4 ms·
> It is very tricky to define art. But we're better off engaging with the people who tried to answer that question and building on their work instead of the peo
by setr 6y ago
> It is very tricky to define art. But we're better off engaging with the people who tried to answer that question and building on their work instead of the people who refused to answer at all
I’m not sure that’s true, because I’m really of the belief that trying to find a strict classification is a mistake — even if we find something that works 90% of the time, we haven’t actually learned anything, and we can’t use it for anything useful anyways. Like finding the definition of a chair, it’s only useful for, well, classification systems, and things that depend on classification systems (eg taxes). But this is largely self-serving, and meaningless to us as non-users of those systems. At best, it helps us in conversation, but I’m not of the belief that the definition of “art” does even that much.
When a urinal can take on all the same “artistic” properties of a painting (including value, meaning, etc) it should be immediately clear there is no strict, solid definition to find. Especially when we consider that it does clearly change over time, and things considered art today (say abstract art) where not considered art yesterday (eg to the Greeks, or even the artistic community of its time)
As such, the question itself is wrong — and those who attempt a strict definition are inevitably struggling with a futile endeavor.
It’s not simply tricky to define art — it is both meaningless and impossible. Perhaps at best, it can be defined within a context — [ object-instance under question + time + (sub)culture ] together may produce something of substance.
> I can use my shoe to hammer a nail into a wall but my shoe is a shoe, not a hammer
A rock is a rock, but when I put a sufficiently large rock next to a dining table and sit on it, it’s also a chair. A rock is a rock, until I beat you over the head with it, and now it’s a deadly weapon in the court of law; in another conversation it remains a humble rock; in yet another, a particular composition of minerals; in one more, an art installation [0].
And notably, all of these things can be true of our simple rock simultaneously
From a programming perspective: OOP modeling can get awkward, because it models objects as having certain properties and capabilities. When those definitions change, everything goes with it.
Relational databases tends be more consistent, because it takes the inverse view: a set of properties exist. The composition of those properties happens to produce an object. A different composition produces a different object. These compositions give rise to the set of capabilities
That is, there are many ways to interpret the underlying data. Your business logic is just making various choices with how to do so
[0] https://d7hftxdivxxvm.cloudfront.net/?resize_to=width&src=https%3A%2F%2Fartsy-media-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fe5fK88ygYdiXHPasYJzN5g%252F15524237663_05f072367f_o.jpg&width=1200&quality=80 https://d7hftxdivxxvm.cloudfront.net/?resize_to=width&src=ht...
- slibhb 6y ago> A rock is a rock, but when I put a sufficiently large rock next to a dining table and sit on it, it’s also a chair. A rock is a rock, until I beat you over the head with it, and now it’s a deadly weapon in the court of law; in another conversation it remains a humble rock; in yet another, a particular composition of minerals; in one more, an art installation [0]. Sitting on a rock does not make it a chair. A char is for sitting on, a rock is not. A strict definition of art (or anything) may be impossible. But that doesn't mean trying to find one is a mistake. The attitude that views art as an ideal to pursue produces art that lasts centuries. If we stop trying to pursue that ideal, if we throw up our hands and say "art is whatever we think is art," we will stop producing art (or whatever you want to call it) that has any longevity.
- setr 6y ago> Sitting on a rock does not make it a chair. A char is for sitting on, a rock is not. You’re ascribing purpose where there is none. Objects are not born of the world in some particular and unique fashion, and rendered static in its place and time. What would you call this? [0] A tree? Yet it’s most certainly a chair, in all the ways we expect a chair to be (except perhaps immobility, but a heavy and immovable chair of stone is still a chair). And yet most certainly a living tree, in all the ways one expects a tree to be. [0] https://i.pinimg.com/originals/fa/a0/de/faa0dec4b3887a44d85c8d92450b6177.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/fa/a0/de/faa0dec4b3887a44d85c... > A strict definition of art (or anything) may be impossible. But that doesn't mean trying to find one is a mistake. What makes it a mistake is to assume the act of categorization is inherently valuable — I argue it is not simply futile, but even if we did succeed, we’d have gained nothing. > The attitude that views art as an ideal to pursue produces art that lasts centuries. You’re referring to the skill-based pursuit, and sure, I agree with that. A well constructed painting is something to be admired. But this is referring to mechanical ability, and not the quality of art that I consider most important. Rather, you expect a strong piece of art to force you to think — emotionally, or about the subject (or even the meta-context in which it sits); art isn’t necessarily something to be admired and shelved, but something greater than that. The rock I linked previously is an artwork, not because of its high skill in construction, but because of the sheer terror of its existence and the dread one feels even looking at that horrific construction