OK, sure, but under the idea that a thing may be of higher or lower artistic merit, then paintings, musical compositions or poems, also may be more or less art, and may even not be art at all. So this would apply to any activity which might be thought to either be an art or to at least (ideally) involve artistry.

So, your reason here would not seem to be adequate to justify denying that architecture is an art, any more than it would be to adequate to justify denying that musical composition, painting, or literature are arts.

it is nonsense to ask if the Bible is the literal truth, only because "literal truth" is a nonsense notion. — Metaphysician Undercover

Interesting point, but I don't quite agree. You might recall the big debate on the old forum between myself and Landru among others - I think you also - as to the historicity of the Resurrection. My view is it is an historical fact, it is something that really occurred, not only a myth. I am not going to get into that debate again, but it was about a similar point.

I think, overall, one of the better hermenuetics is the one offered by Karen Armstrong about 'mythos' and 'logos' - that mythos is not and was never intended to be read as a literal truth, but embodies an insight in a way that one can imaginatively comprehend it. It's all about meaning. Whereas logos (the logical/analytical/historical) is all measure, control, how to function in the world. They were recognised in most traditions as complementary, but current Western culture is definitely unbalanced in favour of 'logos', whereby the Dawkins of this world attempt to reinterpret 'mythos' as 'logos', which makes it seem ridiculous, and the ridicule those who believe it.

paintings, musical compositions or poems, also may be more or less art, and may even not be art at all. — John

There is a lot of crap art around, especially nowadays. But if it has been created or composed AS art, then it has no other purpose - it's not a building, or a hat-stand, or a spigot. You don't use it FOR something.

As for whether 'architecture is an art', it's a vexed question, and also (once again) beyond adjutication (as who could have the final word?)

But if it has been created or composed AS art, then it has no other purpose — Wayfarer

OK, but many novels are written to be merely entertainment, paintings are painted just for interior decoration and music is composed to make money, to serve for for social activities, like dancing and sexual bonding, drug-taking. military parades, and so on.

If it has been created as art, then what exactly is its purpose? Does the fact that it has been created as art mean that it is art? Does it guarantee that the artist has no other purpose in mind, such as making money, or finding a place in history, or simply establishing his or her identity as artist?

Entertainment, payment, and so on ought to be considered external to art, ought it not? Art for art's sake, is the saying. (That's a lyric, I think.)

What is art's purpose? Very general question, isn't it? I think one thing I can probably say, is that it is a hallmark of h. sapiens. The Caves of Lascaux and Altimira are said to be quite beautiful and highly evocative - I haven't seen them myself - but what is their purpose? I dare say there are many books about that, probably many a PhD thesis, so I wouldn't want to try and sum it up in a forum post. But surely it must originate in wonder and mystery, and probably also a sense of the sacred, and also with the artist's ability to evoke those, and to create new things, to actually create art. I'm a songwriter and composer, albeit not at all commercially successful, but the original pieces I have composed are among the most important thing in my life - and for no particular reason, other than they express something, and that they're new, they're things I have brought into existence.

So-called primitive art always had purposes that were really nothing like what we might consider the purpose of art. For that matter what about the difference between religious art and secular art? The rise of the portrait genre in Europe, for example? Those who commissioned Rembrandt probably had very definite purposes in mind.

I can relate to your sense of pride about your own compositions, as I have also composed music, written poems and produced many paintings and drawings, but I also know that a garden designer, builder or architect can feel the same sense of pride about their creations.

That's why "purpose" is a red herring and the subject of much wasted energy amongst philosophers and critics. It's nothing more than a reduction or art or work to a particular concept, a sort of status game where someone's creation of effort is lauded for an idea considered relevant​ or cool.

Art is not a purpose. It's a living action or presence, not some mere plan or intention.

Sure art "is not a purpose", it transcends purpose and that's why architecture can be art, and science or mathematics can be an art. But it's also true that nothing is produced without any sense of purpose at all.

Interesting point, but I don't quite agree. You might recall the big debate on the old forum between myself and Landru among others - I think you also - as to the historicity of the Resurrection. My view is it is an historical fact, it is something that really occurred, not only a myth. I am not going to get into that debate again, but it was about a similar point. — Wayfarer

But what is "historical fact"? It is just memories, and memories are fleeting. We reinforce our memories by revisiting them, going over them again and again in the mind. We must recollect or else the memory disappears. But each time the memory is reinstated through recollection, there is an opportunity for change. I meet up with my old buddies once in a while, and we sometimes discuss events from back in the 80's, or even the 70's. We each have a completely different perspective to begin with, and when we piece them together, we always have to deal with contradictory memories. That's the nature of "historical fact", it is loaded with contradictions, and untruths.

But we can't underestimate the ingenuity of human beings, who have developed this great memory aid, which is writing things down. However, we also must not overestimate the power of this tool. Language changes over time, substantially. Even my children use many words in ways completely different from the way I use them myself. So even the written material has to be brought back up, and reinterpreted, in order that the memory, or "history" is not lost within the shifting meaning of words. Some written material has been found which we do not even have the capacity to interpret, because the connection, the continuity, has been lost.

That should provide an explanation as to why I believe that "literal truth", and even "historical fact", are not meaningful phrases when referring to something documented a long time ago. These are like vague memories from your childhood, which are being revisited. And, even though writing things down has greatly increased our capacity to extend the memory time period, we also need to recognize the problems with this extended time period. Imagine being fifty or sixty years old, having memories of when you were five, if your language underwent substantial changes a number of times throughout your life. Each time your language changed, you'd have to reinterpret your memories, a radical change would require translation of your memories. And since the evolution of language is a continuous process, this reinterpreting of your memories, if it is to maintain accuracy, must also be carried out continuously. If you wait five or ten years, while your language is changing, then recollect your memories, you may have lost the capacity to produce an accurate interpretation.

I think, overall, one of the better hermenuetics is the one offered by Karen Armstrong about 'mythos' and 'logos' - that mythos is not and was never intended to be read as a literal truth, but embodies an insight in a way that one can imaginatively comprehend it. It's all about meaning. Whereas logos (the logical/analytical/historical) is all measure, control, how to function in the world. They were recognised in most traditions as complementary, but current Western culture is definitely unbalanced in favour of 'logos', whereby the Dawkins of this world attempt to reinterpret 'mythos' as 'logos', which makes it seem ridiculous, and the ridicule those who believe it. — Wayfarer

There is an artistic mode of writing, common in poetry, which we need to respect as existent, and also well used by writers. This mode of writing intentionally utilizes the ambiguity of words. That is how the author appeals to the widest possible audience. Strong words, words with "strong" meaning, are words which are meaningful to everyone, but what that word means to me, might be quite different from what that word means to you. Using such strong words will allow that a piece of poetry will be very meaningful to a wide variety of different people. But if we compare the meaning, we will be at odds. In other words, if the written piece has a very specific, and unambiguous meaning, it will be meaningful to a very specific group of people, having a narrow audience. If it is ambiguous though, different people will derive different meaning, such that the piece will be meaningful to a much wider variety of people. Under this premise it becomes even more meaningless to look for a literal meaning in something which was intended for a mass audience, because that was never intended in the first place. Not only is there shifting meaning through time, but there was never intended to be a fixed meaning.

This mode of writing brings us as far as possible from "literal truth", but ironically it is the most meaningful writing because it appeals to the widest possible audience. This is how the artist obtains a massive following, by distancing oneself from literal meaning. The artist's ability to obtain a massive following may also play into the field of politics. It may compete with politicians and this principle of vague meaning might be at odds with the fundamental values of democracy. But now the importance of the distinction you make between "mythos" and "logos" should become evident. Literal truth, logos, is quite opposed to the artistic writing of mythos, metaphor, parable, allegory. But in comparison to the other, literal truth is quite useless for dealing with the masses of people.

So-called primitive art always had purposes that were really nothing like what we might consider the purpose of art. For that matter what about the difference between religious art and secular art? The rise of the portrait genre in Europe, for example? Those who commissioned Rembrandt probably had very definite purposes in mind. — John

The purpose of art is probably one of the most difficult things to define. It cannot be defined by the intent of the author because generally the author doesn't even clearly know one's own intent, in producing art, it's just a matter of inspiration. So to define its purpose we would have to look at what it does. I would say that it has a certain type of mystic power over people, that is what it does, influences people in a mystical way.

That's why "purpose" is a red herring and the subject of much wasted energy amongst philosophers and critics. It's nothing more than a reduction or art or work to a particular concept, a sort of status game where someone's creation of effort is lauded for an idea considered relevant​ or cool. — TheWillowOfDarkness

To say that "the purpose of art" is not an important question, is like saying that the purpose of life is not an important question. Some think this way, some do not.