I understand taking a walk as an expression of human consciousness and where one chooses to walk as information about the walker's consciousness. Walking as an expression of human consciousness is broad enough to capture all walking ever done - cave people walking to the present.

All meaningful acts are an expression of human consciousness. — Arne

But everyone can walk, it comes naturally to everyone, unless they gave a disability. Not everyone can create art. Unless you think they can, and then you’d still have to define art to describe what they’re doing.

How others define either matters not to me. — Arne

Why is that?

You may rest assured I will never buy a car that fails to meet my definition of a car — Arne

You can’t define what a car is. If you defined a car as anything but a car, then it wouldn’t be a car. The definition of a car was defined before you came along. All you do is recognise it.

if I am going to purchase art, then I will decide what art is.

I don't want to be argumentative in what I say, rather simply try to identify who decides what art is.

Take the artist out of the equation, i.e. pretend all the artists and their work suddenly disappears. What are you going to purchase?

Interesting juxtaposition. Do you find one more arresting over the other? I'm not well versed in political cartoon-ism.

I find the original Che Gavara poster the best piece of political art ever produced. It's status as a work of art left the political cause behind and stands in its own right. The second piece is for me hilarious and a clever example of how political satire works. It hasn't though become an art work in its own right and has disappeared from the artistic world.

I would say that political cartoons are an important and sophisticated genre of art.
Here is a piece I produced about 15 years ago prior to the G8 summit while there was a lot of discussion about climate change. As a skull and cross bones, harkening the death of the planet( death of habitability).

you are making my point for me. I feel no more obligation to put forward my definition of art that does the world of art. and why would any of us need to define it anyway? all walks have extra information - it is deemed to be a walk. it is an arbitrary extra bit of information.

Take the artist out of the equation, i.e. pretend all the artists and their work suddenly disappears. What are you going to purchase? — Punshhh

If all art suddenly disappeared, why would I have to purchase anything?

And I would probably purchase a paint brush and some paint.

And as for your point as to who defines art, the answer is nobody and everybody.

It is not as if the world needs an agreed upon definition of art before in order for the "world of art" to function. If that were the case, it would have ceased functioning long ago.

And even if there were consensus definition, are you suggesting that an "artist" (for which we are also lacking and do not need a definition) would be required to stay within the definition? Would people be able to purchase only those works meeting the definition?

Art thrives upon the very controversy resulting from it's indefinability.

It is not the lack of definition nor the need to determine who gets to define art that is the issue. Instead the deeper issue is the notion that it can even be contained within a definition. it cannot.

Why is it the question "what is art" always treated as if the questioner is seeking a definition?

Has there ever been any useful definition of art?

Have artists or art patrons ever considered themselves bound by a definition of art?

Can there even be any such thing as a useful definition of art?

I have never been in need of a definition art and I would not know what to do with one if I had one.

You can’t define what a car is. If you defined a car as anything but a car, then it wouldn’t be a car. The definition of a car was defined before you came along. All you do is recognise it. — Brett

Why would you presume I am bound by an already existing definition of a car?

I am not.

How others define either matters not to me. — Arne
Why is that? — Brett

The better question is why would it matter to me how others define either a car or art?

Just like every other morning of my life, I woke up this morning in no need of a definition of car or art. How about you?

present in every variation of the "what is art" type thread is the unstated and mistaken premise that others will bound by an agreed upon definition of art.

They will not.

If all the artists disappeared you could still buy something and call it art, by your criteria. You couldn't though buy an Andy Warhol, or a Picasso. Also if Andy Warhol didn't disappear, you would only be able to buy an Andy Warhol which he chose to create, not any of the works he conceived of, but decided not to take any further.

In the other art thread I described what Modernism brought us, that anything may be art and anything can be art. So this includes you saying something is art, but you may find you become an artist by default, by saying it.

If all the artists disappeared you could still buy something and call it art, by your criteria. — Punshhh

What are you talking about?

I have not listed a single criterion for determining what I consider to be art.

All I have done is to reserve to myself the absolute right to make such a determination.

And I have no obligation to share any criteria that I find useful in making that determination.

Why do people find this perplexing?

What you indicate is a total lack of interest in art. Fine, but why bother posting here?

What you indicate is a total lack of interest in art. Fine, but why bother posting here? — Brett

I love art.

You just don’t like talking about it.

nor will I ever buy a work of art that fails to meet my definition of art.
— Arne

Which is what? — Brett

You never answered this.

You just don’t like talking about it. — Brett

I love talking about it.

Is there anyone talking with you about it more than I?

1.7k

nor will I ever buy a work of art that fails to meet my definition of art.
— Arne

Which is what? — Brett
↪Arne

You never answered this. — Brett

Mine and mine alone. Again, I have no obligation to share the criteria I find useful in determining what I consider to be art.

And what is it that you want in the way of definition anyways?

And I can tell you my thoughts on what art is without providing any sort of definition that would provide a template as to whether any particular purported work of art is art.

I do not really care as to how others define art and I am a bit puzzled as to why they would care as to how I define it. Because mostly I don't.

Art is a reflection of the world of the artist. How could it be anything else?

You implied it. Have you purchased some art?

(To save time)
If you have purchased art, then you have done this, " I will decide what art is".

(To save time)
If you have purchased art, then you have done this, " I will decide what art is". — Punshhh

You may rest assured that whatever it is I may have done is consistent with my assertion that I will determine for myself what I consider to be art, and that includes anything hanging on my living room wall (though my living room wall contains mostly interesting pieces of driftwood I find when I go to the beach).

If you happen to find anything else on my wall that others may consider to be art, it is only there because we happen to agree. I certainly didn't seek anyone else's opinion, let alone rely upon it.

Why are you here?

Why are you here? — Brett

to discuss art.

what about you?

What is art?

art is a reflection of the world in which the artist finds herself/himself to be.

I will start with that.

↪Brett art is a reflection of the world in which the artist finds herself/himself to be. — Arne

Congratulations. That is a beginning. Of course everyone reflects, I assume, but not everyone takes it further.

I actually said that several posts ago.

But at no time was a rejecting any definition of art.

Instead, I was rejecting to the notion that we need to define art before we can discuss it.

I have had many a meaningful discussion about art with many people and with many of them having a far deeper understanding of art than I.

But not a single discussion ever began or ended with an any agreement or disagreement regarding a definition of art.

Either way, this is a discussion and not an interview.

What is art?

Instead, I was rejecting to the notion that we need to define art before we can discuss it. — Arne

Look at the title of the OP. That’s the subject.

These things taken from this OP are ideas I would support.

As Bartrick said, “Humans have a concept of art.”

Only man makes art. Intention.

Not all humans make art.

An artist has a sensibility that maybe others appreciate but do not possess.

All art movements have a set of rules. All rules are broken.

Artists seem to have a desire to make something new.

Duplicating what you see is about technique.

Imagination and interpretation break the rules and move art outside of technique.

“Whatever is not natural.” From unenlightened.

“That we understand art by our reason. We cannot know something by instinct, for unless or until that belief which was formed by instinct is ratified by reason is does not count as 'justified' and knowledge involves having justified true beliefs, whatever else it may involve.” From Bartrick.
Therefore art is an act of reason.

Look at the title of the OP. That’s the subject. — Brett

not even close. This is the Philosophy Forum. No philosopher worth their salt would consider "what is art" to be the functional equivalent of "how do you define art." And it is your OP so the burden of clarity is on you.

If you want a discussion, take it to the forum. If you want a definition, take it to Google.