Natural music

[Janoah]

So what is it that is being recognized with the label "art"?

Well, I already answered something, 'Art, at a minimum, is an expression of the human soul'.

[ThinkOfOne]

So what is it that is being recognized with the label "art"?

Well, I already answered something, 'Art, at a minimum, is an expression of the human soul'.

For one, you've taken that question out of context and responded to it without having taken the rest of my post into account.

For another, "an expression of the human soul" is so vague and ambiguous so as to be meaningless.

[Magnus Anderson]

Seems simplistic and misguided.

Not simplistic but a lot simpler than a lot of people make it out to be ( they need the imaginary complexity so that they can talk endlessly about nothing, a common occurrence in modern philosophy. )

The word "art" does not imply value. People should stop using the word that way. Just because something isn't good does not mean it's not art.

And they should also stop overrating it.

[ThinkOfOne]

Seems simplistic and misguided.

Not simplistic but a lot simpler than a lot of people make it out to be ( they need the imaginary complexity so that they can talk endlessly about nothing, a common occurrence in modern philosophy. )

The word "art" does not imply value. People should stop using the word that way. Just because something isn't good does not mean it's not art.

And they should also stop overrating it.

From what I gather, the word "art" has been used that way since the Renaissance. Can you make a well-reasoned case for no longer doing so?

We live in a complex world. Not sure why so many reject that complexity. Seems like it's the foundation for conservatism: hold a simplistic worldview and refuse to acknowledge reality. Makes them prone to demagoguery, believing conspiracy theories, bigotry, etc. Ego defense?

[Janoah]

I would call it the skilful outward expression of one's feelings (or emotions in general) and which evokes an emotional response in others.

Yes, indeed. It's roughly the same as what I said, 'Art, at a minimum, is an expression of the human soul.'
But, let me clarify, what evokes an emotional response in others is not actually necessary for art to be art. For example, if a person plays the guitar on a desert island, it is art. While potentially, yes, this game could evoke an emotional response in others.

[Belinda]

I would call it the skilful outward expression of one's feelings (or emotions in general) and which evokes an emotional response in others.

Yes, indeed. It's roughly the same as what I said, 'Art, at a minimum, is an expression of the human soul.'
But, let me clarify, what evokes an emotional response in others is not actually necessary for art to be art. For example, if a person plays the guitar on a desert island, it is art. While potentially, yes, this game could evoke an emotional response in others.

There is a difference between art and works of art.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Just because something isn't good does not mean it's not art.

[accelafine]

I would call it the skilful outward expression of one's feelings (or emotions in general) and which evokes an emotional response in others.

Yes, indeed. It's roughly the same as what I said, 'Art, at a minimum, is an expression of the human soul.'
But, let me clarify, what evokes an emotional response in others is not actually necessary for art to be art. For example, if a person plays the guitar on a desert island, it is art. While potentially, yes, this game could evoke an emotional response in others.

One particular take on it: ''Art serves as a way to tell a story, convey a message, and affect human emotion, which are all key aspects of what art does.'' So I don't think your desert islander is creating art. It can be 'debated' all day and never get anywhere. Everyone on here is an 'expert' in everything under the Sun...

[Janoah]

I would call it the skilful outward expression of one's feelings (or emotions in general) and which evokes an emotional response in others.

Yes, indeed. It's roughly the same as what I said, 'Art, at a minimum, is an expression of the human soul.'
But, let me clarify, what evokes an emotional response in others is not actually necessary for art to be art. For example, if a person plays the guitar on a desert island, it is art. While potentially, yes, this game could evoke an emotional response in others.

There is a difference between art and works of art.

Is Leonardo Da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" art or a work of art?

[Janoah]

I would call it the skilful outward expression of one's feelings (or emotions in general) and which evokes an emotional response in others.

Yes, indeed. It's roughly the same as what I said, 'Art, at a minimum, is an expression of the human soul.'
But, let me clarify, what evokes an emotional response in others is not actually necessary for art to be art. For example, if a person plays the guitar on a desert island, it is art. While potentially, yes, this game could evoke an emotional response in others.

So I don't think your desert islander is creating art. It can be 'debated' all day and never get anywhere. Everyone on here is an 'expert' in everything under the Sun...

So, Leonardo da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" is not art if no one but Leonardo ever saw the painting?
Where do they make such experts?

[accelafine]

Yes, indeed. It's roughly the same as what I said, 'Art, at a minimum, is an expression of the human soul.'
But, let me clarify, what evokes an emotional response in others is not actually necessary for art to be art. For example, if a person plays the guitar on a desert island, it is art. While potentially, yes, this game could evoke an emotional response in others.

So I don't think your desert islander is creating art. It can be 'debated' all day and never get anywhere. Everyone on here is an 'expert' in everything under the Sun...

So, Leonardo da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" is not art if no one but Leonardo ever saw the painting?
Where do they make such experts?

Perhaps. Is music music if no one ever hears it?