qualifier of good art.

However, a good artist cannot help create images which contain eye pleasure. There is a natural flow of harmony that the eye picks up, and 'knows' that it came from not-trying, as if created unconditionally.

The problem of contemporary art is not the subjectivity of artistic values. It is the submission of the public to opinion-producing mechanisms with extra-artistic interests. If everything is art, you have no criteria. If you have no criteria you have to accept what "experts" say is valuable art. And who are the experts? Those who control the channels of reproduction and exhibition of art.

The classic paradox: supposed freedom leads to control.

You're kidding right? I took the liberty to learn about the examples you provided and still, as I suspected, they're not exceptions to the definition of 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." - Dictionary.com

Provide any piece of work from Marcel Duchamp, Picasso, or Fennings Wake that doesn't fall under this definition, I assure you, there is none. Every form of art boils down to emotional communication that requires an audience.

as I suspected, they're not exceptions to the definition of art. — Susu

I didn’t say this. I said “They are exceptions to the idea that art is about emotion,”

I’m guessing you looked at Finnegans Wake, did you?

One example to satisfy you;
https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-duchamps-urinal-changed-art-forever

Yes, it presents you with what might be a good work of art and claims that a political position is good because it is associated with the good work of art. — Punshhh

I would step back further and say that the work presented isn't even good in itself because of the political ramifications. For the audience (who already agrees with the message), it's not a real question of whether the art itself is good (on a purely aesthetic level), it's just a question of agreeing with the message. And, remember, this is the exact same principle at work in fundamentalist religious art as well.

Yes, I was very impressed with their performance, I was surprised the authorities tolerated it. — Punshhh

I saw the show in the US, so I wasn't necessarily surprised that it was tolerated. But the venue itself I was working at was exactly the type of venue that would claim on paper (like the Pharisees, to continue the religious metaphors) that they fully supported the zealotry; but in reality, the venue management was horrified by the show. I'm talking about a deeply left-leaning (American) politically oriented music venue. It's a distinctly memorable concert experience for me on so many levels; I'll never forget it. It was one of the best shows I've ever seen.

But why does so much political art not accomplish what Pussy Riot has? I don't have the energy to jump into a new tangent (edit: I did), but there's something to be said about political art coming from nations that are actually experiencing dehumanizing and fundamentally crippling oppression; nations that are not strictly first world nations. There's a heroism to Pussy Riot that gets the blood flowing; it gets the righteous indignation pumping; actual fight/flight kicks in, and fight takes over. On the other hand, what boils my blood in the worst way is political art from first world nations like mine that essentially pits (unwittingly) this first world work from privileged artists who are not subject to arrest, mistreatment, and, most importantly censorship against the work of artists like Pussy Riot that actually are experiencing real oppression. When you see it clearly, you see the children, and you see the adults.

Anything can be considered Art, are you saying that urinal thing doesn't affect people emotionally? Doesn't make them feel inspired? I get inspired by different random objects, even when I look at a car wasteland for example. Or even cracks on walls. They all trigger some kind of emotion.

I don’t care about your perceptions, I’m saying that the artist’s intention was not about emotion.

The artists intention is irrelevant as well. Duchamps point of this urinal thing was that Art can be something non-conventional. But it doesn't matter because Art is still Art, it's still something that possesses emotional power, as I have said.

The artists intention is irrelevant as well. — Susu

That’s a big call. Care to back it up.

Edit: by the way, the “urinal thing” has a name.

Edit: “Duchamps point of this urinal thing was that Art can be something non-conventional.” That was not his point.

Being inspired by what you see is not art.

Art = movement by an art-seed for creation of a work, or movement by an art-peer concerning an art-seeds work.
Art(2)= All Artwork

Can it be more accurately defined?

Art(3)= A judged event between art-seeds work and peers of that work.

The artist's event and the audience's judgement.

(Just trying).

No comoddity is art without justice for it being so. An artist paints a painting and becomes a peer of his own work.

Asking what 'work' is would be answered any creation possible in the seed's world.

a good artist cannot help create images which contain eye pleasure. There is a natural flow of harmony that the eye picks up, and 'knows' that it came from not-trying, as if created unconditionally. — Invisibilis

“Pleasing to the eye” can’t be a criterion for good art. Wallpaper may be pleasing to the eye or a Mercedes Benz for someone who likes expensive cars. Sure, artistic harmony may please the eye because of its connection to a higher idea, and it may be considered beautiful whenever there exists some unity and balance just like a mathematical equation may be considered beautiful for the same reason, but this kind of harmony is hardly pleasing to the eye in a literal sense.

Good art may sometimes be downright ugly. What makes it good is the skillful way it conveys an idea and makes the audience think. There shouldn’t be a goal to make the eye know without trying. On the contrary great art is rarely immediately accessible but requires that the mind is set to work. Whatever is too easily available is shallow and brings no great ideas.

That being said, one shouldn’t force art, not even great art, on an unwelcoming audience. Whenever a piece of art is placed in the public space (as opposed to at an art gallery), it should be pleasing to the eye. Then the passers by can choose for themselves if they want to look at it as art or just decoration.

"What is art?"

Yes, I agree that political art is not art, but rather a sleight of hand to convey or prompt, to reaffirm the political message.
I always think of this piece which is probably the most successful piece of political art ever produced. It lmortalised the subject Che Gavara.


I am a political cartoonist at times and I think this is where art and politics collide in a more meaningful, artist and politically relevant way. This is one of my favourites (not by me). It was made during a brief period when Prince Charles sounded a bit Marxist.

Andrei Tarkovsky.

Why not try to break that down like a poem? Dot points. What are it’s qualities, what does it allude to, do it until you run out of meaning.