He is the Quentin Tarrantino of his time. He writes great dialogue but the stories are garbage, even seemingly nonexistent at times. — ZhouBoTong

Maybe your right about that.

Well I have gone through a bit of a change of heart in these conversations, or tied things down a bit better anyway.

No go ahead. It’s mostly yours anyway.

Let’s see what happens to it.

You would not believe how many ideas and thoughts I have fit into this.

I never thought I would say some of these things.

Humans have a concept of art.

Art is humanities expression of itself.

Art gives us insight into the artist. The artist is human, so art is an insight into humanity.

All people express themselves in some form, therefore everyone is an artist.

Nothing is expected of art except the expression of the artist.

Artwork allows people to share in that expression.

Different forms of expression resonate with different people.

Okay. Well you deserve credit for getting it down to a statement. I’ll think about it.

Is this paraphrasing correct?

Art is humanities expression of itself.

Art gives us insight into the artist,

It reflects the height of our consciousness ... essentially we are not discussing art, but our consciousness of it. And I also believe art is not discussing art but its consciousness of it.This is really what the definition is about. It seeks to clarify what is going on. We are really discussing consciousness, and so is art. — Pop

So is this your definition?

I believe, we all have a different personally constructed definition of art. — Pop

I think that is basically that we all have a personally constructed definition of what we like. That doesn’t mean much at all.

Forties Flick

Stanza 1:

The shadows of the Venetian blind on the painted wall,
Shadows of the snake-plant and cacti, the plaster animals,

Bright light/sun. The desert, L.A. Los Angeles noir and Edward Hopper. Period piece. Raymond Chandler. No real animals. Snake plant, plaster animals. Illusion. Exotic locale. A movie set.

Focus the tragic melancholy of the bright stare
Into nowhere, a hole like the black holes in space.

Movie camera, beam of light, single eye that consumes all.

In bra and panties she sidles to the window:
Zip! Up with the blind. A fragile street scene offers itself,
With wafer-thin pedestrians who know where they are going.

Opening scene. Undressed woman at the window. Cut to the street from her POV. She looks down on a set. Images only. Not real, no substance, almost shadows. Actors being directed, scripted.

The blind comes down slowly, the slats are slowly titled up.

End of movie.

I don’t believe you can get it down to a definition. How long should a definition be, a sentence, a paragraph, as essay?

I prefer the long dialogue that weaves in and out of things and to pick the nuggets out of it, then to isolate them and see if they stand up to scrutiny. I’m not interested in someone’s personally constructed definition, I’m looking for consistencies and commonalities, things that can be agreed on then move onto the next stage. Does anyone really believe they’ve worked it out completely? Have they applied their ideas to all the arts? Do they really think they’ve put in enough work to define art? Can you even do it if you haven’t experienced producing art? Do the academics have more of an idea than the artist? They’re smart and knowledgeable so they might, they might be more articulate than the average artist.

We are discussing art, then we’re moving back into consciousness in an attempt to put pieces together. Just how does it reflects the height of our consciousness, for all of us, for the artists or the viewer? It’s clear that the experience of producing art is not the same as viewing it. So who’s consciousness are we talking about?

If you’re watching a dance company on stage, whose consciousness is being displayed, the dancers or the person who conceived the dance. The dancers are just presenting a rehearsed version of the concept. What about a play; the actors, or the writer, or the director?

Me or Arne?

At the moment I have no competing interests or wants and kinda feel happy. — Wallows

That sounds like simplifying to me. Remove what’s not working or complicating things. Keep only what you need.

I've have some limited success in trying to focus on those little things I might otherwise have overlooked as a way to jump-start the feel-good pattern in my own brain. — Pfhorrest

Do you think this is a skill. Because aren’t you essentially overriding the chemical negativity and purposely applying positive actions, that you know from experience help?

Yes, you’re correct. But it has not been my intention to find a definition.

what are you doing here?
— Brett

to discuss art, not to define it. — Arne

Then begin.

Sorry, I didn’t see your last two paras when I replied. Or did you add them?

I agree that it does seem that you cannot chose happiness. But I do know from experience that you can turn a negative frame of mind around and feel” happier”. That may be a matter of experience. I also know you can also chose not to get yourself out of a negative frame of mind and instead wallow in it.

It’s not my OP. Like I said, what are you doing here?

Edit: by the way we’re not looking for a definition, you introduced that idea.

These things taken from this OP are ideas I would support.

As Bartrick said, “Humans have a concept of art.”

Only man makes art. Intention.

Not all humans make art.

An artist has a sensibility that maybe others appreciate but do not possess.

All art movements have a set of rules. All rules are broken.

Artists seem to have a desire to make something new.

Duplicating what you see is about technique.

Imagination and interpretation break the rules and move art outside of technique.

“Whatever is not natural.” From unenlightened.

“That we understand art by our reason. We cannot know something by instinct, for unless or until that belief which was formed by instinct is ratified by reason is does not count as 'justified' and knowledge involves having justified true beliefs, whatever else it may involve.” From Bartrick.
Therefore art is an act of reason.

Instead, I was rejecting to the notion that we need to define art before we can discuss it. — Arne

Look at the title of the OP. That’s the subject.

What is happiness anyway, is it real or just some chemical reaction?

At the moment I have no competing interests or wants and kinda feel happy. — Wallows

That’s a bit like a meditative state, isn’t it?

↪Brett art is a reflection of the world in which the artist finds herself/himself to be. — Arne

Congratulations. That is a beginning. Of course everyone reflects, I assume, but not everyone takes it further.

I think it might be a choice.

What is art?

Why are you here?

nor will I ever buy a work of art that fails to meet my definition of art.
— Arne

Which is what? — Brett

You never answered this.

You just don’t like talking about it.

What you indicate is a total lack of interest in art. Fine, but why bother posting here?

You asked if there was anyone that fitted the description of a leader that we knew of. I'm suggesting Churchill and Roosevelt fit that discription during the war years.

Lenin and Hitler come to mind in recent political history. Their goals were wrong, but boy they could lead. — god must be atheist

I don’t think they fit the definition of leader. If you rule through fear then you’re hardly leading.

I think leader is still the right word to go by.

Have you ever encountered anyone that fits the description? There must be a couple of such people out there somewhere. — TheMadFool

Do you think that Churchill was a leader during the war? Or Roosevelt?

I wonder though how this fits into what I was saying about needing schools for leaders. Is it possible to make someone immune to the temptations of power and wealth, a necessity if anyone is to qualify as a good leader? — TheMadFool

Maybe what we need to consider is people who are used to dealing in power, who come from a cultural background where power is something they’ve learned to deal with, grown up with. It does sound elitist, but maybe that’s what real leaders are, instead of a corporal gaining power and wielding it without experience.

You may rest assured I will never buy a car that fails to meet my definition of a car — Arne

You can’t define what a car is. If you defined a car as anything but a car, then it wouldn’t be a car. The definition of a car was defined before you came along. All you do is recognise it.

Nice work, again.

What’s your point?

How others define either matters not to me. — Arne

Why is that?

I understand taking a walk as an expression of human consciousness and where one chooses to walk as information about the walker's consciousness. Walking as an expression of human consciousness is broad enough to capture all walking ever done - cave people walking to the present.

All meaningful acts are an expression of human consciousness. — Arne

But everyone can walk, it comes naturally to everyone, unless they gave a disability. Not everyone can create art. Unless you think they can, and then you’d still have to define art to describe what they’re doing.

nor will I ever buy a work of art that fails to meet my definition of art. — Arne

Which is what?