Universal definition of "art"?

[Notvacka]

Art has to have something to do with the way humans manipulate and modify the world.

If viewing and evaluating counts as manipulating and modifying (in your mind) I agree.

I don't make art just by looking at a sunset or a blade of grass.

But you do. If you look at an actual sunset the way you would look at a painting of a sunset, it's functionally art. Just like any sharp object can function as a knife. But then I'm the guy who argued that forgotten writings by Wittgenstein could not possibly exist as such until rediscovered. I would also argue that you make (any suitable object into) a chair by sitting on it. As a concept, art is a bit less tangible than knives and chairs, but what better way to define something than through use?

I suspect that where we disagree is when I count the act of finding something not to be "art" as an act of indeed using that something as "art".

My reason for defining "art" as anything that is discussed in terms of "art" is to swiftly move any such discussion forward, rather than having it linger on the useless question of whether something is "art" or not.

[chaz wyman]

Art has to have something to do with the way humans manipulate and modify the world.

If viewing and evaluating counts as manipulating and modifying (in your mind) I agree.

But until it is presented to others it is hidden and only art to the artist.

I don't make art just by looking at a sunset or a blade of grass.

But you do. If you look at an actual sunset the way you would look at a painting of a sunset, it's functionally art. Just like any sharp object can function as a knife. But then I'm the guy who argued that forgotten writings by Wittgenstein could not possibly exist as such until rediscovered. I would also argue that you make (any suitable object into) a chair by sitting on it. As a concept, art is a bit less tangible than knives and chairs, but what better way to define something than through use?

A sunset is not art.

I suspect that where we disagree is when I count the act of finding something not to be "art" as an act of indeed using that something as "art".

My reason for defining "art" as anything that is discussed in terms of "art" is to swiftly move any such discussion forward, rather than having it linger on the useless question of whether something is "art" or not.

MY problem with you is not that aspect, but your insistence that a thing considered NOT art is still art.

[Notvacka]

In almost every case I think philosophical discussion benefits from definitions being as precise as possible.

However, when it comes to "art", and as far as I know, only when it comes to "art", I have found that keeping the definition as vague as possible is better.

If you wish to exclude natural phenomena (asteroids, sunsets and such) from "art", I can go along with that, since I've never encountered anybody actually criticizing a sunset or a natural rock for not being "art". However, hanging an empty frame in front of an actual landscape and prompting people to view what they see within the frame as "art" is an exercise so obvious that it must have been done more than once.

What most of us think of as "art" usually emerges through expression (by an artist) and interpretation (by an audience). My view is that the interpretation part is more important, and in the most extreme cases (natural sunsets and such) no expression is necessary.

[..nameless..]

Edit OP; I was thinking today, and I think(!) that, as I see it, an 'artist', someone who I would call an artist, is a 'master'! It doesn't matter, whatsoever, the subject of his 'mastery' (if there 'must' be a subject), be it swordsmanship or calligraphy, if it is performed by a 'master', it is performed by an 'artist'! One and the same!
No, as much as the ego loves it, there is a sincere probability that we are not all 'master'! Are we?

[..nameless..]

My reason for defining "art" as anything that is discussed in terms of "art" is to swiftly move any such discussion forward, rather than having it linger on the useless question of whether something is "art" or not.

What a perfect example of Knowing that it's ALL True! Then starting from there, rather than reinventing the wheel over and over and over endlessly and never progressing...

"The acceptance and understanding of other Perspectives furthers our acquaintance with Reality!"

[Pluto]

...there is a sincere probability that we are not all 'master'! Are we?

I sometimes think we're all 'Masters' in different degrees of losing our Mastership.

[..nameless..]

I sometimes think we're all 'Masters' in different degrees of losing our Mastership.

I guess If 'mastership' is equated with 'innocence'... but even 'innocence' can be regained!

[chaz wyman]

In almost every case I think philosophical discussion benefits from definitions being as precise as possible.

However, when it comes to "art", and as far as I know, only when it comes to "art", I have found that keeping the definition as vague as possible is better.

If you wish to exclude natural phenomena (asteroids, sunsets and such) from "art", I can go along with that, since I've never encountered anybody actually criticizing a sunset or a natural rock for not being "art".

Yes, you have. I just did. I have just told you that they are not art, AND SO DID YOU!! (see above)

However, hanging an empty frame in front of an actual landscape and prompting people to view what they see within the frame as "art" is an exercise so obvious that it must have been done more than once.

But the art is not in the landscape but in the act.

What most of us think of as "art" usually emerges through expression (by an artist) and interpretation (by an audience).
I think these two elements are necessary to make sense of the word.
My view is that the interpretation ( you means evaluation - which you earlier denied-saying tha observation was enough) part is more important, and in the most extreme cases (natural sunsets and such) no expression is necessary.

[Notvacka]

you means evaluation - which you earlier denied-saying tha observation was enough

Yes. When using the word "observation" I was actually thinking of a more active process than the word suggests. Thanks for pointing that out.

Looking at an object doesn't make it "art". Looking at it in terms of "art", interpreting it as "art", is what makes it functionally "art", whether it was ever intended to function as "art" or not.

[artisticsolution]

you means evaluation - which you earlier denied-saying tha observation was enough

Yes. When using the word "observation" I was actually thinking of a more active process than the word suggests. Thanks for pointing that out.

Looking at an object doesn't make it "art". Looking at it in terms of "art", interpreting it as "art", is what makes it functionally "art", whether it was ever intended to function as "art" or not.

You said that very well, Notvacka. This is what I have been trying to say though not very well. You make it look so easy.

So then, here is what I don't understand. If all can be viewed as art. then why is all not art? It seems to me that we cannot know what is being viewed as art or by whom. So if we say, a stream of sweat rolling down someone's nose is not art, then I think we would have to say that art cannot be contained in a thought or a concept.* Which, to me, bring us to the problem of taking away a persons humanity if they are not able to perform an "act" but are able to think.

I am not saying that all is art to everyone at every moment...I am simply saying that we have no idea what is being viewed as art since we cannot read a person's mind.

*Kierkegaard tells a wonderful story about being entertained by a bead of sweat. He simply could not pay attention to anything that the man was saying because the bead of sweat was memorizing. So here are 2 art forms in my opinion. One is the writing itself by Kierkegaard...which he has shared with us, and one is the thought he was having while he viewed the entertaining sweat which was private until he shared it.

It just seems so limiting to say that art is only something tangible or practical.

[chaz wyman]

you means evaluation - which you earlier denied-saying tha observation was enough

Yes. When using the word "observation" I was actually thinking of a more active process than the word suggests. Thanks for pointing that out.

Looking at an object doesn't make it "art". Looking at it in terms of "art", interpreting it as "art", is what makes it functionally "art", whether it was ever intended to function as "art" or not.

Good to a point.
But
If I walk on the shore and find an interesting piece of driftwood, and immediately pass it to a friend saying this is a nice piece of art, my friend would think I was taking the piss.

S/he would be right to say so. I think a little more is needed to call it art. For me the 'artist' has to have more commitment and somehow engage in a more meaningful way than just liking a natural object.

[artisticsolution]

Yes. When using the word "observation" I was actually thinking of a more active process than the word suggests. Thanks for pointing that out.

Looking at an object doesn't make it "art". Looking at it in terms of "art", interpreting it as "art", is what makes it functionally "art", whether it was ever intended to function as "art" or not.

Good to a point.
But
If I walk on the shore and find an interesting piece of driftwood, and immediately pass it to a friend saying this is a nice piece of art, my friend would think I was taking the piss.

S/he would be right to say so. I think a little more is needed to call it art. For me the 'artist' has to have more commitment and somehow engage in a more meaningful way than just liking a natural object.

Yes, but the moment you say art has to be such and such...you negate the humanity of another who may quite possible "see" art everywhere. If the only problem with a person picking up a piece of driftwood and calling it art is that they are going to be viewed as "taking the piss" then that suggestion becomes one of taking value away from another person by insult and control.

[chaz wyman]

Yes. When using the word "observation" I was actually thinking of a more active process than the word suggests. Thanks for pointing that out.

Looking at an object doesn't make it "art". Looking at it in terms of "art", interpreting it as "art", is what makes it functionally "art", whether it was ever intended to function as "art" or not.

Good to a point.
But
If I walk on the shore and find an interesting piece of driftwood, and immediately pass it to a friend saying this is a nice piece of art, my friend would think I was taking the piss.

S/he would be right to say so. I think a little more is needed to call it art. For me the 'artist' has to have more commitment and somehow engage in a more meaningful way than just liking a natural object.

Yes, but the moment you say art has to be such and such...you negate the humanity of another who may quite possible "see" art everywhere.
Yes, indeed - I would, and that is because they would have lost their sense of language.
I have no problem with that.
I doubt such a person exists, but would I would simply not consider their idea of art as valid.


If the only problem with a person picking up a piece of driftwood and calling it art is that they are going to be viewed as "taking the piss" then that suggestion becomes one of taking value away from another person by insult and control.
No it just means they are taking the piss.
I've been plugging away at a lump of clay for two days now, trying to get an idea of Charles Darwin. Maybe you think there is as much merit in picking up a lump of wood and calling it Darwin - I do not.

[artisticsolution]

Then I will leave you to "plug away" as those before you have for centuries.

[chaz wyman]

Then I will leave you to "plug away" as those before you have for centuries.

For Millennia.