3 ms·

Art is meant to provoke feelings and reactions. In people, anyway.

klodolph 4y ago
I would definitely consider that a misconception of what art is or what it is supposed to do. It's the kind of thing Aristotle said, but our conceptions of art have changed since Aristotle's time. Here's an introduction to the topic: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/
- lsaferite 4y ago
  > The definition of art is controversial in contemporary philosophy. Whether art can be defined has also been a matter of controversy. The philosophical usefulness of a definition of art has also been debated. Your own link _starts_ with a statement about the controversial nature of a definition of art. Are you surprised you disagree with someone on the nature of art?
  - klodolph 4y ago
    > Are you surprised you disagree with someone on the nature of art? I think we both agree here that the obvious answer to this question is "no", and that's the correct answer... is there some specific point you're trying to make?
- jdmtheNth 4y ago
  Good article. The entry for "Traditional" seems closest to correct.
  - klodolph 4y ago
    Those definitions generally exclude works by Duchamp and many other modern artists which do not fit into the narrow traditional definitions of art. (There are some overbroad traditional definitions, I don't think you're talking about those.) Just to give some wider social context--the backlash against modern art is something of a right-wing talking point, and it has been for nearly a hundred years if not longer, for complicated reasons that would fill an entire book. These days I see those definitions the most in those Twitter accounts with ancient roman/greek sculpture as their profile pictures, which post about the decline of society and how modern art is bad, classical art is good. I like modern art. You may not like it, but it seems weird and distasteful to reach for a definition of "art" that excludes things you don't like.
    - throwaway4aday 4y ago
      > the backlash against modern art is something of a right-wing talking point, and it has been for nearly a hundred years if not longer You are most definitely blaming the wrong axis of the political compass. Preference for or opposition to modern art has no political leaning and varies widely between people of all political stripes. Modern art has been notably suppressed by authoritarian regimes[0] however but this is not due to their politics, rather it's entirely due to their personal opinions which become law in a dictatorial government. More evidence against your claim also comes from the fact that was mentioned in this thread that the CIA, who by most measures would be traditionally considered right wing, promoted modern art as a propaganda weapon against America's enemies[1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_realism [1] https://news.artnet.com/art-world/artcurious-cia-art-excerpt-1909623 https://news.artnet.com/art-world/artcurious-cia-art-excerpt...
      - klodolph 4y ago
        Again, there's a whole book that you could write about this topic, and a single comment in an HN thread is not going to do it justice, not even in summary. The CIA may act as an agent for implementing right-wing policies, but if you're trying to explain CIA behavior, you would use a variety of both ideological and pragmatic explanations. Anti-modern art movements have close ideological ties with fascism and authoritarian beliefs, which can be far-left or far-right.
        throwaway4aday 4y ago
        We should just change the definition of art to anything that people argue about.
        klodolph 4y ago
        Most topics in philosophy. Any time we attempt to define what a word means, we use other words to do it, and a big chunk of philosophy is spent dealing with the bottom of that mess. What is "real", what is "knowledge", what is "intelligence", what is "art", etc.

I would definitely consider that a misconception of what art is or what it is supposed to do. It's the kind of thing Aristotle said, but our conceptions of art have changed since Aristotle's time. Here's an introduction to the topic: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/

lsaferite 4y ago
> The definition of art is controversial in contemporary philosophy. Whether art can be defined has also been a matter of controversy. The philosophical usefulness of a definition of art has also been debated. Your own link _starts_ with a statement about the controversial nature of a definition of art. Are you surprised you disagree with someone on the nature of art?
- klodolph 4y ago
  > Are you surprised you disagree with someone on the nature of art? I think we both agree here that the obvious answer to this question is "no", and that's the correct answer... is there some specific point you're trying to make?
jdmtheNth 4y ago
Good article. The entry for "Traditional" seems closest to correct.
- klodolph 4y ago
  Those definitions generally exclude works by Duchamp and many other modern artists which do not fit into the narrow traditional definitions of art. (There are some overbroad traditional definitions, I don't think you're talking about those.) Just to give some wider social context--the backlash against modern art is something of a right-wing talking point, and it has been for nearly a hundred years if not longer, for complicated reasons that would fill an entire book. These days I see those definitions the most in those Twitter accounts with ancient roman/greek sculpture as their profile pictures, which post about the decline of society and how modern art is bad, classical art is good. I like modern art. You may not like it, but it seems weird and distasteful to reach for a definition of "art" that excludes things you don't like.
  - throwaway4aday 4y ago
    > the backlash against modern art is something of a right-wing talking point, and it has been for nearly a hundred years if not longer You are most definitely blaming the wrong axis of the political compass. Preference for or opposition to modern art has no political leaning and varies widely between people of all political stripes. Modern art has been notably suppressed by authoritarian regimes[0] however but this is not due to their politics, rather it's entirely due to their personal opinions which become law in a dictatorial government. More evidence against your claim also comes from the fact that was mentioned in this thread that the CIA, who by most measures would be traditionally considered right wing, promoted modern art as a propaganda weapon against America's enemies[1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_realism [1] https://news.artnet.com/art-world/artcurious-cia-art-excerpt-1909623 https://news.artnet.com/art-world/artcurious-cia-art-excerpt...
    - klodolph 4y ago
      Again, there's a whole book that you could write about this topic, and a single comment in an HN thread is not going to do it justice, not even in summary. The CIA may act as an agent for implementing right-wing policies, but if you're trying to explain CIA behavior, you would use a variety of both ideological and pragmatic explanations. Anti-modern art movements have close ideological ties with fascism and authoritarian beliefs, which can be far-left or far-right.
      - throwaway4aday 4y ago
        We should just change the definition of art to anything that people argue about.
        klodolph 4y ago
        Most topics in philosophy. Any time we attempt to define what a word means, we use other words to do it, and a big chunk of philosophy is spent dealing with the bottom of that mess. What is "real", what is "knowledge", what is "intelligence", what is "art", etc.