It’s not my OP. Like I said, what are you doing here?

Edit: by the way we’re not looking for a definition, you introduced that idea.

what are you doing here? — Brett

to discuss art, not to define it.

how about you?

what are you doing here?
— Brett

to discuss art, not to define it. — Arne

Then begin.

Edit: by the way we’re not looking for a definition, you introduced that idea. — Brett

This question came up in Quora, and there were as many different answers as there were respondents. 'what is art' should be defined in all discussions of art, but never really is. — Pop

From the original post. I added the emphasis.

Yes, you’re correct. But it has not been my intention to find a definition.

How can you discuss art without a definition? What are you discussing?

Me or Arne?

Everybody. I believe, we all have a different personally constructed definition of art. It reflects the height of our consciousness. And is very dear to us, and we must fight for it. Hence the confusion surrounding art.

But essentially we are not discussing art, but our consciousness of it. And I also believe the art world is not discussing art but its consciousness of it.This is really what the definition is about. It seeks to clarify what is going on. We are really discussing consciousness, and so is the art world.

I don’t believe you can get it down to a definition. How long should a definition be, a sentence, a paragraph, as essay?

I prefer the long dialogue that weaves in and out of things and to pick the nuggets out of it, then to isolate them and see if they stand up to scrutiny. I’m not interested in someone’s personally constructed definition, I’m looking for consistencies and commonalities, things that can be agreed on then move onto the next stage. Does anyone really believe they’ve worked it out completely? Have they applied their ideas to all the arts? Do they really think they’ve put in enough work to define art? Can you even do it if you haven’t experienced producing art? Do the academics have more of an idea than the artist? They’re smart and knowledgeable so they might, they might be more articulate than the average artist.

We are discussing art, then we’re moving back into consciousness in an attempt to put pieces together. Just how does it reflects the height of our consciousness, for all of us, for the artists or the viewer? It’s clear that the experience of producing art is not the same as viewing it. So who’s consciousness are we talking about?

If you’re watching a dance company on stage, whose consciousness is being displayed, the dancers or the person who conceived the dance. The dancers are just presenting a rehearsed version of the concept. What about a play; the actors, or the writer, or the director?

I believe, we all have a different personally constructed definition of art. — Pop

I think that is basically that we all have a personally constructed definition of what we like. That doesn’t mean much at all.

To disprove the definition I've proposed you need only produce one work of art that is not contained by it.

If you cant do that, then perhaps you should consider the validity of it.

Ultimately everything is about consciousness.

It reflects the height of our consciousness ... essentially we are not discussing art, but our consciousness of it. And I also believe art is not discussing art but its consciousness of it.This is really what the definition is about. It seeks to clarify what is going on. We are really discussing consciousness, and so is art. — Pop

So is this your definition?

Art is an expression of human consciousness, art works are information about the artist's consciousness ( including the subconscious )

Is this paraphrasing correct?

Art is humanities expression of itself.

Art gives us insight into the artist,

Yes that is near enough

Okay. Well you deserve credit for getting it down to a statement. I’ll think about it.

Thanks Brett, Its been a pleasure chatting.

I never thought I would say some of these things.

Humans have a concept of art.

Art is humanities expression of itself.

Art gives us insight into the artist. The artist is human, so art is an insight into humanity.

All people express themselves in some form, therefore everyone is an artist.

Nothing is expected of art except the expression of the artist.

Artwork allows people to share in that expression.

Different forms of expression resonate with different people.

You would not believe how big a smile I have on my face for you :rofl:

You would not believe how many ideas and thoughts I have fit into this.

What I really like is you have extrapolated on it in ways I haven't thought of

Let’s see what happens to it.

Yeah, who knows? Do you mind If i quote you outside of this forum ? I'm putting together a web site, and I really like the above post.

No go ahead. It’s mostly yours anyway.

Thanks Brett, but I think its yours also now - you have taken it to places I never thought of :grin:

So to satisfy your demands for objective standards we can begin with that. — Brett

Wait, I am saying there cannot possibly be objective standards for art...so certainly I am not demanding objective standards. And what you have described is still not objective. Even most "grammar rules" are just suggestions once you are beyond the basics.

I’m not concerned with your opinion on art. It’s irrelevant. Only you think it’s important and yet you profess to know little about art. — Brett

EVERYONE is just expressing an opinion. That is my point. When did I say I know little about art? I admit to having "poor" taste in art, but that is tongue in cheek as my whole point is that no one can have "poor" taste in art, just tastes that aren't popular.

No ones saying that. Deeper knowledge allows you to work your way through the world of art, not to tell others what they should like. — Brett

But Shakespeare is "better" than Transformers? Sounds like you are telling people what to like.

We’re not saying you should like something, we’re saying why some pieces have value in the world of art. No ones forcing you to go to an art gallery. — Brett

Why would I want to go to an art gallery to see art? The "best" art in the modern era is movies and television anyway (just an opinion, but unquestionably true if "best" is in anyway connected to "most popular").

One last thing, care to list your reasons why the Shakespeare stories suck? Should be easy because it’s not even about language. Just pretend it’s a Batman movie. — Brett

Why do you act like I don't want to do this?? I have offered many times, but no one ever takes me up on it, haha. Let's keep this somewhat limited, I will give a couple specifics from MacBeth, and then quickly hit Romeo and Juliet as it is more obviously a mess from a modern perspective.

In MacBeth, much of the prophecy stuff is nonsense. MacBeth can only be killed by a man who is not born of a woman and he can only die in the woods of some forest. These "prophecies" are just word games that do not even influence the story's outcome. MacDuff was "born" by c-section (I guess in Shakespeare's day people "born" by c-section were not actually "born"?!?). Also, although MacBeth never went near that one forest, the invading army made spears out of the trees. That is not the same thing. These are just dumb word games. They do not drive the story or influence the outcome (they do not even seem necessarily true/accurate/fulfilled). Shakespeare is full of stuff like this. He is the Quentin Tarrantino of his time. He writes great dialogue but the stories are garbage, even seemingly nonexistent at times.

Now to Romeo and Juliet. The story that takes place over 4 days and is about a 13 year old and 17 year old who are "deeply" in love, although they have not even met when the story begins (and the 17 year old is actually "deeply" in love with a different girl at the start) :roll: .

If that is not enough to destroy that story, please let me know what you think the moral of the story is for Romeo and Juliet...? What do people learn by reading that story?

He is the Quentin Tarrantino of his time. He writes great dialogue but the stories are garbage, even seemingly nonexistent at times. — ZhouBoTong

Maybe your right about that.

Shakespeare is full of stuff like this. He is the Quentin Tarrantino of his time. He writes great dialogue but the stories are garbage, even seemingly nonexistent at times

Your criticism of Sheakspeare's work is divorced from reality and it's focus on plot is naive. You should appreciate the context in which it was written and performed.

I agree with Brett but, wouldn't it be;

Art is an expression of nature, by using space, either directly, or by some other mode.

Cause monkeys also have been recorded doing art, Brett.

Here's food for thought.

Is my smile art? When is it art?

Result 1: I have intent to draw interest with my smile for your judgement. Is it then art?

As per usual on this topic, I'm not confident with my definition.

Shakespeare wrote something like - "art is a mirror to nature". Perhaps he meant Human nature?

That something is art is arbitrarily deemed.It becomes art when you choose to say it is.

Of course - you are not going to put forward as art something arbitrary. though you have that freedom. You are going to put forward your best thought, your best painting, etc - the height of your consciousness - for everybody to scrutinize.

Art is information about the artists consciousness.