3 ms·

"What is art? Art is when you challenge the assumptions that people make about a medium and use that conflict to help them change what they think about that med

"What is art? Art is when you challenge the assumptions that people make about a medium and use that conflict to help them change what they think about that medium." I think the above definition, perhaps unwittingly, robs us of traditional value in art. By that above definition, a classical greco-roman statue that doesn't challenge anyone's ideas or perception cannot be art. I am not very interested in communicating with anyone who doesn't sooner or later realize how preposterous it is to say "your work doesn't challenge anyone's assumptions, so it can't be art". It's a self-defeater because at some point the unchallenged assumption that art challenges assumptions must itself be challenged in order to produce any more art. I think the below definition is good, maybe better but also not perfect because of its insistence on beauty alone. "The conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words." The definition for "object". I prefer the word "pattern" where any physical object is matter arranged in a certain pattern. "Something perceptible by one or more of the senses, especially by vision or touch; a material thing." Here's my pitch for an improved definition of art: "The conscious use of the imagination in the production or recognition of patterns intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful or thought-provoking such as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words." I am going to include the author likes to call art as art, because it is. I am going to exclude anything without a conscious intention of creativity in patterns. You are not making art unless you intend to. You may retroactively call something you did subconsciously "art". When you do that the conscious creation is your identification and naming of the pattern you noted, through logos; that is, the power of the mind, and language. In this way, even pointing at a mountain can be seen as a kind of performance art. The way you pointed to it at that moment, if you call attention to it as art, that is your art of being and communicating. The distant mountain was one of your artistic ingredients, so was your finger. What the writer has helpfully noticed is that art seems to be elusive; doesn't easily allow its definition to be pinned down, but it has a concrete existence in part of who we are. It cannot really exist without this thing we call "consciousness".

bitwize 4y ago
> I think the above definition, perhaps unwittingly, robs us of traditional value in art. By that above definition, a classical greco-roman statue that doesn't challenge anyone's ideas or perception cannot be art. It was art in its day, but a modern sculptor creating Greco-Roman statuary is less an artist than Marcel Duchamp exhibiting an upside down urinal, because the act of exhibiting the urinal as art calls into question the unconscious assumptions about what art should look like. Right? Reiterating the values that came before is conservatism; and conservatism is the death of art because there's no thinking involved. Art must therefore force its audience to think in order to qualify. You are using a definition of art that hasn't been conventionally accepted ever since Duchamp, who once said that art is that which challenges the notion of what is art (so, pretty much Xe's definition). Duchamp also said "Art is either plagiarism or revolution". So unless you are doing Greco-Roman statuary in a manner that shatters people's expectations of Greco-Roman statuary, your statues are a jejune copy of what has come before -- and therefore not art. Capisce?
- yakubin 4y ago
  Was Leonardo da Vinci not an artist when he drew the Vitruvian Man? Were all Renaissance sculptors and painters for that matter not artists, since they were copying the Greco-Roman style? Are script-writers of House of Cards not artists due to writing a Shakespearean play? Is George Lucas not an artist because he did not make anyone question what art is? > Duchamp also said "Art is either plagiarism or revolution". So unless you are doing Greco-Roman statuary in a manner that shatters people's expectations of Greco-Roman statuary, your statues are a jejune copy of what has come before -- and therefore not art. Here is a contradiction. First plagiarism is listed as an example of art, to then be described as "not art". Also, I think that art which sticks to established understanding of what art is isn't necessarily plagiarism. Just because there were plenty of standard 3-act structured plays/films, does not mean that subsequent attempts are plagiaristic. Otherwise art would be castrated to just form, when in fact it is a marriage of form and substance. I think this fixation on "subverting expectations" comes from self-centredness of some artists. Maybe if you dedicate your whole life to just art, you don't have other experiences to draw from to create something about more than art itself. And so art becomes a simulacrum.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Yeah, by that definition a badly done copy of a famous statue would be "art" because it falls short of a copy, but a brand new statue perfectly executed in the style of a famous statue would not be art, because it doesn't shatter anything. I feel too many people want to define art such that they "love all art" - when art can be done well, or poorly, and you can like or not like it even if done well. Now saying "when is art done" may be more complicated; the designer perfecting a perfume to capture a particular scent and be long-lasting and non-toxic is doing art (and other works) - but the machine that eventually makes gallons and gallons of the perfume to put in little bottles is not "making art" even if the result is a "work of art". Art requires intent.
    - bitwize 4y ago
      > Yeah, by that definition a badly done copy of a famous statue would be "art" because it falls short of a copy, but a brand new statue perfectly executed in the style of a famous statue would not be art, because it doesn't shatter anything. L.H.O.O.Q. is famous and influential in ways that a modern Mona Lisa style portrait would not be. Hey, I don't make the rules.
noizejoy 4y ago
> Here's my pitch for an improved definition of art: The conscious use of the imagination in the production or recognition of patterns intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful or thought-provoking such as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words." Two of my external senses (taste, smell) are protesting for being discriminated against. :-) Or phrased a bit more seriously: Can’t some instances of meal creation and/or some forms of fragrance creation be art forms?
- bombcar 4y ago
  It does have "such as" - art is clearly something that is designed to be perceived by the senses, and all of them will matter. But art that is tasted or smelled often is art that only exists for a time; and so it doesn't get perhaps as much attention.
atoav 4y ago
I work at an art school and deal with art more or less for the past two decades. My mother is a painter. I don't think you are wrong. Yet in practise there are many, many people who confuse good crafts with good art. Painting photorealistically for example is certainly a skill that needs some time to be mastered. But it doesn't mean that what the painter did resulted necessarily in art. And if you closely this sort of coincided with the rise of photography. Before photography a realistic painting was the only way to create a picture that could actuallt show onlookers a slice of a different time or place. This was one of the values of painting. Just think about how much people like to share images nowadays. But to do it back in the day, you needed a painter, a decent chunk of money and time. When photography started to gain traction this changed. Suddenly painting was robbed of one of its former functions. Depicting places and people was something photography could do better, faster and cheaper. This means painting had to move into the other direction of depicting things that photography could not and it did. But as it is today if you compared the opinions of a random sample of the population to those who deal with art a lot, you'd find that the general population will often confuse crafts with arts. You can impress many people more with a photorealistic painting of a totally uninteresting subject, than you could impress with an interesting abstract painting. In the art world that would be flipped. There crafts would be seen as something that one can learn and aquire, but the crux lies in how you apply it and what you do with it. It is good that anybody can claim something to be art. But the claim alone is worthless — they have to believe you it is. Art is something that has a social dimension, the discussion about it is part of the thing. And just like with music it is totally acceptable that you dislike parts of it. Not everybody has to like japanese harsh noise, or even count it as music for example.
- lloeki 4y ago
  > the general population will often confuse crafts with arts. You can impress many people more with a photorealistic painting of a totally uninteresting subject, than you could impress with an interesting abstract painting Perfectly highlighted by the usual comments: "how is this art? this looks like my 5yo could draw that doodle" "how is this art? it's just a couple of coloured squares"
xena 4y ago
> > What is art? Art is when you challenge the assumptions that people make about a medium and use that conflict to help them change what they think about that medium. > I think the above definition, perhaps unwittingly, robs us of traditional value in art. By that above definition, a classical greco-roman statue that doesn't challenge anyone's ideas or perception cannot be art. When you see a medium normally used for creating functional pieces of buildings formed into a realistic visage of a human by carefully beating it with a hammer and a metal rod, that moment of realizing what material it's made out of and the tools used to make it transform what you see out of the stone around everywhere. Sculptors in the past have said that they are freeing the sculpture from the stone it is encased in. Using that kind of mindset, you can easily see classical greco-roman sculptures as the art they are. The sculpture isn't art on its own. It's the understanding of the sculpture, when it was made and what they managed to create that makes it art. > The definition for "object". I prefer the word "pattern" where any physical object is matter arranged in a certain pattern. Can emotions be art? Or is it the capturing of them that makes it art? What can art _not_ be? > What the writer has helpfully noticed is that art seems to be elusive; doesn't easily allow its definition to be pinned down, but it has a concrete existence in part of who we are. It cannot really exist without this thing we call "consciousness". Bingo :)

bitwize 4y ago

> I think the above definition, perhaps unwittingly, robs us of traditional value in art. By that above definition, a classical greco-roman statue that doesn't challenge anyone's ideas or perception cannot be art. It was art in its day, but a modern sculptor creating Greco-Roman statuary is less an artist than Marcel Duchamp exhibiting an upside down urinal, because the act of exhibiting the urinal as art calls into question the unconscious assumptions about what art should look like. Right? Reiterating the values that came before is conservatism; and conservatism is the death of art because there's no thinking involved. Art must therefore force its audience to think in order to qualify. You are using a definition of art that hasn't been conventionally accepted ever since Duchamp, who once said that art is that which challenges the notion of what is art (so, pretty much Xe's definition). Duchamp also said "Art is either plagiarism or revolution". So unless you are doing Greco-Roman statuary in a manner that shatters people's expectations of Greco-Roman statuary, your statues are a jejune copy of what has come before -- and therefore not art. Capisce?

yakubin 4y ago
Was Leonardo da Vinci not an artist when he drew the Vitruvian Man? Were all Renaissance sculptors and painters for that matter not artists, since they were copying the Greco-Roman style? Are script-writers of House of Cards not artists due to writing a Shakespearean play? Is George Lucas not an artist because he did not make anyone question what art is? > Duchamp also said "Art is either plagiarism or revolution". So unless you are doing Greco-Roman statuary in a manner that shatters people's expectations of Greco-Roman statuary, your statues are a jejune copy of what has come before -- and therefore not art. Here is a contradiction. First plagiarism is listed as an example of art, to then be described as "not art". Also, I think that art which sticks to established understanding of what art is isn't necessarily plagiarism. Just because there were plenty of standard 3-act structured plays/films, does not mean that subsequent attempts are plagiaristic. Otherwise art would be castrated to just form, when in fact it is a marriage of form and substance. I think this fixation on "subverting expectations" comes from self-centredness of some artists. Maybe if you dedicate your whole life to just art, you don't have other experiences to draw from to create something about more than art itself. And so art becomes a simulacrum.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Yeah, by that definition a badly done copy of a famous statue would be "art" because it falls short of a copy, but a brand new statue perfectly executed in the style of a famous statue would not be art, because it doesn't shatter anything. I feel too many people want to define art such that they "love all art" - when art can be done well, or poorly, and you can like or not like it even if done well. Now saying "when is art done" may be more complicated; the designer perfecting a perfume to capture a particular scent and be long-lasting and non-toxic is doing art (and other works) - but the machine that eventually makes gallons and gallons of the perfume to put in little bottles is not "making art" even if the result is a "work of art". Art requires intent.
  - bitwize 4y ago
    > Yeah, by that definition a badly done copy of a famous statue would be "art" because it falls short of a copy, but a brand new statue perfectly executed in the style of a famous statue would not be art, because it doesn't shatter anything. L.H.O.O.Q. is famous and influential in ways that a modern Mona Lisa style portrait would not be. Hey, I don't make the rules.

noizejoy 4y ago

> Here's my pitch for an improved definition of art: The conscious use of the imagination in the production or recognition of patterns intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful or thought-provoking such as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words." Two of my external senses (taste, smell) are protesting for being discriminated against. :-) Or phrased a bit more seriously: Can’t some instances of meal creation and/or some forms of fragrance creation be art forms?

bombcar 4y ago
It does have "such as" - art is clearly something that is designed to be perceived by the senses, and all of them will matter. But art that is tasted or smelled often is art that only exists for a time; and so it doesn't get perhaps as much attention.

atoav 4y ago

I work at an art school and deal with art more or less for the past two decades. My mother is a painter. I don't think you are wrong. Yet in practise there are many, many people who confuse good crafts with good art. Painting photorealistically for example is certainly a skill that needs some time to be mastered. But it doesn't mean that what the painter did resulted necessarily in art. And if you closely this sort of coincided with the rise of photography. Before photography a realistic painting was the only way to create a picture that could actuallt show onlookers a slice of a different time or place. This was one of the values of painting. Just think about how much people like to share images nowadays. But to do it back in the day, you needed a painter, a decent chunk of money and time. When photography started to gain traction this changed. Suddenly painting was robbed of one of its former functions. Depicting places and people was something photography could do better, faster and cheaper. This means painting had to move into the other direction of depicting things that photography could not and it did. But as it is today if you compared the opinions of a random sample of the population to those who deal with art a lot, you'd find that the general population will often confuse crafts with arts. You can impress many people more with a photorealistic painting of a totally uninteresting subject, than you could impress with an interesting abstract painting. In the art world that would be flipped. There crafts would be seen as something that one can learn and aquire, but the crux lies in how you apply it and what you do with it. It is good that anybody can claim something to be art. But the claim alone is worthless — they have to believe you it is. Art is something that has a social dimension, the discussion about it is part of the thing. And just like with music it is totally acceptable that you dislike parts of it. Not everybody has to like japanese harsh noise, or even count it as music for example.

lloeki 4y ago
> the general population will often confuse crafts with arts. You can impress many people more with a photorealistic painting of a totally uninteresting subject, than you could impress with an interesting abstract painting Perfectly highlighted by the usual comments: "how is this art? this looks like my 5yo could draw that doodle" "how is this art? it's just a couple of coloured squares"

xena 4y ago

> > What is art? Art is when you challenge the assumptions that people make about a medium and use that conflict to help them change what they think about that medium. > I think the above definition, perhaps unwittingly, robs us of traditional value in art. By that above definition, a classical greco-roman statue that doesn't challenge anyone's ideas or perception cannot be art. When you see a medium normally used for creating functional pieces of buildings formed into a realistic visage of a human by carefully beating it with a hammer and a metal rod, that moment of realizing what material it's made out of and the tools used to make it transform what you see out of the stone around everywhere. Sculptors in the past have said that they are freeing the sculpture from the stone it is encased in. Using that kind of mindset, you can easily see classical greco-roman sculptures as the art they are. The sculpture isn't art on its own. It's the understanding of the sculpture, when it was made and what they managed to create that makes it art. > The definition for "object". I prefer the word "pattern" where any physical object is matter arranged in a certain pattern. Can emotions be art? Or is it the capturing of them that makes it art? What can art _not_ be? > What the writer has helpfully noticed is that art seems to be elusive; doesn't easily allow its definition to be pinned down, but it has a concrete existence in part of who we are. It cannot really exist without this thing we call "consciousness". Bingo :)