The Philosophy of Art

[Nighthawk]

Today everything goes under Art.

When can something be called art? What is Art?

And how do you spell "pretentious"?

On this topic (oh, go read it, it's only 6 posts long!), Mystique and myself (via Kamov) started talking about the nature of Art and what exactly falls under its wing. Furthermore, how far can a piece go before it falls off the grid and ceases to be Art?

I offered a definition, lackluster though it may be:

Art is a process in which skill and imagination are used in creating intellectually and emotionally stimulating experiences which strive to explain the universe, the world, existence, human existence or any element of the aforementioned.

It's not quite there yet. Something's missing, but what?

Join us in our epic quest to debate the nature of Art! Do you disagree with the definition I offered? Do you agree? What do you think about the points Mystique and I made? Would you like to point out something we missed? What do you think?

Call our toll-free number and receive this handy-dandy knife set! Knives! They cut through arguments like butter!

[Mystique]

Your definition depicts perfectly the way I perceive Art as such. Maybe, by the end of our discussion, we'll have been able to add something more to it to make it complete and more precise; this one is more than good for start though.

But first, to go back to your previous post. You asked the following questions:

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.
Second, art as uniform, or layered? I think both. 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? Do artists even create like this, or is their work determined by the culture they're part of, their way of life, views?

A lot of questions; could they be answered by one general answer, or is it all only subjective?

[lavaniegosII]

This is a topic that I have discussed a lot of times with my friends in the drinking time and I do not like it because there are a lot of silly answers that are protected because the common interpretation of modern art.

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.

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.

[Markus]

Hey folks,

interesting topic! Especially after seeing some very touching art in Barcelona and some other pieces where I went: "Mmmhh... skill of a three-year-old (or a grown-up chimpanzee) and, what's worse, it doesn't speak to me in any way." But much like Lava I don't call these latter "bad art" because there is still the possibility that they're deeply meaningful and I just don't understand them.

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?

Cheers!

Markus

[Nighthawk]

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

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?

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.

Mayhap low art would have the bar lowered. The requirements would be less difficult to fulfill.


Intellectual, Emotional and Aesthetic Experience Lite

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

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

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.

Was that even what you meant or did I misunderstand you?

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.

Yes, I do believe art should strive to explain something. If there's no intellectual pursuit, if there's no design behind it, it's just something pretty. Bear in mind that I'm not talking about the need for Art to convey essays. It just needs to stimulate, intellectually, emotionally and esthetically. If it stimulates just intellectually, then it's part of academia. If it stimulates emotionally, it could be anything from a soccer match to your third date with that cute girl from down the street. Esthetically? You're witnessing the beauties of nature, a forest in fall. It's beautiful, but not art.

Just to nip a potential argument in the bud: no, Nature has nothing to do with Art 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.

[Mystique]

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?

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

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.

Completely agree. Nothing is forever.

Just to nip a potential argument in the bud: no, Nature has nothing to do with Art 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 Just because something is beautiful, doesn't mean it's art.

[Lucy]

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.

[lavaniegosII]

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?

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

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.

Completely agree. Nothing is forever.

Just to nip a potential argument in the bud: no, Nature has nothing to do with Art 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 Just because something is beautiful, doesn't mean it's art.

No, for me the expression of the essence is not the same as the expression of the human existence because I think art is not only human, not only made from men, because you can apreciate art in nature, in the elements (like a lake in the forest, the mist of the morning, the sunset, the funny figures in the clouds, the chant of a bird, the hurricane destroying an island, etc).

About the esoteric point, it could be interpreted like that but also it was not the meaning i gave. When I talk about art that was, is and will be i refer that the true expression of the self (art) will be recorded forever in the individual, in the collective human and nature history. In the human history can be recorded in the counciousness and in the uncouncioussness.

P.S.: This is why I always try to avoid this themes, because I dont like to impose my point of view, and I dont like to try to not understand the others point. So I will define Art as Free Bird and Let it be jajaja

[Mystique]

Art and nature are two different things - art can depict nature, but art as such is not nature, nor is nature art.

That brings us back to one of the earlier posts, where it was established that what is beautiful doesn't necessarily have to be art.

[lavaniegosII]

Art and nature are two different things - art can depict nature, but art as such is not nature, nor is nature art.

I understand your point but i do not accept it

[The One]

I love philosophical discussions of this type.

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.

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. Now, the problem with art is that such a group of "experts" has never really existed ever since we got "modern" (oh boy, I'll need a whole essay to describe that loaded term) and we got to allow the masses some agency and freedom of interpretation, as well as the new art forms that came with movements and the advancements of technology.

So what's my view on art? Art is art.

[Lucy]

Art is art.

OOOOOoooohhhhh yeah! But never without the Cthulhu smiley.

[Nighthawk]

Still think Lava's talking about beauty and mixing a bit of mysticism into the whole deal, but won't push the matter further. Mayhap in passing, but I'll try not to concentrate on 't. (Unless there'll be a demand for it.)

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

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?

I'm curious because I'm not sure how to continue answering your post - I've written a lot already, but I'm not sure if I'm expanding our debate adequately

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.

It's not that I agree with you, I'm just curious
 

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

[Lucy]

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

Hahaha!
Ratio. Especially explanations.

[Lady Sa'iltu]

"Art is a process in which skill and imagination are used in creating intellectually and emotionally stimulating experiences which strive to explain the universe, the world, existence, human existence or any element of the aforementioned."

I like this definition.
And I think this process is that what's called madness.

[The One]

When I say absolute I mean final, indisputable, the type of absolute you have in the term absolute truth.

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). The subjective ideas of the group experts, due to their position in power influences the knowledge and the standards the general population has to shape their own thoughts. Hence the subjective ideas of the common people are largely influenced by the subjective ideas of those in power.

[Nighthawk]

When I say absolute I mean final, indisputable, the type of absolute you have in the term absolute truth.

Okay. In philosophy, the absolute 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

So, there's no objective truth to be found. That's a nifty, though cynical, notion. Might be wrong, but I think you're taking it to the extreme and falling over into the Realm of Relativism. Thar be dragons!

Firstly:
It is my understanding that objective truth can be found. The material world is quite coherent in that respect. Fire is hot, the moon orbits the Earth. These are things we can check, double-check and then blog about on the Internet.

Secondly:
Human terms are, of course, subjective. We have agreed that chairs are named chairs, what constitutes a state, how contracts work and that Wednesday follows Tuesday.

That does not mean, however, that we can't come to an agreement as to what those human terms are.

What I got from your posts was that such an agreement can't be made. If I misunderstood you, please correct me.

While I have yet to read Foucault, the level of familiarity I have with his views on the nature of knowledge lead me to believe that it's a slippery slope. Far from it that he's completely wrong. He's on my to-do list.

...

In a totally non-sexual way.

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.

Then again, nothing should.