so I don't get your "who cares" attitude? If it doesn't matter, the why are you even in this discussion? — Christoffer

The 'who cares?' isn't in response to the entire thread, it's in response to YOU saying YOU would like to have more fruitful conversations that aren't weighed down by the annoying problem of differing definitions of Art. My "Who cares?" response is to that - if YOU want to have those fruitful conversations, the definition of Art isn't stopping you, so why do you care so much? Just go have those fruitful conversations. You were talking as if the definition of art is stopping you from doing that - I'm letting you know, it is not.

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

You're saying the disagreement on the criteria of if it's art is meaningless compared to the discussion about aesthetical appreciation. And yet you're still sat here, post after post, talking about the criteria of if it's art and NOT talking about the aesthetical appreciation of said ad. It doesn't seem like your actions are matching your words, I think that's notable. You can stop talking about the criteria of art and start talking about aesthetical appreciation literally whenever you want.

YOU would like to have more fruitful conversations that aren't weighed down by the annoying problem of differing definitions of Art. — flannel jesus

Once again...

That's not the issue here, I'm talking about a broader perspective of how society handles knowledge and how to mitigate unnecessary lack of clarity through better handling of definitions in language. — Christoffer

so why do you care so much? — flannel jesus

Once again...

That's not the issue here, I'm talking about a broader perspective of how society handles knowledge and how to mitigate unnecessary lack of clarity through better handling of definitions in language. — Christoffer

You were talking as if the definition of art is stopping you from doing that - I'm letting you know, it is not. — flannel jesus

The definition of art is part of the thread's core question if "Idol" is art. I made an entire argument for why it is not, based on clarifying how "art" can be defined and the difference between that and merely aesthetic appreciation. I'm doing aesthetic philosophy here, I'm not sure what you are doing? This entire thread just shows underscores exactly what I was arguing, that people are just arbitrarily trying to draw some defining line as to where Idol "fits into art", mostly based on personal feelings rather than some philosophical logic.

Just to point out what I'm doing in relation to the question in the OP:

Both aesthetics and the philosophy of art try to find answers to what exactly is art

I literally made an argument for what art should be defined as, how it answers the OP question and how I think it could help mitigating the unnecessary lack of clarity for these kinds of discussions. If you have a proper counter-argument to that conclusion, please go ahead. Right now you don't even seem to understand the actual problem I addressed.

Like, you enter a discussion that asks whether or not "Idol" is art, what is your answer to that question? If it's "who cares", then why? Why is that the answer? What's your argument in support of that?

I'm just pointing out that you're spending a lot of time on the things you call meaningless, and apparently no time on the things you call meaningful, and I think that's interesting.

I do think your definition of art is disagreeable, but I'd be roping you into a conversation you've already said is meaningless if I tried to argue that.

It's a little bit ironic because, 9 times out of 10, I agree with your approach here: 9 times out of 10, I think words SHOULD have a clear unambiguous meaning for a conversation. In most situations, there's nothing I love more than clarity, and what can be more contrary to clarity than a word which means different (and often vague) things to different people?

I think there are a couple places in philosophy where I make an exception for that - where it actually makes sense, I think, to have a more fluid definition of a word. I think EACH PERSON should attempt to concretely define the boundaries for their use of the word, but I don't thinks it's necessary for every person to conceptualize the word the same way or to have the same boundaries as another person.

Free Will is, I think, another word where each person should draw their own distinct boundaries, but two different people can draw their own ideas of the boundaries in different (often extremely different) places. Free Will and Art both have a common feature which makes their fluid-boundary-ness palatable, and that is, they have a more primal experience at the center of them, prior to any concrete definition for the source of that experience. Free Will is an *experience* first and foremost, before it's *whatever some particular philosopher defines it as*. Most thinking people have the experience of Free Will, before they ever come close to trying to define the word Free Will - that experience is more central than any single definition, and I think it makes sense to leave room for different thinkers to define the boundaries and causes and underlying reality of that experience differently.

And perhaps Art is similar - perhaps it's an experience first and foremost, before it's a solidly defined word in Webster's English Dictionary. And because it's experience-centric, it makes sense to me to allow for different people to have different boundaries for how they define that experience.

But if clarity is important, how can we have clarity when words are fluid like this? Well, easy: you clarify exacty what YOU mean when you say it, and get them to clarify exactly what they mean when they say it, and then *avoid debating if things are art* -- because that's just semantics, that's just arguing about the boundaries of a subjective experience -- and instead talk about the things you said are more important. As long as MOST words are more clearly unambiguously defined, the occasional word being a bit fluid shouldn't be a terrible barrier to clarity.

I'm just pointing out that you're spending a lot of time on the things you call meaningless, and apparently no time on the things you call meaningful, and I think that's interesting.

I do think your definition of art is disagreeable, but I'd be roping you into a conversation you've already said is meaningless if I tried to argue that. — flannel jesus

I have to make the argument for why the question asked is arbitrary in order for making the expanded argument for why such discussions are meaningless as a whole. This discussion is not a question of the aesthetic appreciation of "idol", but about whether or not to define it as art, and my argument is that society often get stuck in such meaningless discussions instead of having a clearly defined starting point of whether it is art or content as a foundational premiss for the interpretation of the created object's or performance's meaning. Without such foundation, we attribute irrelevant or non-existing meaning to content that in its core intention merely had monetary or social status interests in mind, and such, any interpretation of meaning becomes merely hollow interpretations rather than functioning on the foundation of interplay between artist and receiver in which actual artistic meaning can be found.

The conclusion of a discussion's shallow framework rendering it meaningless is determined by the argument I made, so a counter argument to that would return meaning to the original discussion.

I don't think you really understand the point I'm making here. If my conclusion is correct, then why is this discussion on-going (the discussion as in this thread, not our specific conversation)? If I'm right, why are people still debating the merits of "Idol" as art? Wouldn't my answer be the final conclusion? And since the discussion is still going, then either I'm right and the discussion in here (among all others, not me), in itself is proving how society cannot transcend this shallow level and self-delusion with the illusion of meaning centered around such shallow debates about art's definition. Or there are actually merits to the question of whether "Idol" is art or not, but that would require a counter-argument to my definition, which I've yet to hear.

If you agree with me and my argument about the definition, then answer me why almost every discussion about art is centered around a "creation" with the question "is this art?". Because it doesn't matter if I personally operate out of my definition of art if other people cannot transcend that surface level question since every attempt at having a discussion beyond it always end up with them struggling to define if something is art or not.

If my conclusion were so obvious, then why is the discussion of art's definition still going on? Not just in here, but all over society? I have to make a convincing argument for what art is until society operates on that conclusion and since that's not going on, that's the argument that needs to be settled first, or else everyone will just circle around that surface level and never ending up anywhere because without a framework of definition, the question of "what is art" becomes meaningless.

I think there are a couple places in philosophy where I make an exception for that - where it actually makes sense, I think, to have a more fluid definition of a word. I think EACH PERSON should attempt to concretely define the boundaries for their use of the word, but I don't thinks it's necessary for every person to conceptualize the word the same way or to have the same boundaries as another person. — flannel jesus

Why would the term "art" not be able to be defined? I think that people attribute too much magic to that term because they're awestruck by some divine mystery about creativity. But in the end it just becomes religious and spiritual hogwash surrounding the term, with some subconscious attempt to elevate it to the divine.

And I would say that this framework has been a broken primary gear in aesthetic philosophy that makes the branch unnecessarily muddy and vague.

Why is it so important that the term "art" is vague in its definition? It just seems like people are afraid to touch any attempt to define what "art" is because they've subconsciously formed a divine framework around it. Maybe it's also more common among atheists as the lack of divine belief push them to deify other parts of their reality, and in so attribute creativity and art as divine, which leads to them protecting the term from being clearly defined.

I value better definitions in order to actually answer the questions about "what art is" once and for all in order to remove this spiritual and religious framework around creativity.

Free Will is, I think, another word where each person should draw their own distinct boundaries, but two different people can draw their own ideas of the boundaries in different (often extremely different) places. — flannel jesus

Why? It just renders all discussions about free will nonsense and irrelevant. It creates a framework for a discussion that can never reach truth or conclusion since core premises are built on arbitrary foundations. It renders any discussion around the subject pointless as anyone can just return to re-define their definitions in order to render the other's argument wrong.

It rather seems like an easy way to control the narrative rather than having interest in finding out any truths on a topic. Philosophical discourse aims to build a body of knowledge through the interplay between interlocutors. If the foundational terminology is "whatever", then there's no point in any discussion in the first place. It's utter meaningless.

Free Will and Art both have a common feature which makes their fluid-boundary-ness palatable, and that is, they have a more primal experience at the center of them, prior to any concrete definition for the source of that experience. — flannel jesus

I disagree. I think that attributes some arbitrary invented mystery to the terms. Just find the logic of the term, the core meaning, settle on it and move on to the discussion using those defined meanings as part of the premises.

Free Will is an *experience* first and foremost, before it's *whatever some particular philosopher defines it as*. — flannel jesus

No it's not. Free will is literally the ability to choose something freely. That's the definition. To have the ability to, without influence and control over you, choose by yourself. All other interpretations are part of that spiritual nonsense that tries to add magic to the concept in order to transcend the difficult truth of determinism.

The more both philosophy and science have in both deduction, and evidence shown free will to be non-existent, the more wild magical interpretations of the term we've seen been invented. It's the result of cognitive dissonance, nothing more. The term is pretty clearly defined, it's just people who can't accept determinism or the fact that we're operating on deterministic cognitive processes who are playing lose with the term trying to inject new meaning into it in order to be able to say "yeah, but what exactly do you mean by no free will?" It's a way to control the discussion and narrative at a surface level, nothing more.

Most thinking people have the experience of Free Will, before they ever come close to trying to define the word Free Will - that experience is more central than any single definition, and I think it makes sense to leave room for different thinkers to define the boundaries and causes and underlying reality of that experience differently. — flannel jesus

No, it's much rather just the difference between a scientific perspective and the common language one. Just like "theory" as a term has two different meanings depending on if it's used in society or in science. Free will in society can be used as a term in legal matters based on the laws we have today, but it's not used in the same way in philosophy and science. In common everyday speak we use "free will" to navigate certain everyday concepts, but in philosophy and science, "free will" is much more strict in its definition.

But this is creeping out to the public as well, especially in the last couple of decades, as the scientific definition starts to inform how utterly ridiculous society views free will and how destructive it is to view problems in society within the concept of free will. We literally have problems with fighting crime in society due to the stupidity of how we ignore free will as a concept. The inability to understand the true nature of determinism's effect on society makes people believe in solutions that have no roots in scientific theory.

Just another clear example to demonstrate my point of the importance of clear definitions. Just like with "art", this duality in meaning between the scientific/philosophical definition of the term just produces a shallow level at which all discussions in society operates on. In terms of "art", this is at the frontlines of discussions today as defining AI as art or not is literally what everyone is discussing. So the inability to operate on clear definitions of such terms just produces utter chaos in public debate.

How is any abstract and arbitrary definitions a positive thing when we clearly see the chaos in society because of it?

And perhaps Art is similar - perhaps it's an experience first and foremost, before it's a solidly defined word in Webster's English Dictionary. And because it's experience-centric, it makes sense to me to allow for different people to have different boundaries for how they define that experience. — flannel jesus

This is just your own opinion, it's not something we can all operate on to help create better frameworks for debates around art. "Perhaps", "Perhaps", "Perhaps" just makes things unnecessarily abstract in a time when, as I said, we literally see the public debate struggle because of this ill-defined terminology. And as laws are set to be drawn upon stuff like AI, you can't have this "personal opinion" version of a definition, it needs to be clearly defined.

But if clarity is important, how can we have clarity when words are fluid like this? — flannel jesus

They're not fluid, I clearly defined them. You've yet to make an argument for why they're fluid in opposition to my conclusions. And you stated earlier that you don't disagree with my definition, so why is it fluid if I clearly defined the term and how to use it in society?

Well, easy: you clarify exacty what YOU mean when you say it, and get them to clarify exactly what they mean when they say it, and then *avoid debating if things are art* -- because that's just semantics, that's just arguing about the boundaries of a subjective experience -- and instead talk about the things you said are more important. As long as MOST words are more clearly unambiguously defined, the occasional word being a bit fluid shouldn't be a terrible barrier to clarity. — flannel jesus

But this is literally impossible as evidenced by how public discourse is being done on concepts like AI art. It's not easy, because, as I've said, people do not operate like this in discussion, just look at this thread alone. People can opt in for what definitions they make for a concept and then they start to debate, only for one interlocutor to, in the middle of the discussion, just return to their own arbitrary definition of art and then the debate becomes circular.

The proof is in the pudding and the pudding is every damn discussion about art that is going on today. People are not able to do what you are describing there, because it's impossible for people to bypass their bias rooted in ill-determined definitions and lose foundations for the premises.

You're describing some fantasy discourse that does not reflect how discussions actually look around this topic. This entire thread is centered around the very questions "is that art?", the very headline of this thread shows that your ideal discussion does not exist.

The solution is to have clear definitions of the terms. That's the actual solution. What you are arguing for is some fantasy of the optimal discussion to just appear out of nothing, out of no parameters of how to conduct discourse. The entire field of philosophy is built upon having the best framework possible around a topic in order to collectively reach truths about that topic. The more ill-defined and lose the terminology is, the less accurate or meaningful such philosophical discussions get. And seen how most discourse around AI-art is going in public, it shows just how shallow and stupid things get when people don't have a good idea of what art actually is defined as.

The core question I'm asking you is why you are opposed to better and clearer definitions? It seems like a totally unnecessary stance when the alternative is to have a common defined ground to base our premises on. I really don't understand the reasoning here? What possible benefit to collective discourse does that generate? As evidenced by public debates on both "free will" and "art", it produces and pushes polarized nonsense which lead no where but antagonizing people against each other as well as laying an ill-defined foundation for laws and regulations when applicable. I think you underestimate the consequences of ill-defined terminology.

Imagine we did agree on what "art" means - what meaningful conversation could you build out of that agreement? You show me that, and I'll show you how to build that conversation WITHOUT agreeing on what "art" means. Deal?

Imagine we did agree on what "art" means - what meaningful conversation could you build out of that agreement? You show me that, and I'll show you how to build that conversation WITHOUT agreeing on what "art" means. Deal? — flannel jesus

The OP question would be meaningless. The AI debate would be meaningless. All debates about "is that art?" would be meaningless. And instead the conversations would be centered around the meaning that is being created by artists operating under the definition of art and the consequences of trying to work as an artist under the definition of content. As well as allowing guidance to artists who've gotten lost into content production losing their sense of artistic soul in their daily work. We could focus on talking about art in a way that is true to the human and individual creating it and distinguish it from the influence of monetary need or corruption through profit-driven intentions that takes over the creative process.

Such discussions bypass that shallow level of people throwing examples at each other asking "is this art?" Which seems to dominate the discourse within aesthetic philosophy, at least dominating public discourse.

How you personally form a conversation around art does not equal society operating on similar grounds. I'm observing what the discourse in public and places like this forum actually is and argue out of those facts. How you idealize a conversation outside of that is rather irrelevant, isn't it? What would be the point of that? And how would you universalize this to improve the discourse around art? Please show

Compare these two items by William de Kooning and Louise Nevelson. — BC

I expect both skill and effort from an artist, and a little subtlety doesn't go amiss. I've never understood the appeal of de Kooning or Pollock (though his scribbles are more interesting, why keep making them?) or Rothko.
The thing I find most odd is that all these painters actually learned the craft, began with real pictures, made with skill and attention. But they were noticed only after they departed from traditional painting methods and started producing meaningless splashes and instead. That's what sold in the late 20th century.

Duchamp's route to a social statement was more vulgar and direct, but it worked. He helped move art forward and legitimize alternative means of expression. — Baden

And there's the tragedy. It's not enough to produce novelty, or shock or disgust, even to make a social statement. Anyone can do that with a placard or public display. Without artistry, what we get instead of works of art are vials of feces and piles of plastic garbage. Those exhibitions seems to me contrived for effect, inauthentic, as well as without aesthetic merit.

What sells now seems to be transitional - nods and winks to Rothko, Pollock, Picasso, Mondrian and Grandma Moses and Banksy - but also some really nice original stuff that connects artists and viewer through genuine experience. I think fine art has begun to swing back toward the figurative, representational and semi-abstract. I wish music could would go back to being musical, rather than mechanized.

In my recent reply, I mentioned Collingwood's discussion of the question of craft vs. art. I just tripped over this quote while looking for something else.

In order to clear up the ambiguities attaching to the word ‘art’, we must look to its history. The aesthetic sense of the word, the sense which here concerns us, is very recent in origin. Ars in ancient Latin, like τέχνη [technē] in Greek, means something quite different. It means a craft or specialized form of skill, like carpentry or smithying or surgery. The Greeks and Romans had no conception of what we call art as something different from craft; what we call art they regarded merely as a group of crafts, such as the craft of poetry (ποιητικη τέχνη, ars poetica), which they conceived, sometimes no doubt with misgivings, as in principle just like carpentry and the rest, and differing from any one of these only in the sort of way in which any one of them differs from any other. — R.G. Collingwood

What in God's name does this have to do with Velveeta?

As for your post - I've looked up the definition of "abstract expressionism" numerous times and I still don't know what it means. I know it's more than "My kid could do that." I too like the Nevelson more than the de Kooning. It brings to mind movable type set up for printing or hieroglyphics. The de Kooning doesn't really evoke anything. As you note, the Nevelson clearly required more skill, effort, thought, and time. How do I use that to decide which is better.

I started a thread a while ago, "Skill, craft, technique in art," that attempted to deal with this issue. Competence and skill matter to me, but Collingwood says that could just as well be craft rather than art. In my previous response to Vera Mont, just above this one, I included an excerpt from his discussion of the issue.

I tried to clarify the modern distinctions early on. One could look at it as a hierarchy: design, craft, functional art, fine art, where each prior step is a prerequisite. You need sound design and skill to craft a good chair, sound craftsmanship plust creativity to produce an artistic chair, all three to elevate the chair to something more than a chair.

Imagine we did agree on what "art" means - what meaningful conversation could you build out of that agreement? You show me that, and I'll show you how to build that conversation WITHOUT agreeing on what "art" means. Deal? — flannel jesus

Interesting. I'm not sure the endless debate about what art, is or what it is not, matters. Except to people who fetishise definitions or aesthetics. Could there be a less useful subject? I'd be interested to understand from you why the term art matters so much to some people. Seems to me that some seem to want to reserve the word as a magic charm which can only be waved over certain approved phenomena.

people like to gate keep words all the time. "Is that really metal? Hmmm I don't know" "no, those people aren't actually Christians" "that's not real art"

Maybe there's use in those debates but... it's hard to see, if there is

Some clarifications are useful and help us to manage our lives.

Maybe there's use in those debates but... it's hard to see — flannel jesus

Some clarifications are useful and help us to manage our lives. — Tom Storm

I find this kind of discussion interesting and helpful because it lets me sort out how different kinds of creations affect me in different ways, how I experience them. It's about self-awareness. If you're not interested in that kind of discussion, you don't have to participate.

I find this kind of discussion interesting and helpful because it lets me sort out how different kinds of creations affect me in different ways, how I experience them. It's about self-awareness. — T Clark

Self-awareness for you, and perhaps mental masturbation for others. Just because I am questioning isn't an indication that I am not taking the discussion seriously. Don't mistake skepticism for a lack of interest. My journey towards self-awareness is trying to determine which debates are useful. :wink:

I find it useful to think about entertainment media in different ways. I do some criticism, and this helps me to articulate responses that would otherwise go unexamined. For example, I have never before considered or questioned whether talent shows are art - I simply lumped them in with all reality shows as mass-produced pop. But when one dissects the content of these shows, they really are quite different from quiz shows of other kinds of contests through elimination. The only other kind of reality show with this art/craft-inside-a-mass-produced-frame structure are Race Against the Tide and Best in Miniature

Self-awareness for you, and perhaps mental masturbation for others. — Tom Storm

That's true of just about all the discussions on the forum for someone. I think many philosophical questions are silly - mind/brain, free will/determinism, hard problem of consciousness, anti-natalism... I participated in those arguments, sometimes vigorously, till I figured out how pointless and intellectually unfruitful they are. Lots of frustration with little or no satisfaction beyond the opportunity to vent my spleen. Now I generally avoid participating in those types of discussions unless I have something constructive to contribute. When I don't I usually regret it and often behave badly. Who needs it.

I'd be interested to understand from you why the term art matters so much to some people. Seems to me that some seem to want to reserve the word as a magic charm which can only be waved over certain approved phenomena. — Tom Storm

I too prefer some freedom when it comes to words. Particularly when the objects addressed are necessarily vague and broad.

I think for some--perhaps, the same who wish to tighten the definition s of words--art belongs only to the visual arts like sculptors, painters, etc. and some variations thereof.

I'm not so sure the intention of the "creator" should play so potent a role either.

I have an "idea" of what classifies as art; and, it is broad and vague, yet seems impossible to properly articulate with words. Watch me try:

art is any creation (no, not any, it has to be a certain kind, and it is not really the creation, but how the creation is "looked at", for e.g. a urinal does not qualify, yet, if looked at in a certain way,...oh, see? Intent may play a role......etc) which,
when presented to one or more of the senses, triggers profound (doesn't have to be "profound" just beyond "normal", but, then, what is normal?.. ..etc) inner feeling or drive to act (and not because it has any mechanism for doing so beyond the "message" or "signifier" that it is).

It seems to me, impossible to define art. So impossible, that one could make a case for art being anything which is presented to the senses and triggers feelings beyond the mundane response to mundane things, as mundane things.

And in that case, a banal talent show can be art.

Why do we care?
We take steps to preserve art; urinals, we send to the dump;
We pay more for art;
We fund art; we don't fund game shows;
We study art and consciously allow it to influence history;
We pay attention to art...
Etc.

Fair points. I tend to think there is art in most things. Even things I dislike greatly. I agree that art is difficult, perhaps impossible to define. And for me, irrelevant to my aesthetic experiences (of art). The great religious commentator Karen Armstrong has argued that religion can't be adequately defined. I suspect there are many such subjects. I tend to avoid the types of people who are definition obsessed. Useful in some places, pointless in others.

Now I generally avoid participating in those types of discussions unless I have something constructive to contribute. When I don't I usually regret it and often behave badly. Who needs it. — T Clark

I think providing push back is useful in philosophical discussions. But it depends upon whether the pushback provokes useful questions or not. For me, the most important quesion in most subjects is why does it matter? That's not an attempt to shrug something off, it's an attempt to capture the essence or nub of the matter. I hope.

Why do we care?
We take steps to preserve art; urinals, we send to the dump;
We pay more for art;
We fund art; we don't fund game shows;
We study art and consciously allow it to influence history;
Etc. — ENOAH

I consider Duchamp's R Mutt urinal aka "Fountain" to be a great moment in art. But you can't really repeat this and have the same impact despite what Tracey Emin might think. So much modern art being footnotes to "Fountain".

Many of your questions are resolved by the market.

We take steps to preserve art; urinals, we send to the dump; — ENOAH

Not 'Fountain' - that thing is worth millions. But much art is thrown away and burnt too. Often art is only kept because it has a significant monetary value.

We pay more for art; — ENOAH

More compared to what? Not sure this is true. And if it is, it will depend on the art in quesion and that is a often matter of how the market functions. Which has nothing to do with art per say. That's commodification and capitalism.

We fund art; we don't fund game shows; — ENOAH

We don't fund all art and the choices made are those of the market, ditto game shows. Game shows are funded. They are funded by corporations who provide the products and advertising opportunities. Not dissimilar to when Van Gough or Rembrandt go on a world tour of galleries.

We study art and consciously allow it to influence history; — ENOAH

We consciously allow non-art to influence hsitory. A hamburger joint can influence history. And as for study - we study all manner of things. I know a guy with a PHD in Julie Andrews.

We pay attention to art... — ENOAH

We pay attention to porn and horse racing.

art is any creation — ENOAH

which, — ENOAH

when presented to one or more of the senses, triggers profound — ENOAH

inner feeling or drive to act — ENOAH

Your definition is no worse than many others. But I can sit in front of many paintings and have no feelings or reaction to it. Does this mean they aren't art? There's a lot of music which I find irrelevant and don't have a reaction to. Etc.

I don't think how we react has a clear relationship to whether something is art. You can have a profound emotional reaction to an empty bird's nest in a tree. Does this make it art?

We pay attention to art...
— ENOAH

We pay attention to porn and horse racing. — Tom Storm

You're right. And rather than responding to each of your points because you're right on all of them, I liked this one the most.

Really, why do we ask or care about what is art? Probably because we habitually engage in these kinds of--ultimately--pointless exercises. I believe autonomously. But I won't get into that.

The thing is, asking and following up--not just re art--may be ultimately pointless. But also great things emerge out of these seemingly pointless pursuits. The simplest way to illustrate what I mean is that these exercise provide the (for my laziness to find the apt word) "theoretical" ground work for Culture’s "concrete" manifestations.

I'm not saying, necessarily we, on this forum, obviously. But all of humanity, in autonomous pursuit of meaning, manifesting as our "things". For better or worse.

Really, why do we ask or care about what is art? — ENOAH

Probably because humans are emotional creatures and many of our best moments are when we experience some form of aesthetic satisfaction or joy. The arts are important to most people, so it stands to reason we want to be able to define art. We probably hope to explain the magic trick.

But also great things emerge out of these seemingly pointless pursuits. — ENOAH

Agree.

It seems to me, impossible to define art. So impossible, that one could make a case for art being anything which is presented to the senses and triggers feelings beyond the mundane response to mundane things, as mundane things. — ENOAH

Then what's the point of the concept? Or the word? Or the activity?

Somehow, creative people produce objects and performances that move or inspire or enrage or enthrall other people. And those creations, however much or badly they're reproduced and imitated, become part of the culture that ennobles and enriches us, in which we feel we have a stake, of which we are proud.

I meant define it with precision. Having said that, I agree with

creative people produce objects and performances that move or inspire or enrage or enthrall other people. — Vera Mont

And likely it should simply be that.

Any more is too much. Let the rest of the debate be about "good" and "bad" art, classifications, categories, messages and impacts.

Somehow, creative people produce objects and performances that move or inspire or enrage or enthrall other people. And those creations, however much or badly they're reproduced and imitated, become part of the culture that ennobles and enriches us, in which we feel we have a stake, of which we are proud. — Vera Mont

But I doubt whether art is just this. I also imagine that art may bore us, make us complacent, erode cultural value and make us feel ashamed. At least that's my experience of a Tarantino film or a book by Brett Easton Ellis. :wink:

find this kind of discussion interesting and helpful because it lets me sort out how different kinds of creations affect me in different ways, how I experience them. It's about self-awareness. If you're not interested in that kind of discussion, you don't have to participate. — T Clark

For clarity, I'm not saying "it's pointless to talk about what art means to various people", I'm more saying, "it's pointless to make it your mission to convince other people with different definitions that your definition is the right one", which is apparently the goal of the guy I was talking to. You see the difference?

And I don't think that mission is pointless for ALL words, but I think art is one of the words where it is.

I get his point, though. Perhaps it's my OCD but in essence, words kinda do have to mean something otherwise we don't have a discussion we have an unintelligible madhouse and non-discussion.

I understand how some might not consider, say, burping or passing gas as an art, yet another might. Similar to how a wall of used gum or business cards at a diner may or may not be considered the same.

But surely you would agree, some definitions are, as a strict matter of fact, wrong. There have to be. Unfortunately for those whom the burden of proof happens to fall on, art is one of those concepts where the lines are in fact thoroughly blurred. To take a liberal view, perhaps anything can be art, however nothing is absent of two things: human involvement be it capture or placement and an intended audience of which to view it. Would you agree with that?

But surely you would agree, some definitions are, as a strict matter of fact, wrong. There have to be. — Outlander

I agree that there are boundaries to what "art" can mean, absolutely. If one person includes more things than another person in their idea of art, I don't think there's anything to objectively say one is wrong and the other is right, but if one person decides the word "art" is synonymous with "mitosis" then... they're just being silly

I meant define it with precision. — ENOAH

I did that earlier. This was a summary.

For clarity, I'm not saying "it's pointless to talk about what art means to various people", I'm more saying, "it's pointless to make it your mission to convince other people with different definitions that your definition is the right one", which is apparently the goal of the guy I was talking to. You see the difference? — flannel jesus

Sure. I've tried to be clear in my post that my definitions are what works for me, what helps me think about the subject clearly. On the other hand, if we want to talk about art, which I do, we have to all be talking about the same thing. Beyond that, I love words and I love definitions. I play a game where I'll come across a word I'm familiar with and try to come up with a definition. I'm surprised how often I have trouble.