3 ms·
> "To date, the most robust definition I've seen in those debates are "does someone call it art? Then it's art". Not necessarily good or insightful art, but art
by Crito 13y ago
> "To date, the most robust definition I've seen in those debates are "does someone call it art? Then it's art". Not necessarily good or insightful art, but art nevertheless."
I am not satisfied with this definition.
Suppose we have 4 bricklayers constructing a wall. The four have worked together for a long time, and are very professional; they are capable of creating a uniform wall despite the wall being the product of their combined effort.
One of the four bricklayers claims that brickwork is art, having been artfully laid by a skilled craftsman. The other three bricklayers make no such claims about their work.
Is the wall art? Are only portions of the wall art? Can we distinguish the disjoint segments of the wall that are art and those that are not? If the artful bricklayer claims that the work of his colleagues is art, does it become art? What if they insist that it is not?
- dragonwriter 13y agoSomething is or is not art to the extent that people experience it as art, independently of what else it might be or the intention or skill of the creator.
- lutusp 13y ago> Is the wall art? Are only portions of the wall art? Can we distinguish the disjoint segments of the wall that are art and those that are not? If the artful bricklayer claims that the work of his colleagues is art, does it become art? What if they insist that it is not? You've stated the problem (that our definitions of art are too vague), but to take this to the next level, we would have to define art, and get everyone to agree. That's a bigger problem than the one we face now. > I am not satisfied with this definition. To move beyond rhetoric, you would have to propose a definition that everyone would agree on. In the meantime, art is in the eye of the beholder.