Philosophy Now Forum

..nameless.. wrote:A Universal definition of "art", a definition that is 'all inclusive' of all other definitions.
A 'meta-definition'!
I offer the following, 'Basic Universal Definition Indicator' (BUDI);

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!

Train of thought;
'Art' seems to fall into the same uniquely subjective eye of the beholder kind of thing as 'red'. You cannot describe 'red' as you perceive it. We could try with wave-length quotes and poetic referrences and metaphor and allegory and on and on and on, and, ultimately, we cannot (usually) be 'sure' that the 'other' person is perceiving it as you intend.

Great - this says that the concept of art is subjective.

I'm suggesting that the word 'art' has outlived it's usefulness in philosophical discussion.
That it deserves no more 'thought' than discussing which coffee is 'best'! When Someone says 'coffee' everyone has their own unique notion of what that means. Collectively, there is a coffee shop and they sell coffee, a very general term. Not particularly so for some...

'Art' is 'stuff' that you call 'art' (reasons/definitions!)!
That is the only commonly understood definition.

It is also a part of stuff. You might call the Mona Lisa art - but you would not mean it in the same way as a print of the Mona Lisa. You might also say there is art IN stuff. You would not call bacon and eggs art, but there might be art in the way it was made or put on the plate.


Some associate 'art' with something that gives them a warm fuzzy feeling of .. "I like that!". That 'personal feeling' is associated with the word 'art'.

Not all fuzzy feelings are art.


Some associate 'art' with something that makes them 'feel' something else; squeamish, revolted, frightened, happy, intellectially challenged, sad, nostalgic, and on and on...

Or not.

Perhaps 'art' is so elusive to any useful intellectual/linguistic definition because it is a 'feeling'! And all are uniquely perceived!

"This is an 'ART' store and guess what you call the stuff that we sell?"

Not usually art, but stuff to make art.

"This is a YUB store! What do you think we sell? YUB of course!"

This does not follow.

So we walk inside and anything that seems to 'inspire' particular 'feelings', is happily and grandly declared to be 'art'. The 'bigger' the 'feelings', the 'better' the 'art'! No 'feelings' = no 'art'!

Nope. You can see art and not react to it.

No matter the item, there is sure to be some who consider it art, and some who don't. Others just want to scrape it from their boot!
So, everything is 'art' and not anything is 'art'.

No. If everything is art then art is meaningless. Is the moon art, is an infected wound art; what about rain; a dog?
If anything is not art then not everything can be art.


Simply a matter of Perspective, no?

No, so far if I did not already have an idea of art I would not be any the wiser according to your definition.

So 'art' is anything that you call 'art' that 'gives you' some sort of 'feeling'.
Except that I can imagine calling a thing art that did not make me feel anything.
Perhaps a definition could be that 'art' is a 'four-dimensional feeling'?
Er.... no. Most art is 2D- where to the other 2 come from?
Which is why 'logic' fails us in providing a clear definition; "how heavy is an inch?"
Non sequitur. Silly questions are not going to help. What colour was that sound you made?

An 'art gallery' would be a buffet of "four-dimensional feelings"!!

Yawn
But it has to say 'Art' over the door for it to be authentic 'art'.

Oh my God- NOT authentic!!!!! What happened to subjective choice?

Ok, the thought-train continues;

The thought train went off the rails a while ago!

The 'feelings' of 'art' are of the 'Heart' (He-art), in sensual harmony with the 'Head' (in engaging the 'senses' and their intellectual accompaniment)!

Oh dear!

So it is (in/as) 'Art' in which the 'Head' and the 'Heart' Heal into One!
A manifestation of our schizophrenia Healing into Oneness!
Anything able to do such can be called 'Art'?

Comments/Perspectives?
... And ran off the siding into the lake!!!!!CRUNCH.

..nameless.. wrote:Anyone?

Notvacka wrote:I would define "art" as what people talk about it in terms of "art". Denying that something is "art" is talking about it in terms of "art", hence, it must be "art". It doesn't have to be more complicated than that.

chaz wyman wrote:You are saying that the moment I say that a rock in the asteroid belt is not art, it is art because I happen to have said it is not art? That does not sound very satisfactory to me, or useful.

chaz wyman wrote:Are the moons of Mars good art or bad art?

Notvacka wrote:I would define "art" as what people talk about it in terms of "art". Denying that something is "art" is talking about it in terms of "art", hence, it must be "art". It doesn't have to be more complicated than that.

Notvacka wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:You are saying that the moment I say that a rock in the asteroid belt is not art, it is art because I happen to have said it is not art? That does not sound very satisfactory to me, or useful.

I agree that such a negative claim would be rather useless in itself. Much like the atheist claim that God doesn't exist would be completely pointless if nobody had claimed the existence of God in the first place.

Does that mean you reject the possibility that the moons of Mars are art or not?
Or If I say they are not art, and you agree that does not actually make them art?
For art to have any meaning, it cannot include everything. We have a word for that - it is 'everything', not everything is art. If I say that natural things are not art, by your 'rule', they magically become art. You cannot mean this.

However, when it comes to something being "art", I would suggest that a negative statement can only confirm a positive statement, not negate it.
So that means, given my negation above. I have created art; everything that is natural is now art. Can you be serious?

It works like this: Claiming something to be "art" immediately elevates it to "art". "Elevate" is a key word here, since "art" works as a pedestal. Claiming that something is not "art" is equal to claiming that it doesn't belong on the pedestal. But in order to know what you are talking about when you make the claim, you must first put that something on the pedestal, to see if it belongs there. To make any sort of judgement on whether something is "art" or not, you must first view it as "art", which actually makes it "art".
There is no need to explain - I know what you are getting at. However, the moment I say that everything is not art then it is art, which is absurd.

That is why anything exhibited in an art gallery must be art, because it being exhibited there forces you to view it as art. You might conclude that it's not really art and doesn't belong there, but by then the damage is done, and you have to settle for it being bad art.

chaz wyman wrote:Are the moons of Mars good art or bad art?

Now, that's a much more interesting question! I guess it depends on how you choose to exhibit them.

chaz wyman wrote:For art to have any meaning, it cannot include everything.

chaz wyman wrote:However, the moment I say that everything is not art then it is art, which is absurd.

Notvacka wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:For art to have any meaning, it cannot include everything.

Agreed. Statements about everything and nothing are usually meaningless. Only the particular can be of particular interest.

Notvacka wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:For art to have any meaning, it cannot include everything.

Agreed. Statements about everything and nothing are usually meaningless. Only the particular can be of particular interest.

chaz wyman wrote:However, the moment I say that everything is not art then it is art, which is absurd.

Yes, it's absurd. You can't possibly view everything as art, because you can't possibly view everything.

Er... not what I meant. I meant any bloody thing. Any thing you can view is not art. Some things in your purview are not art.

My point is, that what makes something "art" is a certain mode of observation. It's not a value judgement.

I disagree. I can look at a thing I think might be art, and find it is not. This requires evaluation. The 'mode of observation is the same for the art and the not art; the evaluation finds the art.

And you cannot seriously talk about something in terms of "art" without invoking this mode of observation, thus elevating it to "art" at least for the duration of the conversation.

I agree that there is an elevation, but unless you want to disclude nothing then we are back to anything is art.

The statement "this is art" equals "I view this as art"
I agree
while "this is not art" equals "I don't view this as art".
True; an evaluation, or at least interpretation; understanding assessment.
The cavet being that the latter statement is void of meaning unless you have tried to view it as art first.
But that still does not amount to art, unless you are talking about the art of assessment.
And all the other stuff you don't even put on the assessment pedestal? Not yet art?

But the real question should always be whether it's good "art" or not.

And that has to be personal - yes?

chaz wyman wrote:I meant any bloody thing. Any thing you can view is not art. Some things in your purview are not art.

chaz wyman wrote:I can look at a thing I think might be art, and find it is not. This requires evaluation. The mode of observation is the same for the art and the not art; the evaluation finds the art.

chaz wyman wrote:And that has to be personal - yes?

Notvacka wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:I meant any bloody thing. Any thing you can view is not art. Some things in your purview are not art.

Atcually, most of us are quite capable of viewing any thing as "art". Have you ever spent several hours at a museum of modern art, taking in all the "art", and then experienced how that particular frame of mind lingers afterwards, how every day objects suddenly take on new meanings, because of your mode of observation, because you are tuned in on "art"?

You render 'art' meaningless.
Art has to have something to do with the way humans manipulate and modify the world.
I don't make art just by looking at a sunset or a blade of grass.
Oh what an artistic blade of grass - that is absurd.

chaz wyman wrote:I can look at a thing I think might be art, and find it is not. This requires evaluation. The mode of observation is the same for the art and the not art; the evaluation finds the art.

If you pick up what looks like a sharp object and try to use it as a knife, is it not a knife then, sort of, if you can use it as such? If it doesn't cut it (pun intended) you can conclude that it's not a knife, because it can't be used as a knife. With "art", however, the evaluation process you describe is an example of how art is used. If you conclude that something is not "art", it implies that you have just used that something as "art".

This does not make any sense. Try again!
At best you seem to have not expressed yourself well, art worse you seem to have contradicted yourself.

chaz wyman wrote:And that has to be personal - yes?

It's always personal. You can leave it to common agreement or to the "experts", but why should you?

I think we agree here. But it is all about evaluation.