3 ms·

> I'll stick to the best definition of art that I've heard : "if it gives you an emotion, it is art". I think it's necessary, but not sufficient. So I kinda li

> I'll stick to the best definition of art that I've heard : "if it gives you an emotion, it is art". I think it's necessary, but not sufficient. So I kinda like my better: It's art if (and to the extent of) people generally agree it's art. Sounds tautological, but it isn't[0]. Of course, not everything is art. There are some aspects typically - but not always - present. Whether something gives you an emotion is one. Whether it has a deeper story behind it is another. Whether it's something that you can bond over with other people, or a shared experience, yet another. But none of those are required to be present. Art is ultimately a consensus opinion. -- [0] - In fact, most of our civilization is built on ideas that exist only as long as most people expect most other people to believe them. Examples include: money, laws, countries, corporations, even the concept of society itself.

hex4def6 1y ago
That feels unnecessarily restrictive. Does Jiro and his sushi constitute an artist and his art? Let's say yes, and let's say most people today agree with this. They're cosmopolitan enough to recognize the sophistication and craft. This definition therefore defines it as "art". I would say if you told the average Brit living in the UK in the 1950s that there's a guy that's really good at slicing up raw fish, you might get a different average answer. So I don't think art is dependent on the conclusion viewer, but on the intention of the author. If they arrange rocks just-so, because they enjoy the shadows they make at noon, I think that's art.
- TeMPOraL 1y ago
  > So I don't think art is dependent on the conclusion viewer, but on the intention of the author. If they arrange rocks just-so, because they enjoy the shadows they make at noon, I think that's art. That still depends on the conclusion of the viewer, because intent exists only in the heart of the creator. We can guess at it, or choose to trust the creator when they say what their intent was, but we cannot independently see and evaluate it. Then, other people can disagree with us on what the intent was. You say Jiro is is an artist, I say he's just building a fake persona to market his fish-slicing business. I think there is no quality of "art" that's inherent to the work; I see art as purely social phenomenon.

hex4def6 1y ago

That feels unnecessarily restrictive. Does Jiro and his sushi constitute an artist and his art? Let's say yes, and let's say most people today agree with this. They're cosmopolitan enough to recognize the sophistication and craft. This definition therefore defines it as "art". I would say if you told the average Brit living in the UK in the 1950s that there's a guy that's really good at slicing up raw fish, you might get a different average answer. So I don't think art is dependent on the conclusion viewer, but on the intention of the author. If they arrange rocks just-so, because they enjoy the shadows they make at noon, I think that's art.

TeMPOraL 1y ago
> So I don't think art is dependent on the conclusion viewer, but on the intention of the author. If they arrange rocks just-so, because they enjoy the shadows they make at noon, I think that's art. That still depends on the conclusion of the viewer, because intent exists only in the heart of the creator. We can guess at it, or choose to trust the creator when they say what their intent was, but we cannot independently see and evaluate it. Then, other people can disagree with us on what the intent was. You say Jiro is is an artist, I say he's just building a fake persona to market his fish-slicing business. I think there is no quality of "art" that's inherent to the work; I see art as purely social phenomenon.