Art and opinion?

[Katuschka]

That's why allegory exists.

Ingenious. Isn't art an allegory of our subjective perceptive of the truth? Therefore, isn't this the reason why art exists? ....which is in fact also the definition of art itself, because whatever it is, it's a step forward from mechanical work.

...the poverty of language.

I, on the other hand, would rather agree with Fuzzy Merkin's comment about the lack of coherent argumentation, because you seen to be saying something else in every single post of yours.

[FuzzyMerkin]

I never said what art is.

Then how can you talk about "true" art? Surely for that you must have an idea of what consitutes art?

I'm just not satisfied with any notion which states that art is intellectual property or that it is anything that arouses emotion. A dead cat arouses emotion.

So what? Unless you commit a very common logical fallacy, it doesn't follow that a dead cat is art. Nobody claimed that art is anything that arouses emotion. Art evokes a resonance, however not everything that evokes a resonance is art (I did not talk about "arousing emotions" btw.). What's more I'd say that art is the result of human activity and intention. If a person kills a cat intentionally to make a point, they may well claim that this act constitutes art - while for me personally this "artistic effort" would not constitute art (it does not resonate with me since it does, for one thing, not meet my tastes) other people might well claim that it is indeed art - and who's to say that they are wrong? Again - it's not that anything is art - but the definition of what constitutes art is a subjective one, i.e. what is art for you might not be art for me and vice versa.

If I was to surmise, I'd say that art must be something educational, connected with 'truth'-whatever that may be?

And being representations of truth, artistic objects must be in a flux.

Frankly, the subject is almost impossible to define.

Maybe you're not trying hard enough?

[kidmoon]

Eh, no...the point I'm trying to make is that if "everything is art" there can not be some "true" art since the term "true" implies that there is also some "untrue/false" art which by definition is NOT art - which then contradicts the claim that "everything is art". That's one reason why I don't consider Sam's line of argumentation coherent.

As far as I'm concerned art is a subjective concept whose definition depends on the resonance an object/piece of music etc. creates within a person - which in term is dependent on personal taste, experience, formative influence of the society a person lives in etc., i.e. there are NO objective measurable criteria of what constitutes art and what does not. That's why the conept of "art" has been changing throughout the centuries and why some people consider modern art humbug while others dispise opera etc.. Unlike art, craft and technical skills can be measured and compared - I get the feeling you're mixing up those terms.

Concerning your first paragraph: I see your point; however, I don't see how my statement runs counter to yours.

Your second paragraph: If I'm not mistaken, technical skills and craft (or crafting) make art possible. Yes, technical skills and craft can go towards projects that are simply not art (e.g., suburban homes), but technical skills and craft are necessary to produce art. What defines art (objectively) is the masterly use of technical skills coupled with innovation.

Art has an objective meaning, it's just that this meaning is made malleable by subjective tastes.

[kidmoon]

Ingenious. Isn't art an allegory of our subjective perceptive of the truth?

I guess the answer to this would depend upon my subjective interpretation of your question.

[FuzzyMerkin]

Your second paragraph: If I'm not mistaken, technical skills and craft (or crafting) make art possible. Yes, technical skills and craft can go towards projects that are simply not art (e.g., suburban homes), but technical skills and craft are necessary to produce art. What defines art (objectively) is the masterly use of technical skills coupled with innovation.

I take it you're one of those people who wander around modern art exhibitions going "that's not art - any five-year old could have done this"? You see with modern art quite often "masterly use of technical skills" is not mandatory - although many artists have those skills. Would you consider Joseph Beuys an artist?

[SamG]

Then how can you talk about "true" art? Surely for that you must have an idea of what consitutes art?

So what? Unless you commit a very common logical fallacy, it doesn't follow that a dead cat is art. Nobody claimed that art is anything that arouses emotion. Art evokes a resonance, however not everything that evokes a resonance is art (I did not talk about "arousing emotions" btw.). What's more I'd say that art is the result of human activity and intention. If a person kills a cat intentionally to make a point, they may well claim that this act constitutes art - while for me personally this "artistic effort" would not constitute art (it does not resonate with me since it does, for one thing, not meet my tastes) other people might well claim that it is indeed art - and who's to say that they are wrong? Again - it's not that anything is art - but the definition of what constitutes art is a subjective one, i.e. what is art for you might not be art for me and vice versa.

Maybe you're not trying hard enough?

Again, 'true art' as a term needn't be taken literally. It is just a metaphor for something.

If millions of people can claim the existence of God without any evidence, it doesn't mean that the fuzzy notion of 'art' should entitle all and sundry to the same luxury.

Please follow the thread.

Here is Kidmoon's dictionary quote:

art: noun. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power

I agree that art should be intentional. But it could be accidental too but still the representation of a person.

You state that it isn't about arousing emotions but more of a 'resonance', however that explains nothing and it still sounds as though art is any contrived object that is evocative to the individual. That is of course unless you can prove that art evokes a 'resonance' that can not be produced by something that is not art. I'd dare to suggest that many pious people feel the exact emotions.

however not everything that evokes a resonance is art

Which means that art can be easily defined right?

[SamG]

Ingenious. Isn't art an allegory of our subjective perceptive of the truth?

I would have thought that "truth" needn't be subjective.

But try to find someone who doesn't believe their own perception is not the truth.

[SamG]

I take it you're one of those people who wander around modern art exhibitions going "that's not art - any five-year old could have done this"? You see with modern art quite often "masterly use of technical skills" is not mandatory - although many artists have those skills. Would you consider Joseph Beuys an artist?

And do you appreciate modern art or does it fit in with the baret and cosmopolitanism?

[kidmoon]

I take it you're one of those people who wander around modern art exhibitions going "that's not art - any five-year old could have done this"? You see with modern art quite often "masterly use of technical skills" is not mandatory - although many artists have those skills. Would you consider Joseph Beuys an artist?

Now I can definitely say we're on the same page!

[SamG]

"true" implies that there is also some "untrue/false" art

I have no problem with this.

[FuzzyMerkin]

Again, 'true art' as a term needn't be taken literally. It is just a metaphor for something.

And you can't be arsed to tell us what it's supposed to be a metaphor for, right?

If millions of people can claim the existence of God without any evidence, it doesn't mean that the fuzzy notion of 'art' should entitle all and sundry to the same luxury.

Why not? You keep making statements about what is allowed and what isn't, what should and what should not be the case - on which authority?

Please follow the thread.

Here is Kidmoon's dictionary quote:

I agree that art should be intentional. But it could be accidental too but still the representation of a person.

Define "representation of a person" - the way you use this term here suggests that you consider this term a synonym to "art"....maybe even your definition of "art".

You state that it isn't about arousing emotions but more of a 'resonance', however that explains nothing and it still sounds as though art is any contrived object that is evocative to the individual. That is of course unless you can prove that art evokes a 'resonance' that can not be produced by something that is not art.

You are committing the same logical fallacy again - if a cold makes you sneeze and dust makes you sneeze, do you have to prove that a sneeze cannot be produced by dust to make sneezing a defining effect of a cold? No. Neither do you have to prove that a resonance cannot be produced by anything else than art. As for meaning of "resonance" - a personal reaction on an emotional and/or intellectual level.

I'd dare to suggest that many pious people feel the exact emotions.

I dare suggest that many pious people are not intersted in the intellectual aspect. I dare also suggest that many pious people would not consider religion the work of man.

Which means that art can be easily defined right?

No it means that your own efforts in this thread have been pretty poor - you complain that there ought to be a definition of art, because otherwise anything can be art, you seem to "feel" that something is art and other things ain't art, you make categorical statements about how art cannot be defined (without giving any reasons) - but when it comes to finding a definition, you hide behind "language doesn't suffice"....that's lackadasical at best.

[FuzzyMerkin]

Now I can definitely say we're on the same page!

Ummm....I do consider Beuys an artist. But that's based on my subjective idea of what constitutes art...

[FuzzyMerkin]

"true" implies that there is also some "untrue/false" art

I have no problem with this.

Then tell me the difference between "true" and "false" art if you please.

[Katuschka]

I guess the answer to this would depend upon my subjective interpretation of your question.

Well, yes, that's the spirit. However, I don't think that it is a coincidence that materially oriented people would usually choose a photograph-like drawing or painting as an example of true art, while people slightly more....deranged would choose something a bit more stylized, or even abstract, because they can easily identify with the message behind it.

[kidmoon]

I take it you're one of those people who wander around modern art exhibitions going "that's not art - any five-year old could have done this"? You see with modern art quite often "masterly use of technical skills" is not mandatory - although many artists have those skills. Would you consider Joseph Beuys an artist?

I know you consider Joseph Beuys an artist. I was merely sensing the tone of your response--that's why I said we were on the same page. That is, I surmised that your "I take it you're one of those people..." question was rhetorical... Anyway, you love to argue, don't you? (And before I catch anymore flak for saying "argue", I only mean it in the philosophical spirit of the word.)

[kidmoon]

Well, yes, that's the spirit. However, I don't think that it is a coincidence that materially oriented people would usually choose a photograph-like drawing or painting as an example of true art, while people slightly more....deranged would choose something a bit more stylized, or even abstract, because they can easily identify with the message behind it.

I don't find it to be a coincidence either.

[Katuschka]

I would have thought that "truth" needn't be subjective.

But try to find someone who doesn't believe their own perception is not the truth.

Blimey, you just managed to say nothing in two sentences.

[FuzzyMerkin]

I know you consider Joseph Beuys an artist. I was merely sensing the tone of your response--that's why I said we were on the same page. That is, I surmised that your "I take it you're one of those people..." question was rhetorical... Anyway, you love to argue, don't you? (And before I catch anymore flak for saying "argue", I only mean it in the philosophical spirit of the word.)

Oh yes, I do. It's as nice a pasttime as any. So what do you think about modern art? And where do you draw the line between art and craft?

[SamG]

Blimey, you just managed to say nothing in two sentences.

It's called "modern art"

[kidmoon]

Oh yes, I do. It's as nice a pasttime as any. So what do you think about modern art? And where do you draw the line between art and craft?

To be completely honest, I'm in unfamiliar waters when it comes to art... But I do have my opinion . I'm not a fan of modern art (surprise!). And I'd draw the line between art and craft when I detected a sufficient amount of innovation .

[kidmoon]

It's called "modern art"

Nice.

[FuzzyMerkin]

To be completely honest, I'm in unfamiliar waters when it comes to art... But I do have my opinion . I'm not a fan of modern art (surprise!). And I'd draw the line between art and craft when I detected a sufficient amount of innovation .

Which gets us to the question what's "sufficient"...and what you think of all those religious paintings that are usually considered art but are often quite similar to each other (i.e. show only a minimal degree of "innovation", if any). But I guess that's taking it to far...

I'm happy for you to stick to your definition if you let me stick to mine.

[SamG]

And you can't be arsed to tell us what it's supposed to be a metaphor for, right?

As I said, I don't know. But it is futile for you to extract meaning from art unless it pertains to a cause. Art does not exist for someone’s thrills or because it simply "resonates". Science and religion clearly seek knowledge, not because they are 'subjective'. In fact knowledge is unified to avoid subjectivity. If you get enjoyment from a piece, that is fine and I couldn't care less- extract any definition from it but if you can't be bothered clarifying what this so-called 'resonance' is (not from the dictionary) and if you really can not see that you are seeking comprehension through art then I guess you won't judge it for not achieving this aim. Until I come up with something better, I shall say that the educational qualities of good art elicit higher meaning/emotion that can not be achieved through conventional logic.

Why not? You keep making statements about what is allowed and what isn't, what should and what should not be the case - on which authority?

Well...that's complicated and it's late but I think most of our behaviour is driven by conditioning, so it's not really a matter of me stating what is/isn't allowed.

Define "representation of a person" - the way you use this term here suggests that you consider this term a synonym to "art"....maybe even your definition of "art".

Not so much as 'art' being a human contrivance. Perhaps 10 good artist’s representations can mean the same thing?

You are committing the same logical fallacy again - if a cold makes you sneeze and dust makes you sneeze, do you have to prove that a sneeze cannot be produced by dust to make sneezing a defining effect of a cold? No. Neither do you have to prove that a resonance cannot be produced by anything else than art. As for meaning of "resonance" - a personal reaction on an emotional and/or intellectual level.

I'm looking for a diagnosis- so yes!

I dare suggest that many pious people are not intersted in the intellectual aspect. I dare also suggest that many pious people would not consider religion the work of man.

ok. so is that a yes or no?

No it means that your own efforts in this thread have been pretty poor - you complain that there ought to be a definition of art, because otherwise anything can be art, you seem to "feel" that something is art and other things ain't art, you make categorical statements about how art cannot be defined (without giving any reasons) - but when it comes to finding a definition, you hide behind "language doesn't suffice"....that's lackadasical at best.

So far nobody has proven that art is anything more than people getting excited over pictures and objects. And with no rhyme or reason, art looks like masturbation. Amazing that it has inspired millions; wow, such a movement with no meaning, significance or universal message?

[FuzzyMerkin]

Sam, you said:

But still, 'reaction' isn't a definition of art.

True art is far likely to get ignored.

Popularity in either guises of rebellion or conformity appeal to the masses and this is very cheap indeed!

Again, you aren’t necessarily talking about art. Expediency maybe?

...then you claimed that the term "true art" was a metaphor and now you try to tell me that you don't know what it is a metaphor for? So what did you have in mind when you typed the above? "I don't know what is far likely to get ignored?" Does this make any sense to you? Or did you just think that it sounded good?

OK, Sam - and this is where our little conversation ends - talking to my cats will get me more reasonable replies.

Edited to add: Most of the stuff you said in your last post either does not refer to anything I said or misrepresents what I said (btw I did define what I mean with "resonance" although that was obviously lost on you)... Sam meet Scarlett - Scarlett meet Sam.

Edited January 3, 2008 by FuzzyMerkin

[MS1]

Well, yes, that's the spirit. However, I don't think that it is a coincidence that materially oriented people would usually choose a photograph-like drawing or painting as an example of true art, while people slightly more....deranged would choose something a bit more stylized, or even abstract, because they can easily identify with the message behind it.

I prefer Van Goh to Bierstadt. But I'm not sure deranged is the word I would have chosen.