I play a game where I'll come across a word I'm familiar with and try to come up with a definition. — T Clark

I think that's a cool, and challenging, game. My posts to the other guy were almost me trying to suggest another game, almost the reverse of your game:

Any interesting conversation you think you can have about art, that relies on an agreed upon definition of "art" -- just try to have that conversation without using the word "art".

So while your game tries to define a contentious word clearly, my game is to avoid the contentious word altogether.

Let's say someone wants to have a conversation on the merits of "AI art" (AI meaning artificial intelligene, not American Idol) - I dare you to try to make your points without relying on the word 'art'.

So instead of saying something like "AI art shouldn't be respected as art because it doesn't take any effort and isn't a venue for human communication", say something like "AI imagery shouldn't be <enjoyed? purchased? appreciated? created?> because it doesn't take any effort and isn't a venue for human communication".

You know what I mean? And if anything, I think that makes the conversation MORE clear. Moving it away from the semantic argument about "art" and replacing "art" with WHAT YOU REALLY MEAN is actually... maybe the best way to go.

"AI imagery shouldn't be <enjoyed? purchased? appreciated? created?> because it doesn't take any effort and isn't a venue for human communication" — flannel jesus

If you start a thread with a game like that, I'll play. On the other hand, there are many things I wouldn't consider art that are worthy of being enjoyed, purchased, and appreciated even though they don't take any effort or involvement communication - sunsets, landscapes, people's faces... No, let's not have a discussion as to whether or not those should be considered art.

No, let's not have a discussion as to whether or not those should be considered art. — T Clark

Absolutely not!

there are many things I wouldn't consider art that are worthy of being enjoyed, purchased, and appreciated even though they don't take any effort or involvement communication — T Clark

Ok, do you think ai art counts as art? If the answer is "no", then the game is to rephrase "ai shouldn't be treated as art" with something more along the lines of "people shouldn't do <what things> with ai imagery"

If the answer is "no", then the game is to rephrase "ai shouldn't be treated as art" with something more along the lines of "people shouldn't do <what things> with ai imagery" — flannel jesus

For starters, they shouldn't use AI imagery for election fraud - or any other kind. A pretty image, or cleverly composed design can be appreciated without giving it any status in culture. Like other mass-produced commercial products, they're intended for a short period of utility and then discarded.

One problem with the present intensely technological culture is that we are constantly surrounded by images and bombarded by sound. It becomes impossible to discern them individually or remember them for more than a second, let alone judge them on any merit system. It's all just one great, swirling jumble of sensory assault.

they shouldn't use AI imagery for election fraud — Vera Mont

Do you have an example of someone doing that? I'm not sure I've seen that before.

I just heard about it the other day.
https://www.abc27.com/news/ai-programs-can-easily-impersonate-biden-others-to-manipulate-elections-study/
Apparently, it can be done very quickly and effectively from a small amount of input.
https://statescoop.com/deepfakes-presidential-election-ai-2024/

bastards.

But, does it matter in particular that this is ai? Surely it would be just as bad if it were just Photoshop or something right?

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. — Tom Storm

Actually the original is lost. Duchamp made seventeen copies in the 1960's, each of which is worth a few bob.

But, does it matter in particular that this is ai? Surely it would be just as bad if it were just Photoshop or something right? — flannel jesus

Much harder to do and easier to detect. AI is a more efficient tool, that's all. So efficient that it can replicate the best human crafting with zero effort. The images may well be impressive; the work is not.

When you compare the carving that was done manually, with a mallet and chisel to carving that was done with a pneumatic chisel, to what can be done today with a computer guided laser, which do you admire more?

Ok, do you think ai art counts as art? — flannel jesus

I'm not sure. I'll think about it.

Actually the original is lost. Duchamp made seventeen copies in the 1960's, each of which is worth a few bob. — mcdoodle

Indeed. Just imagine the value of the original if found.

Just imagine the value of the original if found. — Tom Storm

WHY????

sunsets, landscapes, people's faces... No, let's not have a discussion as to whether or not those should be considered art. — T Clark

I would suggest that those images naturally trigger "pleasant" feelings. And while you referenced them to illustrate that pleasant feeling do not necessarily make something art, I think what you have referenced has a direct relationship with art.

The feelings which sunsets or faces, throw in morning song birds, elicit in us organically, can be "triggered" by a Fictional represention to any or any combination of the senses. Same effect, different triggers. You can have such a scenario by coincidence (a heart attack a car accident causd a death). This is not a coincidence. Rather, the triggering of those precise feelings through a fictional representation is the "function" of art. It's why art (continues to) exists.

Here's what I now think, having moved with these posts.

Art is any Fictional representation presented to human senses, the sole function of which is to trigger a notable feeling without having recourse to any other explanation/trigger.

Stronger feelings are triggered from things we would consider "authentic" "creative" "original" etc. And as for art which is highly commercial, we resent it, even try to suppress feelings, because we are confused, believing it's function is to make money and not to trigger feelings.

But it is only incidentally that some art can be lucrative. All that matters is that it is a Fictional representation that is presented to trigger feelings in its spectators.

We can be as snobby as we want in assessing whether or not American Idol triggers strong, or authentic feelings; good or bad ones; whether its art is creative, original, or ingenious. But we cannot exclude it from the art club. It is a Fictional representation (it doesn't matter we think they are real amateurs in a talent show) presented as such, to make audiences feel something (it doesn't matter it makes us feel more inclined to buy products) and, we feel many things.

Addendum: and that's why Duchamp's urinal, too is art. It existed once as a toilet. But presented as it was by Duchamp, it was a Fictional representation, its function to make us feel, and we did/do feel.

I would suggest that those images naturally trigger "pleasant" feelings. And while you referenced them to illustrate that pleasant feeling do not necessarily make something art, I think what you have referenced has a direct relationship with art. — ENOAH

That wasn't exactly my point. @flannel jesus wrote

AI imagery shouldn't be <enjoyed? purchased? appreciated? created?> because it doesn't take any effort and isn't a venue for human communication". — flannel jesus

My response was to point out that even if [whatever we call it] created by artificial intelligence isn't art, it still may be worth enjoying, purchasing, appreciating, creating.

This has been an interesting conversation, but I think we have taken it as far as I want to for now.

Art is any Fictional representation presented to human senses, the sole function of which is to trigger a notable feeling without having recourse to any other explanation/trigger. — ENOAH

Why the word 'fictional'?

But presented as it was by Duchamp, it was a Fictional representation, its function to make us feel, and we did/do feel. — ENOAH

Fictional?

Not sure what you are getting at with this word. Do you mean a creative representation?

Duchamp was making a provocative statement about the nature of art and the artist. In 1917 this was a radical move. It was a stunt. A comment on art and perhaps not art of itself, depending upon one's reading.

the sole function of which is to trigger a notable feeling without having recourse to any other explanation/trigger. — ENOAH

I don't think this is right. To say art has a sole function is too limiting. So is the idea of it's 'triggering a notable feeling without having recourse to any other explanation.'

Art often relies upon other art or myth or religion, or stories or history for its effect or context.

At its simplest, art is something presented for aesthetic appreciation.

Art is any Fictional representation presented to human senses, the sole function of which is to trigger a notable feeling without having recourse to any other explanation/trigger. — ENOAH

We can be as snobby as we want in assessing whether or not American Idol triggers strong, or authentic feelings; good or bad ones; whether its art is creative, original, or ingenious. But we cannot exclude it from the art club. — ENOAH

"Bravo," to Enoah for starting a conversation about the uncontainability of art.

I wanna add my two cents by talking about art as the "meta-experience" of reality intentionally expressed by the person we name as the artist. But the vowel clash of "meta-experience" is an awkward sound-out, how about "meta-practice?"

So, we practice life as experience and we meta-practice life mentally processed as art.

Now, here's my big-whoop definition:

• Art is the greatest act of communication via language.

Now the focus is on what I mean by "greatness."

Okay. You're in New York inside a skyscraper inside an elevator racing upwards to the top floor. You started on the ground floor and you're going more than a hundred stories to your destination. The elevator's crowded and there's significant time with a lotta folks sardined inside of a confined space. Small talk cuts the tension as everyone waits.

• You take the kids to the zoo over the holiday weekend?

• Yep. Saw the new Panda bear. Cute. You get your car fixed?

• Naw. Needs more than a freon boost. Gotta replace the compressor.

• That's too bad, with the heat coming 'en all.

• Just my kinda luck. I'm off here. See ya.

• Later.

This is small talk. Is it art? Well, typically, we say something is art when the communication conveys (by intent) something deep and expansive, say, for example, Tolstoy's "War and Peace," a novel that evokes an entire 19th century society inside Russia.

It's easy to say small talk ain't art and "War and Peace" is.

There's no clear boundary differentiating art from the rest of creation. So, the edge of art is an infinite curve we can sample in unending pieces toward a sum of the entire curve we approach and never arrive at. So, we approach art, and we recede from art, but we never quite get there. The thing itself, wisely, keeps eluding us. That's why art, as some philosopher has said, "Is news that stays news."

the edge of art is an infinite curve we can sample in unending pieces — ucarr

Even if I already knew that, I'd still ask. Philosophy is an infinite curve we can sample in unending pieces.

I think the key here isn't "we can sample" but that we are compelled to, each of us, even the unanswerable questions. We are compelled to ask.

Maybe putting something to rest, for an individual, can only be consummated by going through with it.

At its simplest, art is something presented for aesthetic appreciation. — Tom Storm

You know what? I'm settling at that. It has the widest doors, and I'm all for open borders.

Pity it doesn't work as it conflates beauty with art. A model presents his or her body for aesthetic appreciation and while said body may be beautiful, it is not art.

It might be better to conclude that trying to rigidly define art is a mistake as only its vague contours will ever be agreed on by a random sample of more than a few people. Those who disagree with you will tend to accuse you of lacking taste or snobbishness depending on which side of the spectrum you come down on and there's no clear road to resolving any of that.

I surrender. Art cannot be defined. Though, I still sense there is some shared intuition on the subject, it seems once expressed, objections are inevitable. Hmm.

Exactly.

Is there any point in putting a word with no definition into the dictionary?

Well, good luck defining art, Mr. Webster.

A definition is nothing more or less than some words about a word that can roughly substitute for it. Take this as a definition of "definition".

Herewith, some words about "art", that will not quite do as a definition, but may be somewhat illuminating and/or somewhat obscuring.

One meaning of 'art' can be 'a skilful practice', and particularly one that involves judgement that cannot be entirely tied down to an algorithm, but that is very broad, and inexact. In the context of speaking of, say, "artistic merit" another criterion is important - creativity. This seems to involve novelty or originality, thus to call a piece "derivative" is to denigrate it. But mere novelty does not suffice, there must also surely be meaning and significance, which entails a communication of some sort, and since communication is shared, it it involves what has already been done, and is already known, and this is where some expertise is necessary for the judgement of artistic merit, to the extent that it becomes an art in itself.

It is part of the business of the artist to challenge and transcend the limits of the meaning of the word "art", and add something new to it, and this is why one can never capture it in a definition. This in turn gives some clue as to the limitations of formulaic tv shows that purport to be the arbiters of good taste and artistry.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art
- a branch of learning; one of the humanities
arts plural : liberal arts
-archaic : learning, scholarship
- an occupation requiring knowledge or skill
- the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects
the art of painting landscapes

:clap:

You're killing me Vera Mont.

That definition has just broadened art to include, not only American Idol, but this. Recall, in the OP, I set it up, specifically "in the spirit of aesthetics, and to enhance the experience of the so-called hypothesis."

I think it's best to stick to "art cannot be defined." Not in Language, at least.

Maybe art is one of those things that has to be experienced, and then you "know" whether or not you'd call it art (based upon a vaguely described concept constructed in language).

Maybe it's not that art is a thing which makes you feel, but rather, art is a thing you cannot know; you must feel.

I trust you will hate that last definition most, but, no offense intended, that's what I'm settling with.

Well, good luck defining art, Mr. Webster. — ENOAH

Just answering this!

I think it's best to stick to "art cannot be defined." Not in Language, at least. — ENOAH

You can certainly do that, if you choose. Mr. Webster was a little more definite.

I trust you will hate that last definition most, but, no offense intended, that's what I'm settling with. — ENOAH

I don't love it, hate it, or care much about it. It's right up there with "I don't know anything about art, I just I know what I like."
Everyone is free to have their own take on the subject, but nobody gets to deny that definitions exist, so long as they're using words.