a case of degenerating myself, — Ciceronianus

It can be...if one is not careful to step over the obstacles to get to the cracks letting in some light.
Fact is, I can readily admit I am simply trying to justify a degenerative habit. Whew. Thank God its over.

degenerating — Ciceronianus

Denegrating? I can think of no justification for putting even ten seconds of that in my head. So, I admit to some bias. I am generally media-phobic though, so it's that and almost everything else.

You have unwittingly touched back onto my original quandary. By AI I meant the show. But true, if AI produced a beautiful poem, is it not art? If it affects me to heightened states of that unknowable feeling that great art can elicit, is it prohibited because of its creator?

But in my heart, I might find a McDonalds commercial artistic. What then? — ENOAH

Your appreciation as the receiver (audience/viewer/listener) is in my view not enough for the criteria of calling it "art". People can have an aesthetic appreciation of something in nature, like a tree or rock formation, but that appreciation and experience is not considered an appreciation of "art", as nature isn't art by the definitions society and humanity operate by.

You can have an aesthetic appreciation of content just as much as art, but that doesn't mean that the content becomes art. Fundamentally, content is appreciated more minutes per day than art through the sheer quantity of content that is surrounding us in our modern life.

Just because art can be a business doesn't mean the core values of art is driven by profit. And it doesn't mean that profit-driven content can't be appreciated by the receiver either. It just means that if we don't define art in this way, we run into the problem of "everything can be art", which just renders the term "art" meaningless to even define.

If such lose definitions are used, then a tree or a rock, the corporate logo, a song written to fight personal depression, the commercial for a car brand, and the black paintings of Goya that were discovered after his death, would all be considered art. But most people wouldn't lump them together, even if they can't define why. With my definition, the categories become obvious, and the definition of art becomes clearer as a defining term.

Art is closely linked to our existential questions and philosophy, so if profit and earning money has too much of a focus when creating, it fundamentally becomes a version of "selling your soul".

Just because art can be a business doesn't mean the core values of art is driven by profit. And it doesn't mean that profit-driven content can't be appreciated by the receiver either. It just means that if we don't define art in this way, we run into the problem of "everything can be art", which just renders the term "art" meaningless to even define. — Christoffer

But is it really important that everyone agrees on what art is? I mean we disagree on what things qualify under what categories all the time, why should art be an exception?

Maybe it's okay that one person says "this McDonald's ad is art to me" and another one says "not to me". That doesn't necessarily mean the word has NO meaning, that just means these two people have different criteria, right?

As an aside, what's your criteria?

Ah, I see what you mean. Well, there's another aspect of art I hadn't touched on which is consistent with it being produced by Artificial Intelligence and not so much by American Idol as a whole--so, though I would not rule out a contestant in American Idol producing art, such as a beautiful poem as you mentioned, the overall context is also relevant. That aspect is the idea that art should transcend the social sphere and offer an external perspective on it so it may be challenged rather than be firmly embedded in it so that it reinforces it. American Idol is successful because it's popular and popular because it reflects what most people want and what most people want (in terms of symbolic content) is what they are trained to want culturally. It's something that people watch to feel relaxed and happy in their place rather than to imagine an alternative. So, the source is part of the experience there, whereas in the case of Artifical Intelligence, the source is backgrounded as irrelevant and / or unknown.

Art is closely linked to our existential questions and philosophy, so if profit and earning money has too much of a focus when creating, it fundamentally becomes a version of "selling your soul". — Christoffer

I agree

the source is part of the experience — Baden

Right. Am Idol's source is enough to prohibit a conclusion that it is art as aesthetically understood.

A long time ago, in TV land, anyway, Marcel Duchamp was involved in the creation of an anti-rational, anti-art, proto-Dada cultural movement in New York City. In 1917 he "produced" (purchased) Urinal, a piece of "ready-made" art--in this case, a urinal. Duchamp claims that something is art if someone declares that it is art.

So, nothing too remarkable about declaring American Idol, or any other television program, Art.

Call it "art" if you want. It is, after all, it's a production involving music, movement, a stage, cameras, an audience, and so on.

If it is art, then it can be criticized as art. Is American Idol "good art"?

But is it really important that everyone agrees on what art is? I mean we disagree on what things qualify under what categories all the time, why should art be an exception?

Maybe it's okay that one person says "this McDonald's ad is art to me" and another one says "not to me". That doesn't necessarily mean the word has NO meaning, that just means these two people have different criteria, right? — flannel jesus

Why is it not important if we can? Aesthetic appreciation is not the same as "art" and having well defined terms are good for preventing language to get in the way of discussing meaning.

Lose terminology just leads to those kinds of meaningless hollow shells of debates. In which it's not a discussion about the core and subject that is supposed to be discussed, but instead about how each person defines what something is. And without any anchor to what a term is defined as it leads to a circling argument of no meaning as the two sides are just disagreeing on a criteria for something that has none. It becomes utter meaningless to have such discussions (yet most discussions online are just exactly this).

So yes, it is important, because it lowers the amount of meaningless illusions of valuable exchange of ideas. Two people disagreeing on the criteria of if a Macdonalds ad being art or not is utter meaningless compared to even the minor meaning of them agreeing it is content and discussing the aesthetical appreciation of said ad.

Why settle for unnecessary societal norms of language that just adds more barriers in communication when it's possible to form a clear definition that removes them?

No, he wasn't saying that at all. Otherwise, he would be declaring urinals everywhere to be art if "someone" thought so. He was saying that the form of an artwork is less important than its context. A urinal is not aesthetically pleasing, but in the right context it can be used to make a statement about what art can be. There's a self-referential element to it. So, you can indeed make art out of TV shows and artists do, but (in general) the shows themselves in their regular context are no more art than your toilet or mine.

There can be popular art, which is different from show business. In prehistoric times I wrote for tv series and there was a concept of a kind of public service among the makers - these things we are creating are about 'issues' and 'relationships' that next day the audience will talk about at the water-cooler. But we were in it for the money too, and the audience size and share; I don't think that as a partial motivation precludes art, which an earlier poster suggested.

Take cartoons: I follow Matt in the 'Daly Telegraph' even though that's not my politics because I think his stuff consistently rises to the level of popular art.

Intention is surely involved in evaluation. I feel the makers of programs like American Idol have more cynical aims, but they too want to be talked about at the water-cooler and to make money.

The irreality of reality tv is interesting to me, where people begin to behave in accordance with rules they think are 'dramatic', derived from fiction, while portraying a version of themselves - the drama often deliberately whipped up behind the scenes, or before the cameras roll. This to me is mostly spectacle, entertainment that does not aspire to art, even though an individual artist might appear there.

Duchamp claims that something is art if someone declares that it is art.

So, nothing too remarkable about declaring American Idol, or any other television program, Art. — BC

I disagree. Duchamp's intention was focused on being a message, a communication through expression. Regardless of what that message is, it wasn't made for profit as a primary intention. American Idol is profit first and focused on profit, so it's content, not art. People can appreciate the show for its aesthetical value, but so can they with a beautiful tree in the forest, both the show and the tree weren't formed through the intention of a person wanting to communicate something as the first primary intention; the tree grew as a natural object, the show was created for the profit of the channel, record label and the intention of the contestants to win over others. If they later, after they've won, made art for the sake of creation as artists, then that would be art.

I refer to my argument earlier in the thread for a deeper dive.

If it is art, then it can be criticized as art. Is American Idol "good art"? — BC

Excellent point. Objectively, likely not. But that doesn't prohibit one from "seeing" it as "good."
Yes, once could apply that objective vs subjective to many human projections.

Perhaps one might easily argue that in the case of math, or perhaps eve architecture, there is an objective which "ought" to override the subjective. Should the same apply to art?

There can be popular art, which is different from show business. In prehistoric times I wrote for tv series and there was a concept of a kind of public service among the makers - these things we are creating are about 'issues' and 'relationships' that next day the audience will talk about at the water-cooler. But we were in it for the money too, and the audience size and share; I don't think that as a partial motivation precludes art, which an earlier poster suggested. — mcdoodle

I don't think any of us are going to come to a firm conclusion of where the exact dividing line between art and non-art is, but I will say there is not much out there that I am absolutely confident in calling art. Maybe some people think Jim Carrey does art or pop art. I say no, despite his obvious comedic skill, but Andy Kaufman (RIP), yes. Both comedians, but Jim Carrey just makes you laugh. Kaufman does much more.

The irreality of reality tv is interesting to me, where people begin to behave in accordance with rules they think are 'dramatic', derived from fiction, while portraying a version of themselves - the drama often deliberately whipped up behind the scenes, or before the cameras roll. This to me is mostly spectacle, entertainment that does not aspire to art, even though an individual artist might appear there. — mcdoodle

You have understood the "appeal" to me; and yet, perhaps you are correct, and notwithstanding the unique mix of drama and reality, it is still just a spectacle

there is an objective which "ought" to override the subjective. Should the same apply to art? — ENOAH

I don't know about the "ought" part, but we can apply objective criteria to art if we wish. A program like American Idol involves way too much hype. I'll leave it alone.

Art is produced in large quantities, if one counts everyone who can be said to be "doing art" and a lot of it isn't very good. The performances are not skilled enough, sufficiently prepared and practiced. The works of art are often extremely imitative, derivative, or just plain ripped off in works of 'art' that are "art-like".

All that is why we have critics, curators, museums, performance halls with narrow entrances (so to speak), and so on, sifting out the gold from the crap.

yes, good points.

As for singing being a talent as opposed to creative, I beg to differ. The creative interpretations by these presumably novices, is one of the things which moved me physically. — ENOAH

No, right on. As I said, I must've been barely an adolescent at the time I happened on a few episodes. Can definitely see it as falling under the loose category of "art" on that alone. :up:

Still, the various replies touching on the "intent" of the show being, at its core, a search for talent with the aim of financial motive, that just so happens to offer itself as an engaging and watchable art in and of itself (again, likely simply as to monetize literally every step of the process) seems relevant.

Marcel Duchamp — BC

Ah, I was hoping someone would mention Duchamp!

For anyone interested, especially the OP, as it seems rather relevant:



The whole thing is worth a watch IMO but FF to 5:00 for an excerpt on Duchamp and his role or "take" on art.

Two people disagreeing on the criteria of if a Macdonalds ad being art or not is utter meaningless compared to even the minor meaning of them agreeing it is content and discussing the aesthetical appreciation of said ad. — Christoffer

So then why not skip the meaningless debate on if it's art regardless, and go right to discussing the aesthetical appreciation of said ad? You don't HAVE to debate with someone about if you semantically disagree with them when they call it art. You know what I mean? You can skip the pointless debate and go right to the meaningful conversation regardless of if you both call it art or not - choosing to focus on the word is up to you. Don't do it if you don't want to

Fact is, I can readily admit I am simply trying to justify a degenerative habit. Whew. Thank God its over. — ENOAH

Well, that at least provides an explanation.

You can skip the pointless debate and go right to the meaningful conversation regardless of if you both call it art or not - choosing to focus on the word is up to you. Don't do it if you don't want to — flannel jesus

I rarely see this. Fuzzy defined terminology constantly gets in the way of depth in discussions. Just because I'm able to cut through it doesn't mean the masses seem able to. And the consequences of it spirals upwards into societal norms rather than just being a single discussion between two people. The accumulation of unnecessary discussions keeps people away from more important depth. It's the same as with political debates as people start to debate the meaning ideological terms because they don't have clear definitions of them, so they get stuck in just wasting time on that rather than get to the core of political issues that needs to be resolved.

I'm not really sure what you're defending here? What's your argument? That it's better to have lose definitions of terms rather than more defined ones? Why is that even a thing to promote?

Most discussions of aesthetic philosophy generally just get stuck in this "how to define what is art" debate, which I find meaningless as the examples are just arbitrary interpretations out of the lack of clear definitions of the term "art". It leads to nonsense circular arguments in which people just spell out their personal opinions rather than philosophical concept. That's why I'm more interested in setting clear definitions and through them it's much easier to answer questions like the OP is asking. Otherwise what's the point of even asking if there's no logical and rational argument for an answer to be found?

I'm not really sure what you're defending here? What's your argument? That it's better to have lose definitions of terms rather than more defined ones? Why is that even a thing to promote? — Christoffer

Not better, just acceptable. And if you're reason for thinking it's unacceptable is that you get trapped in semantic conversations, I'm just pointing out that that's you're choice - you don't have to argue with anybody if ads are art, you can talk about the other stuff you said was more important anyway.

You could literally do it now. That guy that said a McDonald's ad was art... you could literally have the discussion you said was more important, right now, with him. The wishy washy definition of the word "art" isn't the thing stopping you from doing that.

I don't think any of us are going to come to a firm conclusion of where the exact dividing line between art and non-art is, but I will say there is not much out there that I am absolutely confident in calling art. — Baden

So for you art has to be something 'special'?

Both comedians, but Jim Carrey just makes you laugh. Kaufman does much more. — Baden

I find nothing of merit in either of these performers but I would call them both artists. Whether I enjoy something not - whether it is good or not - I don't think matters all that much when it comes to the label 'art'.

Seems to me a lot of people mistake the word art for the word 'sacred' and need for anything proposed for this category to have mystical, perhaps even transcendent, aesthetic properties. Can you help me make sense of this?

If it is art, then it can be criticized as art. Is American Idol "good art"? — BC

It can be criticized as a television program. Television programs have their own separate criteria to consider them good or bad. In that category, American Idol is actually pretty good - or was, back when I watched it.

But most of the content is not of the show itself, and none of the artistic content is. The performances are brought by the contestants. Some performances were outstanding; some were mediocre, some were (to my mind) very bad.

Among reality shows, it was probably the best, simply due to the quality of performance art by individual contestant. I have not watched very many reality shows, since most of the ones I sampled were boring, juvenile, mean or in bad taste - sometimes all of those. Art - as distinguished from artifice - is rarely involved in either the production or the content.

was hoping someone would mention Duchamp!

For anyone interested, especially the OP, as it seems rather relevant: — Outlander

Yes, "designed to mock the world of art, and the snobberies that go with it."

No, he wasn't saying that at all. — Baden

I don't think he was declaring all urinals to be art. I don't think his particular urinal is art, and I don't believe that calling something "art" makes it art. All that was his meshuggeneh. Urinals, toilets, sinks, bidets, tubs, and plumbing can be quite interesting, even aesthetically pleasing (ask the Kohler Corporation)

but they are objects whose commercial value and practical utility are the foremost considerations for designer, producer, and consumer. They are not Art, "art", or art.

When one considers bathroom and kitchen fixtures, one wants to know if it will fit, will it hold up under normal or heavy use, does it match the wall, flooring, and other fixtures, how much does it cost, and similar questions. Shoppers don't ask, "What does this toilet mean?" "What is the message of the sink".

Target didn't design its red plastic shopping carts to be art or beautiful. The intention was to underline the Target Brand with the particular shade of red; the logo; the sturdiness of the cart, etc.

A discussion at any company headquarters about logos, stationary, signage, in-store fixtures, advertising, and so on might sound "artistic". "What does our logo MEAN to the public? Is this particular shade of green fashion forward enough or will it be perceived as anachronistic? Does this store sign REALLY distinguish our fine fried food from their greasy crap? Probably a lot of high-sounding imponderables are being tossed around. It's business; it's not art.

AI meets the criterion which asks if it elicits strong feeling, — ENOAH

Collingwood makes a strong distinction between arousing a feeling and expressing one. I generally agree with him, although, as I mentioned, his formulation is rigid. Here's more from "The Principles of Art."

The expression of an emotion by speech may be addressed to someone; but if so it is not done with the intention of arousing a like emotion in him. If there is any effect which we wish to produce in the hearer, it is only the effect which we call making him understand how we feel. But, as we have already seen, this is just the effect which expressing our emotions has on ourselves. It makes us, as well as the people to whom we talk, understand how we feel. A person arousing emotion sets out to affect his audience in a way in which he himself is not necessarily affected. He and his audience stand in quite different relations to the act, very much as physician and patient stand in quite different relations towards a drug administered by the one and taken by the other. A person expressing emotion, on the contrary, is treating himself and his audience in the same kind of way; he is making his emotions clear to his audience, and that is what he is doing to himself. — R.G. Collingwood

So, since I assume no AI actually experiences anything, AI art does not meet this standard.

It seems like I have made the same mistake some others have - mistaking AI for artificial intelligence instead of American Idol. That brings me back to my original judgment - Americal Idol probably is not art but the individual performances may be.

But is it really important that everyone agrees on what art is? I mean we disagree on what things qualify under what categories all the time, why should art be an exception? — flannel jesus

It doesn't really matter if it's important or not, it will never happen, which I guess is your point.