UndercoverElephant wrote:It is quite easy (I think) to define literary art. In terms of anything written down, art is everything that's left after you've taken away science and mathematics.

I'm not sure I agree completely with that statement, as I don't think you could include, say, a front page lead in say the 'The Sun', or a letter from the Income Tax, both are written down and will give rise to sharp emotions. Some of 'The Sun's' headlines may be quotable for a short time, but not over the long term, I think we can agree that a letter from George Osborne saying you owe me more money is not art, except in how to con people out of money!

It is a bit like painting, say a wall for protection or painting on a wall like a fresco. I think we may be able to say that art has a non-functional quality as well as possibly a functional quality. Though in what combination I have no idea.

ramseyoptom wrote:
I'm not sure I agree completely with that statement, as I don't think you could include, say, a front page lead in say the 'The Sun', or a letter from the Income Tax, both are written down and will give rise to sharp emotions. Some of 'The Sun's' headlines may be quotable for a short time, but not over the long term, I think we can agree that a letter from George Osborne saying you owe me more money is not art, except in how to con people out of money!

It is a bit like painting, say a wall for protection or painting on a wall like a fresco. I think we may be able to say that art has a non-functional quality as well as possibly a functional quality. Though in what combination I have no idea.

I think the key is, is it valued and to whom does it have value? Without perceived value, it isn't art, and it is only art to those who perceive its value.

Functionality I think has little to do with it other than what that functionality evokes in the observer.

I have a theory - perhaps not original - that art has extremely practical beginnings. Namely, heard in the cave, is "Kids if you see one of these things I've drawn on wall, come and tell me and we will go hunting. Now if you see one of these, well they're called sabre tooth tigers and they like hunting you!"

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

ramseyoptom wrote:
I'm not sure I agree completely with that statement, as I don't think you could include, say, a front page lead in say the 'The Sun', or a letter from the Income Tax, both are written down and will give rise to sharp emotions. Some of 'The Sun's' headlines may be quotable for a short time, but not over the long term, I think we can agree that a letter from George Osborne saying you owe me more money is not art, except in how to con people out of money!

It is a bit like painting, say a wall for protection or painting on a wall like a fresco. I think we may be able to say that art has a non-functional quality as well as possibly a functional quality. Though in what combination I have no idea.

I think the key is, is it valued and to whom does it have value? Without perceived value, it isn't art, and it is only art to those who perceive its value.

Functionality I think has little to do with it other than what that functionality evokes in the observer.

So, George Osborne, would feel his letter was Art, because he perceived it had value ie you owe the Government £500. You would not see any perceived value as you wouldn't want to give the Government an extra £500 except by way of avoiding a prison sentence.

pinkharrier wrote:I have a theory - perhaps not original - that art has extremely practical beginnings. Namely, heard in the cave, is "Kids if you see one of these things I've drawn on wall, come and tell me and we will go hunting. Now if you see one of these, well they're called sabre tooth tigers and they like hunting you!"

I don't think this is as silly as at might seem at first. We look ar cave paintings eg Lasceaux, and see them as 'Art'. Admittedly archaeologists seem to put them in their catch-all category of religous/ritual, but I have heard that theory propounded before.

Architecture provides a venue for ideas and feelings to reside in.
Literature and Drama reflects what ideas and feelings are like.
Visual art is what ideas and feelings look like.
Music is what feelings and ideas sound like.

"All art constantly aspires towards the condition of music."

-- Walter Pater, The Renaissance (1873)
"All music constantly aspires towards the condition of Jazz."

-- THWOTH, Rationskepticism.org (2010)

ramseyoptom wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

ramseyoptom wrote:
I'm not sure I agree completely with that statement, as I don't think you could include, say, a front page lead in say the 'The Sun', or a letter from the Income Tax, both are written down and will give rise to sharp emotions. Some of 'The Sun's' headlines may be quotable for a short time, but not over the long term, I think we can agree that a letter from George Osborne saying you owe me more money is not art, except in how to con people out of money!

It is a bit like painting, say a wall for protection or painting on a wall like a fresco. I think we may be able to say that art has a non-functional quality as well as possibly a functional quality. Though in what combination I have no idea.

I think the key is, is it valued and to whom does it have value? Without perceived value, it isn't art, and it is only art to those who perceive its value.

Functionality I think has little to do with it other than what that functionality evokes in the observer.

So, George Osborne, would feel his letter was Art, because he perceived it had value ie you owe the Government £500. You would not see any perceived value as you wouldn't want to give the Government an extra £500 except by way of avoiding a prison sentence.

A perceived value, not a literal one. Value measured by the desire to posess or to consume. A subjective value. Combine that with anything created to provoke feeling, thought or emotion, and I think you can call it art.

Here's another thought on the issue that i'll chuck in:

How important do you think an artist's intentions are when analysing their work?

In certain cases we might find things in pieces of work that the artist never intended or noticed themselves. For example: in the study of literature we are sometimes asked to voice many different interpretations on a single sentence, most of which it seems unlikely the artist would have intended. But does this matter? If we are getting the idea or quality in question from the work in question, does it matter that the artist didn't have any intention of it being there?

The medium of expression is indistinguishable from the expression itself.

Kid A wrote:Here's another thought on the issue that i'll chuck in:

How important do you think an artist's intentions are when analysing their work?

In certain cases we might find things in pieces of work that the artist never intended or noticed themselves. For example: in the study of literature we are sometimes asked to voice many different interpretations on a single sentence, most of which it seems unlikely the artist would have intended. But does this matter? If we are getting the idea or quality in question from the work in question, does it matter that the artist didn't have any intention of it being there?

Generally, modern literary criticism has dismissed this as the 'intentional fallacy'. Barthes even wrote an article called 'The Death of the Author'.

Of course, it may be interesting to find out what an author's ideas about his own work are, but they cannot constrain us. For one thing, any theory of the unconscious would predict that authors construct things without conscious knowledge. For another thing, we are free to see literary works in different contexts - I remember 'Hamlet' being performed in concentration camp uniforms.

So there has been a kind of liberation in modern criticism, so that the reader or critic him/herself becomes creative in their own right. If I see 'Hamlet' as a document about existential anguish, why not?

THWOTH wrote:The medium of expression is indistinguishable from the expression itself.

What does that mean?

John

CdesignProponentsist wrote:A perceived value, not a literal one. Value measured by the desire to posess or to consume. A subjective value. Combine that with anything created to provoke feeling, thought or emotion, and I think you can call it art.

In sales and marketing itesm can have a high perceived value or low perceived value. For instance, and here I have direct experience, a spectacle frame was manufactured by a firm called Optyl ( now defunct) for its range of 'Christian Dior' , after a few years of marketing Dior decided that it no longer suited their image and wanted that particular frame discontinued, however it was a big seller probalbly the best in the range. So Optyl got permission to carry on manufacturing the frame, the only thing they removed off the frame was the Dior logo. The frame was now priced at a lower cost and it did not sell because it no longer had the Dior logo so lost perceived value there and was cheaper so lost perceived value there as well. In both cases before and after the manufacturing cost was the same.

In another example of perceived value BSA (Birmingham Small Arms) produced a target rifle the Mark IV (IIRC) and was priced at a price lower than the opposition (Anschutz) it did not sell. Then someone in their marketing department had a brain wave they re-priced at a higher value and could not make them fast enough.

Were both items Art? I think you would agree that they probably were not. So apart from illustrating the fickle nature of the consumer I feel that they illustrate the problem of using perceived value. Maybe in Art we should be using the rareity value ie that the work of Art is a "one off" rather than just the item itself. As an example , we have Van Gogh Sunflowers there are several examples but all are different and noticably so, compared to say a Louis Vuitton handbag where the perceived value is different.

z8000783 wrote:

THWOTH wrote:The medium of expression is indistinguishable from the expression itself.

What does that mean?

John

E.G. a visual artist's expression (say, a painting) is indistinguishable from the paint, the canvas, and/or the brushes or knife used to create it; that the created object itself communicates - not the artist.

Tom Wolfe's long essay covers similar ground

The other bone Wolfe has to pick is with the proliferation of art theory, particularly the sort purveyed by postwar colossi like Harold Rosenberg, Clement Greenberg, and Leo Steinberg. Decades after the heyday of abstract expressionism, these guys make pretty easy targets. What could be more absurd, after all, than endless Jesuitical disputes about the flatness of the picture plane? So most of them get a highly comical spanking from the author.

http://www.amazon.com/Painted-Word-Tom-Wolfe/dp/0553380656

Also http://www.tomwolfe.com/PaintedWord.html

jamest wrote:It depresses you. Therefore, it has the capacity to move you. That is why it is art, for you. I use the word 'uplift' in a very broad sense: to raise one's soul from the doldrums in which it usually seats itself.

It's interesting that I got you to say things that I would normally say, even by way of thinking that you disagree, perhaps.

In other words, my art worked on you, in just the way that art is supposed to work.

THWOTH wrote:.

Art?

I was surprised when I found out about the white arrows pointing upwards. Now I'm more leaning toward "yes, it's art"

Kid A wrote:Here's another thought on the issue that i'll chuck in:

How important do you think an artist's intentions are when analysing their work?

In certain cases we might find things in pieces of work that the artist never intended or noticed themselves. For example: in the study of literature we are sometimes asked to voice many different interpretations on a single sentence, most of which it seems unlikely the artist would have intended. But does this matter? If we are getting the idea or quality in question from the work in question, does it matter that the artist didn't have any intention of it being there?

Observer's subjective or artists intended meanings can only apply added value as long as they are appreciated by the observer.

This is kind of a cliche but still true: Art is in the mind of the beholder. If you can improve their experience by explaining added meaning then it's importance is as much as the appreciation is increased.

'Art is whatever you think is art'

Yep, that's pretty much it. In my view, x is art to you if you interpret x in a particular aestethic way. Other people might not interpret x that way, so it's not art to them. Anything can be art, just as long as you interpret it as art, and it's only art to you and anyone else who also interprets it as art. It's subjective; you can't be right or wrong when judging something to be art.

Art doesn't exist in the external, objective world. It only exists in your head.

zoot allures wrote:'Art is whatever you think is art'

Yep, that's pretty much it. In my view, x is art to you if you interpret x in a particular aestethic way. Other people might not interpret x that way, so it's not art to them. Anything can be art, just as long as you interpret it as art, and it's only art to you and anyone else who also interprets it as art. It's subjective; you can't be right or wrong when judging something to be art.

Art doesn't exist in the external, objective world. It only exists in your head.

What do you think is the essential difference between those things that 'exist in your head' as art and those things that do not?


Splendid avatar btw.