Today everything goes under Art.
1) Shall we concentrate on Art as such, or art in the context of just literature, just music or any other of the fields where it could be found? It seems that a general idea would be best, with examples from every field. Or every field we can think of at any given moment or deem most important
2) Art as uniform, or layered? High art/low art?
First, I think we should concentrate on Art as such, because pretty much the same "rules" (I put quotation marks because we haven't yet discussed the term in relation to Arts) apply to everything - I mean, there is some kind of a general idea on what Art is supposed to represent (which Nighthawk put into a definition above). However, we should mention the application of the mentioned in all fields, to see similarities, differences and in the end the one common thing/area that connects it all into one.As evident from Lava's post, there exist alternative definitions that clash with my definition. Do they?
Second, art as uniform, or layered? I think both.Uniform but layered? So, it's layered :D
High art/low art? Where would you draw a line? What would you avoid in trying to create high art, and what would you purposely do if you wanted to your art to be considered low art?Aaah, yes. The skill involved? The sophistication of the ideas presented?
Do artists even create like this, or is their work determined by the culture they're part of, their way of life, views?They don't have to necessarily want to create a certain kind of artistic piece, but it would just end up as such. Maybe because they had a different goal, a different approach or because they just didn't care to make it any more complex than they did.
A lot of questions; could they be answered by one general answer, or is it all only subjective?Seeing as I come from a philosophical background, I'll go with "one general answer for 500", Alex (http://www.koalicija.net/hamsterz/Smileys/koulishn/zubo.gif)
For me art is the expression of the essence of one being, one thing, one thought, one feeling in a sound form, graphic form, movement form, etc. For me it is impossible to say something is high or low art, good or bad art. I only see there is art I like, and there is art i don´t like, but it does not mean is it good or bad.When you say "the expression of the essence of one being, one thing, one thought, one feeling", do you mean to say that it's that one thing expressing itself, or that the author is expressing (or trying to express) the essence of, etc?
For me one characteristic of art is that has no temporal time or space to be considerated: art was, art is and art will be.That's a bit... esoteric :D
I like your attempt at a definition, but I feel that something is lacking, too. I find it too purposeful. Does art always have to strive at explaining something? Isn't it art when a piece is just plain beautiful? Isn't it enough when a piece provokes certain reactions and emotions?While I do think something is lacking, it's not the extreme purposefulness.
Art is by it's nature elitistic. It's not something that everyone can enjoy - you can acknowledge it's worth, grab a bit of the joy it brings, but to fully understand what you're supposed to fully understand takes time, effort, a solid education and the intellectual and emotional capacity to grasp what you're being offered.Exactly what I think. To create a work of art one needs more than pure talent, one needs education and what you mentioned (not to repeat your words). To me, art wouldn't be art, it would be as fulfilling and as meaningful as it is if it were something that can be created by anyone, anywhere, anyhow. Now I'm not saying that only Van Gogh or Dali or Mrs. Woolf or Mozart were artists, and that there's no other "true" artists. Far from that, I'm just saying that not every scratch/sentence/sound is an art. You couldn't cut people open in order to, say, operate on their heart just by your feeling, or just because you think they'll be okay afterwards, right? You need to have some knowledge too.
For me art is the expression of the essence of one being, one thing, one thought, one feeling in a sound form, graphic form, movement form, etc.Do you mean that, by creating art, one is expressing the essence of their being? If so, I could go with that; that would fall under Nighthawk's definition that by art we're trying to explain human existence. Which would make sense - why would you want to do something like express something so deep unless you have a higher purpose?
Completely agree. Nothing is forever.For me one characteristic of art is that has no temporal time or space to be considerated: art was, art is and art will be.That's a bit... esoteric :D
Art is a human creation, ergo art was created. It had an origin point. I cannot agree that it'll live on, regardless of the state of human civilization. That's a nifty platonic notion, the objectivity of the idea of Art, but unacceptable to a materialist.
Just to nip a potential argument in the bud: no, Nature has nothing to do with Art :D Art's a human thing, it requires an artist (or artists). Colloquially, "wow, that's art" is applied to anything that strikes us as particularly beautiful or skillfully done, though the object in question (or scene in question) isn't necessarily Art. We're not trying to speak colloquially here, but academically.Just wanted to stress it out once again :D Just because something is beautiful, doesn't mean it's art.
Art is by it's nature elitistic. It's not something that everyone can enjoy - you can acknowledge it's worth, grab a bit of the joy it brings, but to fully understand what you're supposed to fully understand takes time, effort, a solid education and the intellectual and emotional capacity to grasp what you're being offered.Exactly what I think. To create a work of art one needs more than pure talent, one needs education and what you mentioned (not to repeat your words). To me, art wouldn't be art, it would be as fulfilling and as meaningful as it is if it were something that can be created by anyone, anywhere, anyhow. Now I'm not saying that only Van Gogh or Dali or Mrs. Woolf or Mozart were artists, and that there's no other "true" artists. Far from that, I'm just saying that not every scratch/sentence/sound is an art. You couldn't cut people open in order to, say, operate on their heart just by your feeling, or just because you think they'll be okay afterwards, right? You need to have some knowledge too.For me art is the expression of the essence of one being, one thing, one thought, one feeling in a sound form, graphic form, movement form, etc.Do you mean that, by creating art, one is expressing the essence of their being? If so, I could go with that; that would fall under Nighthawk's definition that by art we're trying to explain human existence. Which would make sense - why would you want to do something like express something so deep unless you have a higher purpose?Completely agree. Nothing is forever.For me one characteristic of art is that has no temporal time or space to be considerated: art was, art is and art will be.That's a bit... esoteric :D
Art is a human creation, ergo art was created. It had an origin point. I cannot agree that it'll live on, regardless of the state of human civilization. That's a nifty platonic notion, the objectivity of the idea of Art, but unacceptable to a materialist.QuoteJust to nip a potential argument in the bud: no, Nature has nothing to do with Art :D Art's a human thing, it requires an artist (or artists). Colloquially, "wow, that's art" is applied to anything that strikes us as particularly beautiful or skillfully done, though the object in question (or scene in question) isn't necessarily Art. We're not trying to speak colloquially here, but academically.Just wanted to stress it out once again :D Just because something is beautiful, doesn't mean it's art.
Art and nature are two different things - art can depict nature, but art as such is not nature, nor is nature art.
Art is art. :cht:
I have to admit that I haven't read all topic thoroughly... but I like the definition in the first post. For me art means two more things: unuseful and beyond reason. :)All art is quite useless. (Oscar Wilde)
But all I have to say is no matter what, whether you're talking about interpreting historical events or the effects of a scientific discovery (yes, not even science escapes this one!), everything is a matter of subjectivity. Due to our previous experiences, our upbringing, and the limits of our senses (in the case of the latter, are more or less the same for all of us human individuals) our perception of things is different. Therefore attempting to come to an absolute definition for anything is impossible due to the fact that disagreements will exist.What is an "absolute definition"? How do you define the absolute here?
Now you're wondering how come such definitions exist? Well, unfortunately they don't. What we have is what I like to call collective subjectivity, which ties in with the ideas of power-knowledge structures that Foucault (oh lord, I had to bring that guy in). Something is accepted in collective subjectivity when a common ground is reached by "experts" (essentially, those holding power) in a field.Wouldn't that be more like "collective objectivity", considering that the closest to objectivity we can get is through a collective consensus? Or, at least, a consensus of experts.
Far from that, I'm just saying that not every scratch/sentence/sound is an art.Though sometimes, watching TV, you'd think it wasn't so ;D
I have to admit that I haven't read all topic thoroughly... but I like the definition in the first post. For me art means two more things: unuseful and beyond reason. :)All art is quite useless. (Oscar Wilde)
When you say "reason", do you mean causa or ratio?
Damn you, Latin, for being useful ;D
When I say absolute I mean final, indisputable, the type of absolute you have in the term absolute truth.Okay. In philosophy, the absolute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_%28philosophy%29) is the idea of a higher reality, be it in the form of platonic ideals or theological conundrums. That's the kind of absolute I can't get behind :D
And as for objectivity, since it is the subjectivity of others that is joined together, not a collective group of objective ideas (which are impossible at any rate, because it's humans who generate and deal with them anyway).Yes, that's what I was aiming at. Not the "objectivity of the collective" but "objectivity as defined by the collective, which, in itself, implies subjectivity".
Ratio. :) Especially explanations.Well, I can't agree with that :) Art, as a product of reason (or, at least, the apollonian/dionysian conflict), shouldn't be beyond the grasp of reason.