I think what distinguishes commercial art is that it’s done for purposes other than self expression, like advertising and branding, or producing art for the primary purpose of making money. — praxis

The objective of making money might be the only thing that distinguishes commercial art from “art”. The act of creating commercials and print ads comes from the same process of the mind that self expression comes from. Some commercials are very creative in the little vignettes of life they create. It’s true that they steal techniques and mimic other art forms left right and centre but it seems to me they’re still working from within the same conditions as artists do. Except that there’s a very specific objective writers and art directors are working towards, which in some ways presents a greater challenge. And in fact the commercial must work according to the brief they received and it will be judged successful on the measurable return the client received.

Personally I don’t like advertising. But should it be regarded as the lesser of the two because of its objectives. If it’s money’s that separates it from “art” then should a big price on a painting remove it from the field?

I'm not aware if all this was done deliberately or unknowingly but I bet no artist in his time was ever fully aware that they were being influenced by the anthropoligical factors then active; they were probably just reacting to such influences and were not in full command of their artistic drive. — TheMadFool

I tend to go along with you there. I can’t imagine an artist setting out consciously to create a movement. I’m not even sure they can chose the way they paint, or dance, or act. The vast number of artists out there generally work a pre-existing vein, getting very good at it and maybe finding a subject that makes all the difference.

I feel that a lot of art done today is created by what I’d call art directors more than artists, Damien Hearst being an example. Art Directors in the sense that they’re very good at pulling together contemporary symbols, ideas and attitudes, just like Art Directors in advertising pull together contemporary elements and trendy ideas to produce commercials.

Something I’m interested in knowing is whether Australian Aborigines mimicking animals in their dances, and if you’ve seen that you recognise the animal pretty clearly, the physical actions themselves resemble the animal, like they’ve become the animal, whether they believe they’ve become that animal or they’re conscious of only mimicking the animal.

Just in relation to originality.

Originality does not at all require that a new genre of art is invented every time an artist goes to work. It’s perfectly possible to be creative within a genre that has been explored thousands of times. — Congau

Though you do say that art is “creativity ... to make something out of nothing ... an independent and original idea”.

But if you’re working in a specific genre then by creating something original you’re breaking away from the tenets that define that genre. If you maintain the tenets of that genre then you’re not creating anything original.

great artist can keep the general style of his predecessors while surpassing them.

There’s nothing good in itself about new art movements. One genre can never be exhausted anyway and if all artists had continued to explore the classical styles and subjects beyond the 19th century, mankind would now have possessed an even greater treasure of classical art. — Congau

It’s possible that new art movements contribute to how we look back on art and review our perceptions of it. It’s possible we may have had a greater treasure of classical art if artists had continued to explore classical styles (though a style is a style and you can’t really explore the style without it becoming something else) but would we know any more than we already did. If those artists explored different subjects that may have been worthwhile, but classical art has its classical subjects which it can’t move away from, otherwise it’s not classical art.

I think language captures and conveys elements of perception. Sometimes it may influence perception, but it is not the source thereof. — Artemis

I’d agree with that.

art is telling us things. — Pop

Yes, about who we are, but it’s an action that comes and goes quickly, like watching a dancer on stage. A painting, for instance, is only an artefact, like a film of the dancer, the film is not the dance.

Not sure what you mean, it being about language. — Artemis

Obviously perception. But it’s language that’s repositioning the work. And it’s a particular language being used in this case.

Maybe I should have said through anthropology.

I'm not sure what you are trying to convey? — Pop

Okay. Well either I’m not being very clear or making sense, or you don’t understand. We’ll have to wait for someone else’s input.

The subconscious mind is primitive. That’s why I tend to think about art in terms of anthropology, in the study of early cultures and the things they produced, like totems, carvings, rock paintings, dances, etc. There’s no reason to think our subconscious mind has altered that much even if our conscious mind has. Though that idea may be open to criticism.

The conscious and the subconscious operate differently. The subconscious we’re not really aware of though it can operate on our actions. So an artist painting, dancing, acting, can allow their subconscious mind to influence what’s happening. To me it’s only the subconscious that can contribute originality though spontaneity. It’s due to the skill of the artist that they’re able to make use of that moment in their actions. It’s my belief that not everyone’s open to those spontaneous moments or able to grasp them and transform them.

The artist and the viewer are peers. They are equal.
It is one consciousness interpreting another consciousness — Pop

Okay, that’s not much help. I’m including the subconscious for the artist. The viewer I’m not sure of.

“In the strict psychological sense, the adjective is defined as "operating or existing outside of consciousness".[1]

Locke and Kristof write that there is a limit to what can be held in conscious focal awareness, an alternative storehouse of one's knowledge and prior experience is needed, which they label the subconscious”. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subconscious).

The same for the viewer. Are they operating on a subconscious level or not?

Art can be anything that you can think of, but it cant be anything that you cant think of — Pop

So that would rule out the subconsciousness. Is the subconsciousness in or out in our search for art?

Indeed the only way in which Cezanne makes it out of that bracket is by more clearly falling into the impressionist bracket. — Punshhh

Cezanne is not an Impressionist he’s a Post Impressionist, as is Gauguin.

In the end you look to art as information about human consciousness. — Pop

Yes, I would think that’s quite a solid point, if you want art to be about psychology? It does expose something about being human. But I still don’t know what that is and art varies so much within a culture and between cultures and between epochs that it explains nothing. If it’s a visual language then what is it saying, that we’re insane? And why all the different art forms, doesn’t language express things well enough?

art explores human consciousness and subconsciousness. — Pop

As if it’s something outside of consciousness or subconsciousness. Is that what you mean, that art looks into man’s mind?

Somehow I feel your criticism doesn't take into consideration the artists intent and the culture in which the artist is immersed. Likewise with Van Gogh. — Punshhh

You placed Van Gogh among the naive artists ( I think you meant that). That’s an interesting field. It’s an aspect of art respected for its freedom from rules and cant. As I said in my post changes in materials, social mores and time enabled people like Van Gogh to use art to express themselves. A lot of interesting things came out of it, not necessarily about art but what happened when people were able to freely express themselves. Another example would be Henri Rousseau. This is more about psychology than art. Art is just the consequences of their condition, which does give us insight into the subject of the artist. Van Gogh is good among the naive artists, but outside of that genre he does not match the abilities and perceptions of Gauguin and Cezanne. So in some ways intentions is no measure of art because anyone who picks up a paintbrush has intentions.

I feel that I don't quite fit into the crowd so my working definitions may be idiosyncratic at best or inane at worst. I would like to hear what you think art and beauty is. — TheMadFool

I think, buried among this OP, there are a few statements worth holding onto.

In a way philosophy is the only was to approach art otherwise it spins off into personal subjective points of view. Bartrick made a statement (if I’ve interpreted it correctly) that we have a concept of art. I think that’s true and a beginning. It doesn’t matter why we have it, we do.

The history of art has a big part to play in this. At some point in some cultures circumstances: time, materials, social mores, changed such that anyone who chose to paint, as one example, could to do so.
That gave a point of view to an entirely different group of people from the past: the church, the academies and the upper classes. until finally we had The Sex Pistols or naive art. Then everyone had an opinion and every opinion was valid. But somehow there is still a difference between Ravel’s “ Gaspard de la nuit” and The Sex Pistol’s “God Save the Queen”. Some people will argue against that but philosophy, given the time, will explain the difference.

When someone talks about aesthetics people generally mean how things look. When you look it up under philosophy you get; “a branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of beauty and taste”, not just how things look but how they’re perceived through ideas of beauty. So then it becomes; what is beauty? What is beautiful? So now it’s about language.

I don’t think that helps or works.

Artemis posted something about the perception by some about the erotic nature of Gauguin’s work. So now it’s about language again. So there has to be some other way of addressing art that steps outside of culture.

We know that all cultures produce art. And we know that that art differs enormously. So too the language used by each culture. So in some way I feel that we have to look at art as anthropology.

I couldn’t answer the question because there’s nothing that lifts it above the work of an amateur. It’s actually the background that lets it down. You should be able to see that.

What do you think lifts it above an average rendition of a hare by an amateur? — Punshhh

I don’t think I can answer that.

You keep asking people to restate what they stated in the previous post, or the one before that. — Punshhh

A bit of confusion between Noble Dust and me. All I’m asking from you is more clarification because posts on this forum can be very vague or imprecise which leads to misunderstanding.

That word “beautifully” is so open to misinterpretation.

However, imagine a writer who's writing about racism and creates interesting, colorful and moving characters in his book; this is art because although the subject is ugly, the writer expressed it beautifully. — TheMadFool

Sure, I understand.

The music you put up.

Neither clumsy nor flat footed. I’m overwhelmed by the fact that someone can write this.

Shall we start again?

Yes, is that what you want me to present an argument on, or the artist?

About what "it" referred to in your post that I quoted. — Noble Dust

Art? Actually you seemed to be referring to yourself and art at the same time.

About what?

Actually, I'm put off by the idea that "art" can be dissected in the same way as a frog. As an artist, I feel like a frog. — Noble Dust

Well, unfortunately, it can be. Stop feeling so special.

you should expect commentators who have many years of understanding and contemplation on all these issues to be found here and it will be pointed out. — Punshhh

What will be pointed out?

Brett,
What's naive about it?

You didn’t really explain that.

Your own painting that you put up on this OP works successfully using the elements of art and principles of design. That and your technical ability is all it has, and all it needs, and though your technical ability is rudimentary and pleases people the painting could not be called flat-footed or clumsy. You know that yourself otherwise you would not have displayed it. So why can’t you apply the same to Van Gogh?

Presumably you would be educated in such developments before criticising Van Gogh on a platform like this. I don't wish to sensure you, but you should expect commentators who have many years of understanding and contemplation on all these issues to be found here and it will be pointed out. — Punshhh

I don’t mind people pointing out things. But you seem to be suggesting that I’m not in a position to point things out to you.

"There is within the world of the critic and the connoisseur of art a narrative about this, which does include the international art market. Which does rate artists to a degree and in terms of 19th and 20th Century art Van Gogh is possibly in the lead currently, or perhaps head to head with Picasso" — Punshhh

This is the basis for your judgement of art?

The art world moved on from such naive interpretation a long time ago. — Punshhh

What's naive about it?

the world of art appreciation — Punshhh

Which is?

Originality does not at all require that a new genre of art is invented every time an artist goes to work. It’s perfectly possible to be creative within a genre that has been explored thousands of times. — Congau

What do you mean by genre? Do you mean it in terms of subject, or technique, or style?

Your private parts start to feel funny. — praxis

And if they don’t?

Originality does not at all require that a new genre of art is invented every time an artist goes to work. — Congau

Of course not, and that was not quite what I meant. What I meant was having found a new way of looking at a subject artists then explore that approach, or style for the sake of simplicity, and apply it to the subject of their interest. All art movements are challenged by an original, or new, approach, otherwise every painting would look like the “Madonna and Child”.

It’s probably worth considering why there was “no enormous development in style between the Renaissance and the 19th century”, and what purpose art served, what it was that constrained the breaking of any rules.

he was actually erotically displaying underage girls — Artemis

What does that mean: “erotically”?

I think the fascinating thing to see culturally is that the book is known for the pedophilia parts, — Artemis

But not by serious readers. So if that’s the cultural perception then culture has become shallow and ignorant of art. Which is no surprise. So what is culture today?

Anyway, it occurred to me to try looking at the picture as though I didn’t know who painted it. It did look much more pedestrian when viewing it this way, I must say. — praxis

That’s because it is pedestrian. Mid year high school kids paint like that, which is Van Gogh’s level, everything so literal, so clumsy and flat footed.

Edit: just an interesting note. Are we allowed to say Van Gogh’s no good?

some of his works I do find moving and deeply meaningful. — Punshhh

What exactly does this mean?