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? — Qwex

I think this qualifies as part of the definition: “ Whatever is not natural.” From unenlightened.”

Natural elements may be used but the result is contrived.

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. — Punshhh

Why? That is not the context in which modern audiences experience his work. To study how audiences in Shakespeare's day appreciated the work would be a study in history more than a study in art. How would it change my view?

As I have no idea how one would defend such stories based on the context of his time, please do so, and then we can see if you have a point.

Surely there are hugely popular artists alive today that still have millions of people who hate their work..."The Irishman" comes to mind. No one should be immune from criticism, and no one is universally loved.

I assume you think the more specific examples from Macbeth that I provided are also examples of good clever writing...they just need to be viewed in the context of the times?? I hope you aren't another one of the people that LOVES Shakespeare, but hasn't read it since high school.

Even if I could be convinced that if I lived in Shakespeare's time and place that I would love his stories, that doesn't change the fact that I don't live then, and from today's perspective...they have some decent dialogue at best.

And in case it is lost in all my Shakespeare bashing (and to at least somewhat relate to the OP)...this is all subjective and opinion based. I have not found any objective measures of art that work for me. So when I say "Shakespeare's stories stink" what I am really saying is "most people don't like them".

I also don't like a lot of modern (or more modern) writers. But why am I so much more likely to get push-back when I bash Shakespeare than when I bash Tolkien?

Sorry, a lot of partially connected thoughts there, I am trying to avoid going too long before I know you have some interest in an extended discussion on the merits of Shakespeare.

I've listened to a lot (and I mean a lot) of music. I've also collected a lot of art.

Is my judgement better than most because I have so much experience? Yes.

I notice more technical details, and don't just base goodness on pleasure.

Do I belong in a separate field?

Ironically, the track I'm about to share is in the dark horse of genres. I believe it's the best song. I know that's up for discussion with others but who can better my judgement?

I'm not claiming to be the only good judge, I'm sure there are others.

Here's that track. I recommend you listen to all of it, and take even the screaming in, and judge it. If you give up on the screaming, then not only do you miss the singing, you miss the chance to see if the song is actually good.

Are there lesser and greater judges of art?

Anyway, I listen to all genres, classical - rap - metal - this is the best I've come across.

Is my judgement better than most because I have so much experience? — Qwex

I would actually say no. You can just explain your reasons for liking something better. You can break down and really analyze the specific aspects that cause you to like it. However, you have NO more ability to know what other people prefer and no reason for other people to view your opinion as correct. An art critic needs to be educated so they can thoroughly explain their reasons for like/dislike. That is NOT so we can view their opinions as objectively correct in any way. We just get some details to help us decide if the reviewed work is worth our time as something we might enjoy.

In all genres of art, I have not found that my tastes change significantly as I learn more. I occasionally find things accessible that were previously unintelligible, but I do not notice a real change in my tastes.

Are there lesser and greater judges of art? — Qwex

I would say there are better and lesser art ANALYSTS. But to call them "judges" gives them a power I do not think they deserve. I am not more likely to agree with a well educated art critic, I am just more likely to understand their reasons for liking/disliking.

Anyway, I listen to all genres, classical - rap - metal - this is the best I've come across. — Qwex

Me too. Even country...although most country is like fingernails on a chalkboard.

I thought the song in the video was fine. But nothing that particularly hooks me (I actually liked the screaming bits better than the rest). But if you say it is your favorite song, I can only agree. Who am I to tell you what your favorite song should be? Would you give that power to anyone? Could someone out there know so much about music that they could tell you that you are wrong and you would change your mind?

Using a tiny instrument is sometimes cruical to rhythm of instrument, such as two quick taps of a symbol, continuously over time lapse, or are all instruments not harmonious?

If instruments are, then it's beneficent to focus on even the smallest unit of a beat.

There is a way to make perfect music. Thus, people can make more appealing art.

I don’t really want to stir this up again, but it got me thinking.

I’ve tried many mediums and forms to try and capture (for better use of a word) my experience in the world. But I feel like I’ve failed in every attempt. Whatever I do never quite makes it. Not that anyone would necessarily know that. But I’ve realised I’ll always fail because art is artifice, a synthetic version of my experience. How could it possibly succeed at capturing my experience?

This is the curse of the artist, most works fail to convey what was intended. They fall short in the execution and result. Also the experiences we wish to convey in an artistic medium are so full of experience and sensation that all attempts to convey it are doomed to failure.

However it's not all bad because often when the artist is dissatisfied, the viewer is not. Or the work inadvertently conveys something successfully but chance, or happenstance. Very occasionally the work does capture what was intended, which is a very rewarding experience for the artist. Or the artist discovers a successful technique.

The journey of the artist is an exploration, along the way the artist becomes a creative person, learning more artistic techniques, developing insight into nature and the ways things are observed and may learn rewarding creative processes, exploring and sharing these insights. Some artists break through a threshold, or ceiling of limitation and find creating successful pieces effortless, like Picasso for example.

I’ve tried many mediums and forms to try and capture (for better use of a word) my experience in the world. But I feel like I’ve failed in every attempt. Whatever I do never quite makes it. Not that anyone would necessarily know that. But I’ve realised I’ll always fail because art is artifice, a synthetic version of my experience. How could it possibly succeed at capturing my experience? — Brett

Brett, If you do not mind me suggesting, you are describing your consciousnesses. Consciousness is a creator of reality - what we perceive reality to be , becomes our reality, and then we pervade that reality to others.By understanding consciousness, you can change your reality.

Now to explain the above in more conventional thought - I am still trying to get my head around consciousness . - You are searching for a language. All artists must find a way to express their particular sensibility ( consciousness ).The first part is to find a language.You wont find the language until you are settled in you thoughts.You will settle on your thoughts and find a language at the same time. At that point not only will you show your work, but you will insist on shouting it to the world.

I’m not sure if “expression” is the right word in all this. It’s an inadequate word, it might even be a lie, being used to justify something. That part of us behind this idea, call it consciousness if you like, is far more valuable in inventing a car, or the engine. That’s taking our experience of the world and turning it into something understood as artifice, synthetic, no pretence about what it is, something that actually interacts constantly between consciousness and the world. A painting is totally synthetic, it’s inactive and does nothing. People talk about “art that changed the world”. No art ever changed the world. An individuals actions might change the world when their consciousness is transformed into action. A painting is inactive, it’s a very poor result of consciousness.

In a way art is an effort to tie something down, freeze a moment in time, like butterflies behind glass. It’s turning an experience into a corpse at best. If that’s the “expression” then it is a lie.

Perhaps a human attempt at expression is a better way of putting it. The acknowledgement of human frailty accepts the limits of artifice.

I accept your comments on the futility of conveying experience in an profound, or adequate way. But it does not allow for a creativity in the appreciation of art. Or the power in formulaic art, such as in religious iconography, or artefacts.

For me there are works of art which have an experiential effect on me which is equally profound as any beautiful human experience. Some artefacts can become invested with such meaning that simply to think of them can induce an experience of joy, or profound understanding.

So perhaps what I am saying is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I still have a problem with expression. It sounds inadequate to me. Conveying experience is better for me. But that still feels inadequate, but if that means conveying your sense of existence at a particular point in time then fine.

If I’m at the beach, swimming in the surf on a fine clear day, and I want to make that the subject of a piece of art what should I focus on: sight, sound, touch, hearing, smell, and then my state of mind at the time and my perceptions switching about with the priority of my senses, A painting is not going to do that. Obviously that’s a big call to catch all that and the materials I use compromise me even more. But if it’s just going to be a very good painting of a wave on a perfect day then that’s all it can be. And there are thousand of images of waves out there reducing its value even more.

Multimedia might work here, and conceptual work that doesn’t tie things down, that keep your mind tracking over the subject. But you can see where the inadequacy lies, that what’s produced relates very little to the experience, and obviously that experience takes place as consciousness.

So for instance, what was called new journalism that appeared in the sixties is possibly more effective in telling a story than a novel. One, because it doesn’t pretend to be the real thing like a novel does, and two because it includes the subject and the writer; it has facts and the experience of the writer observing the subject.

My other thought, as I mentioned, is the modern consciousness. Is it real? If so then does it need new ways of regarding itself?

Edit: a person could sit on the beach and write down on paper every word that comes to mind over a 60 minute period then hang it in a gallery. Is that any less than a painting?

I know what you mean about the beach on a perfect day, something very difficult to convey.
These are a couple of paintings I have done in contemplation of the sea on one of those days. (Lighting is difficult when photographing these paintings, they look so different with different lighting). The first is inside lighting and the second is outside lighting.




This painting by someone else has a quality I like

My other thought, as I mentioned, is the modern consciousness. Is it real? If so then does it need new ways of regarding itself?

I think that as our consciousness has speeded up with the increased use of IT etc, we have become exposed to and accustomed to aesthetic narratives and these have become part of the nature of our consciousness. I think that if one looks to examine these issues philosophically this phenomena should be understood, for what it is and the aesthetic narratives identified. A knowledge of previous aesthetics would also be appropriate.

I feel that people go on their own individual aesthetic journey, either like what I have just described, or not thinking about it, but being spoon fed by the electronic gadgets etc.

I think that for artists, there is a similar spectrum of consciousness, genres act as a good framework through which to develop ways to convey experiences, but this would probably require a social group of viewers, who are familiar with the narrative.

Edit: a person could sit on the beach and write down on paper every word that comes to mind over a 60 minute period then hang it in a gallery. Is that any less than a painting

Yes, I think that poetry, or writing could convey the beach experience, as it is something which can be evoked, reminding the viewer, or listener of when they personally had the experience.

Nice work.

If art is opinionated...

Is this a contradiction?

if you watch a UFC fight, it's good par with one of two fighters, before actually recognizing who the second fighter is.

If I watch UFC, I carefully examine both fighters, and come to a rational decision. 'he's got better eyes, but I've seen the other guy fight before, I'll bet on draw' - contrary to - 'I prefer this guy - I'm going to bet on him blindly'.

Am I wrong to conflate UFC and art or is it a fair assocication?

Take two pieces of art for example, can one be pit against the other?

Isn't that what beauty is? Rated art?

Yes, I agree, people have their own taste in art like with music. Some connoisseurs and critics develop an educated overview of art, like music, which tries to asses the work objectively. Not always with much success.

In response to the original question - 'What is art?'

What is happening when my brain converts the sound vibrations of a Mozart sonata or Maria Callas aria into electrical signals and experiences them? Why does it generate a nice feeling, pleasure? Also, the sensation of joy does not need anyone else to be present, not even the performer. Other than enjoyment, it does not convey any information. It is unlikely that such a complex characteristic would be an accident or vestigial. So why have we evolved to create and experience certain combinations and sequences of sound in an enjoyable way? How does it support life?

From what we observe about the creation, reception and effects of music, it could serve multiple purposes for life.

Art could have evolved in one of several ways, based on its utility for life. One role it could play is to make the registering, analysis, retention and reuse of event sequences that we experience. For example, it rains heavily, and there are mudflows, the hut collapses. Or the cock crows and it is dawn and time to wake up and get going. Drawings and paintings help humans record events and causes and effects. Musical notes in specific sequences create a melody the mind can focus on and follow. Like it can track the flight of the deer and the chase of the lion. In this role, art is a teaching aid for the brain.

The other function it could have is to increase the capacity of the more advanced parts of the brain by exercising them (e.g. the cortex), although they may have evolved a lot before art came into the picture.
Another possibility is that it could help calm the more reactive parts of the brain (which meditation and mindfulness do too).

Art could also, in a secondary role, strengthen the bonding within social groups. The Arts represent the more complex emotions of humans and sharing the experience of music, dance and art could strengthen the bonds within human groups. To the extent that some other species also exhibit the capacity for music and dance, it applies to them too.

Our perception of Art is intimately tied to our senses. Therefore, its existence, form and value are entirely relative to our species. For any other species on our planet, it may be similar but will not be the same. For an alien species with very different sense organs and evolutionary needs, art may not exist or will be very different if it does.

Sunsets over the ocean look good to us. Is it because it is a sign that everything is fine with the world? The life-giving sun is there, just right for us. There’s water, even if it is salty. Music sounds good to us. Is it because it resembles the sounds of natural things that are wholesome for us, such as flowing water, singing birds, flowing air? Is the ability to create and enjoy art only possible when we have leisure time? And because leisure is a sign of satiation, comfort, shelter and safety, does art enhance it by generating positive feelings and make us strive for such conditions?

Then what about sad songs? How are they good for us? How about paintings of war and death? How are they good for us? One answer could be that they remind us of what we should not be, what we should not do. So, art could also be serving the function of reflection and teaching. And it may do it for many of us together. It could be a way for us to agree on what is right for us and what is not.

In summary, either art makes us more fit for survival directly or pushes us to such behaviour that the enjoyment of art becomes possible in our lives. Either way, it is utilitarian. As an enabler or as a source of pleasurable sensations that accompany healthy activities.

Pretty spot on definition in my book.

Pretending I didn't read that, I'd have said .. any observable and intentional arrangement of matter not done so for utility.

I took art classes before and the best way to sum up what art is is how a person expresses what they see, feel, imagine, etc. It can come in different forms and not just on a blank sheet of paper or canvas. Let's say the person dreamt of a beautiful dance and wants to express it. It would probably be best to show that art of it by replicating the actual dance instead of drawing it out. Drawing it out will not capture what they saw very well.

Thanks Outlander, and welcome to the forum

to sum up what art is is how a person expresses what they see, feel, imagine, etc. — Julia

- expressing their consciousness

Welcome to the forum.

I agree that art can be all the things you suggest it should be, but at the same time believe that it need not be any of those things to be art. Indeed it could be the antithesis of all that you suggest, and still be art. So what is art?

To answer the question I have tried to identify elements that are always present in all art work- from the whole of time and across all cultures, even the future and arrived at the conclusion that those elements are 1:art work is information and 2: the information reflects the artists consciousness. These are the only two elements present in every art work ever made. Everything else is variable, but these two elements must be present. Wittgenstein could not find any constituent elements, he only saw variability, so concluded that art cannot be defined.

After forming the definition : art work is information about the artist's consciousness, I then asked myself is this all art can be? can it be more then this? I concluded that as art must always arise out of the artists consciousness it cannot be more then this. I use John Searle's definition of consciousness.

I don’t believe the definition diminishes art’s standing in any way. On the contrary I believe it raises it to new heights – If information is fundamental, then so must consciousness be. –so it is entirely fitting that we artists have been expressing something fundamental all along.