Hello all. I start this thread with a very simple goal. To discuss, debate and try our best to find out once and for all whether a meaningful definition of 'art' is possible.

I assume that the vast majority of you, like myself, probably think that such a meaningful definition is not possible to find, but even in such a case I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on why this is the case, and any other thoughts you might have on the issue.

If you do have a definition that you think stands up to criticism, then please post it here and we'll see how it holds up, and whether any exceptions can be theorised.

I'll get the ball rolling by posting my own definition of art. One which I think is fairly useless, subjective and circular, but is at present, the best I can come up with. Here you go:

'Art is whatever you think is art'

Art is hacking the human.

Hacking is the manipulation of complex systems, and a human is one of the most complex systems you can name. The fact that the one essential aspect of art is the involvement of humans renders the human the central defining aspect.

Art, therefore, can simply be something one does to please oneself (or garner any other desired response from oneself) or it can be aimed at garnering a response from others.

The one thing that defines 'art' is that it involves th manipulation of human systems - systems of perception, thought, emotion, and so forth.

Much of art is just a form of masturbation - doing stuff which rubs one's own sweet spots. Often this happens to rub others' sweet spots in a similar way, which is not all that surprising given that we are all similar (and closely related) organisms.

That's really all there is to it. I have difficulty seeing what's supposed to be so difficult about this.

Mt tuppence worth:

Art is the stuff that we do when we're not doing the stuff that keeps us alive.

Mmmmm, I've never heard it called that before however it can be quite creative at times.

John

z8000783 wrote:Mmmmm, I've never heard it called that before however it can be quite creative at times.

John

I tend to go with Duchamp's basic idea that art is that which is made by an artist. It can be a beautiful landscape painting which expertly manipulates our visual system into perceiving it as a real sunset, or it can be a urinal turned upside down. I think most people get tricked into defining art as something which elicits emotions, or is aimed at making a deep philosophical or political point, all the while ignoring the fact that artists traditionally were just guys doing a job. They were paid to create an image and were essentially equivalent to how we view general handyman painters today (i.e. guys who paint your lounge or house).

To me, art is defined by the observer, not the creator. It can be anything, as long as its beauty reaches the counscious part of the observer's perception.

art is about trying create something or capture a moment in an image to evoke certain ideas,emotions or objects or a combination of those in a manner that it either captures one's attention or it can capture others attention.

So, what is art for one need not be so for others, what seems worthy of attention need not be for others. Good art is hence a subjective term, a way of saying, how many people find my creation worthy of attention enough to come and watch it or pay for it.

mindhack wrote:To me, art is defined by the observer, not the creator. It can be anything, as long as its beauty reaches the counscious part of the observer's perception.

Does art have to be beautiful?

campermon wrote:

mindhack wrote:To me, art is defined by the observer, not the creator. It can be anything, as long as its beauty reaches the counscious part of the observer's perception.

Does art have to be beautiful?

Indeed. At this point in these discussions I like to post Duchamp's "Fountain":



(In case anyone is unsure, the art is the urinal itself, not the photograph).

campermon wrote:

mindhack wrote:To me, art is defined by the observer, not the creator. It can be anything, as long as its beauty reaches the counscious part of the observer's perception.

Does art have to be beautiful?

Yes actually, it does. And I'm also the one determining what is to be considered art - thus beauty.

Edit: The above is not yet officially to be considered art. Show me the beauty

mindhack wrote:

campermon wrote:

mindhack wrote:To me, art is defined by the observer, not the creator. It can be anything, as long as its beauty reaches the counscious part of the observer's perception.

Does art have to be beautiful?

Yes actually, it does. And I'm also the one determining what is to be considered art - thus beauty.

Some artists seem to have an art of selling crap rather than doing anything I would consider art. Duchamps 'Fountain' above is a perfect example. It's just a urinal. Big whoop.

Check out the documentary film by Banksy about Thierry Guetta called Exit Through The Gift Shop to see exactly what I mean.

Germaine Greer wrote:The first attribute of the art object is that it creates a discontinuity between itself and the unsynthesised manifold

I don't agree art has to be beauty. I love HR Giger for instance. I think it should illicit an emotional response. For me looking at Giger is like looking at my dreams, for instance.

And no, Duchamps, is not an emotional response.

EDIT: I meant 'elicit'

May be Tracy Emin has it right:

They were asking me questions like, 'Is it art?' And I was saying, 'Well, if it isn't art... what the hell is it doing in an art gallery and why are people coming to look at it?'

ramseyoptom wrote:May be Tracy Emin has it right:

They were asking me questions like, 'Is it art?' And I was saying, 'Well, if it isn't art... what the hell is it doing in an art gallery and why are people coming to look at it?'

Because they're duped by her spin because they're pretentious?
Just a suggestion.

ramseyoptom wrote:May be Tracy Emin has it right:

They were asking me questions like, 'Is it art?' And I was saying, 'Well, if it isn't art... what the hell is it doing in an art gallery and why are people coming to look at it?'

STRONG ARTISM!! .....IN YOUR FACE ART!!

I don't consider strong artism art, whatever they try to tell me. It's just not my style

Emin would appear to be taking Greer's view which is (when translated into English) that art is anything displayed as such, and therefore not part of the "everyday clutter" of life.

Then we get into the discussion of how to define "good" art...

Animavore wrote:Some artists seem to have an art of selling crap rather than doing anything I would consider art. Duchamps 'Fountain' above is a perfect example. It's just a urinal. Big whoop.

Check out the documentary film by Banksy about Thierry Guetta called Exit Through The Gift Shop to see exactly what I mean.

Well I hate to break this to you but I have just determined Duchamps 'Fountain' is, in fact, art.

I think it's a strong symbol to remind us what we are, bio-chemical structures leaking fluid. Beautiful. Chapeau!!