No, because life is life, life isn’t words, imagages and sounds, arranged by people in fantastic, imaginative ways, in order to convey a message, or provoke an emotional repsonse. You can define life as art all you want, but when you say the word art, most people won’t think of life in general, they’ll think of gothic architecture, or Beethovens 9th.
I hate it when people play games with words. Your way of thinking about words is silly and impratical. Figuratively, perhaps, life could be like art, in that it’s images and sounds are occasionally capable of provoking a profound emotional response, but a cloud may resemble a car, that doesn’t make it so. In a sense, your way of using words is figurative and artistic, as opposed to literal and philosophical.
I love gothic architecture and Beethoven especially, among others.
Re-read your other words below. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Though I do understand what you’re saying I think if we do broaden our meaning of art, it can let more light in. When you see gothic architecture and listen to Beethoven’s 9th, do you ever see the life of those responsible for it? Perhaps if we do, it could lead us to a better understanding of that ‘art’.
And life consists of ALL of those other things you said above and more. Therein you began to define Life. You don’t define it by repeating the word itself - life is life. What the hell does that even mean? If I say an apple is an apple…what about the person who’s never seen an apple nor tasted one?
Sure, but I’m talking about 99.9 percent of the time, you’re talking about 0.1 percent. 99.9 percent of the time, scribbles are meaningless.
Yes, but life also consists of a lot of other things, like rocks and dirt. Rocks and dirt aren’t created by people, art is.
You missed some of what I wrote as well.
Literally, art is art is art. Ask me what art is and I’ll point to a comic book, not to a waitress. Ask me what art is like and i’ll point to a door knob, or a rainbow.
.
No, I wasn’t actually. I’ve experienced art in the past that I found neither meaning nor feeling towards. Fifteen years ago a Scott Mutter would have been like quantum theory to me (though that fascinates me now). Today, my ‘consciousness’ and ‘awareness’ has grown or changed and I like him, am utterly fascinated by him.
I have, among others, two paintings on the wall, one is called “Counterparts” which are tree trunks in the forest standing together, which at first glance, I loved and had to have, but now, the picture does not move me (though I am passionate about trees). Another is a Parisian scene of some pretty muted colored apartments looming up in the distance with the Seine and a few pedestrians walking around and a few pretty trees in it, which I went gaga over and bought. Now it somehow leaves me cold. Our tastes do change, I believe, over time and our sense of art.
Exactly. I was only trying to make a point there. Anyway, isn’t there an expression that life mimics/imitates art? All I was talking about is trying to go beyond what ‘we’ consider to be art…subjectively speaking…as I actually did with that brick wall that Quetzalcoatl put in here. Do I find it to be art…possibly more than I did before I started ‘thinking’ about it.
I wasn’t trying to play word games. I was dead serious about expressing what I was trying to say, paint a picture, in a way, with words, but perhaps you didn’t get it. Ah, that seems to be the same with art, wouldn’t you say?
Yes, of course it was meant figuratively. A symbol points to something but it is not that which it points to, is it now? A cloud is no more a car though it may resemble one (I myself would say a dragon) – than is the picture of the Mona Lisa no more the woman that it was modeled after. Maybe we can say that all of art ‘speaks’ figuratively.
Well, I suppose I’m more artistic than philosophical. And we are speaking of art here….so….finish the thought.
Many would not see art in a comic book. I could depending on the words and the graphics. I could see art in a beautiful bound first original copy of …you name the book. The binding in itself would be art. Calligraphy is gorgeous art. I might see art in a door knob if it was beautifully sculpted and really different. And yes a rainbow is like art. I would go out on a limb with you and say that a rainbow is art. A beautiful light show is definitely art…crystal prisms kissed by the sun.
This is a philosophy forum, not an art forum. I believe what’s his alias asked what art is, not what it’s like. As would be philosophers, our job should be to clarify the meaning of words and concepts, not obscure them. I suggest you try and think philosophically about art as opposed to thinking artistically about art.
Of course, we’re talking about shades of grey here, not black and white. 99.9 percent of people, 99.9 percent of the time, when asked what art is, will point to the sistine chapel rather than a prison. Why do you suppose that is? I think it’s because prisons are lifeless, objective and utilitarian. Therefore, prisons are less artistic than the sistine chapel. I’m going to go out on a limb myself and say prisons aren’t artistic at all. As for comic books, I think most people would agree that X-Men are more fantastic, imaginative and aesthetically appealing and hence more artistic than scribbles, how about you?
Art is luxury, entertainment and education for the soul. The person who decides to dress up in their best clothes is a walking piece of art. A rock that has interesting features that captures your thoughts is art. Anything that has nothing to do with absolute survival is art. That includes all life non life, planets , things on or in planets etc etc. If it makes you think then its art. If human constructions survive and there is no human to study it, perhaps a lizard will stop and stare at it wondering what it is , taking that first little step towards something greater than its stomach. That is art.
No, unless the rock was made by someone, it’s not art.
No, philosophy has nothing to do with our immediate survival, but it’s not art.
Why is the definition i’m providing better, or more appropriate than yours? Because I believe the original poster was asking for THE definition of art, not your definition of art. He was asking for the universal, collective definition, independent of our peculiar, individual definitions.
Art has these characteristics
It was created by someone.
It’s imaginative.
Aesthetically appealing.
Figurative.
Meaningful.
Visual, as opposed to auditory, or literary (i’m not saying music and poetry aren’t art, I’m just saying that there not as art as visual art).
Not strictly utilitarian, as you and I pointed out. The more useless and impratical it is, the more artistic it is.
Emotionally provocative.
The less of these features it has, the less artistic it is. If it has none or few of these features, it’s not art. If it has all or most of these features, than it is art. If it has some of these features, then it’s up in the air.
The above quote is from the OP
Now if kitcherj_ wanted a dictionary definition you would be right on the money. But then why post such a question on such a forum? So I will have to disagree with you. My perspective is valid. Nature has no equal when it comes to artistry. The masters as great as they are would humbly bow before her beautiful works. Any true artist would, for that is many times where we take our inspiration from. To sit and study nature and all her glory is far far more provocative than spending the day at the Louvre or any other great museum. Perhaps you need to go out and truly see nature. If nothing else study a weed even cities have weeds. I mean truly study it. It is a wonderous thing. Ever see a weed that grows out of a sidewalk in the heart of a city? Ever think about it? My Gods Lucis you are missing things in your life if you can’t see past a dictionary.
First and foremost, art is a representation of nature, not nature itself. Nature alone isn’t art, nature + imagination = art. A unicorn is art. Granted, the original properties (horse, horn, wings) may have been taken from nature, but it’s the mind that rearranges them in new and exciting ways. It’s the mind that makes things more aesthetically pleasing than they are. It’s the mind that percieves/invents and paints the ideals/archetypes. I think you’re missing the human factor in art. Art is both a combination of inspiration from nature and human endeavor to expound, elaborate, glorify, beautify and transcend nature. My understanding of art is supreme, because I have taken into account both the human factor and the nature factor.
You falsely infer I can’t see things past a dictionary, I can, in fact, I have given you a more profound and precise definition of art than a dictionary ever could. You have proivded us with a lesser definition, because you have missed a multitude of integral ingredients.
What is nature without the conscious mind that percieves it? It is we who endow nature with meaning and purpose. Nature was made for us. Art isn’t merely nature, or merely the reproduction of nature, it’s going beyond nature. It’s painting the soul, our hopes, dreams and nightmares. Nature can also be rather dull and boring at times, case in point, your example of a weed. If life wasn’t so dreadful at times, we wouldn’t need art, music, religion, science, or civilization for that matter. Hmmm, I think I’m on to something here. Perhaps your mentality leads to contenment with nature and my mentality leads to withdrawl from and/or the engineering of nature. Does your definition of art signify submission, reverence and humility, mine dominance, dissatisfaction and pride? Yours embrace, mine rejection? Well, it’s not that I hate nature, but it is seriously lacking no doubt. You believe the artist should be passive, I believe the artist should be active and creative. Well, that’s enough for now, my head hurts.
Why is it that you can only think of art as created by human hands? You say that art is imagination.
Nature always creates works of art. Look at a beautiful piece of driftwood? Who would not want to bring that home?
Look at a wonderful irridescent seashell?
Look at a beautiful burnished gold autumn leaf? How many people have picked those up and put them under glass and framed them? If you can’t consider them as a work of art, nature’s artwork, then what does that say of you?
Look at a sunrise? Because human hands haven’t splashed paints of those colors on canvas that is not a work of art?
The subject is: “Is art in the eye of the beholder”? I don’t think he was asking us to adhere strictly to human art…just to what we perceive as art. If nature creates such art and we perceive it as such, and have it in our homes as such, is it not art?
Are we so arrogant that art for us is only that which comes from human hands? When you hear the birds singing in the morning, do you ever think of a symphony, hear them as a symphony?
If imagination is art, then anything that we perceive as beautiful, or fascinating or weird or grotesque or that provokes us and moves us, anything that is mysteriously, unbelievably carved or shaped by nature … if we can hold it in our hands and bring it home, give it a special place and admire it and feel joy and happiness from it…that is art!!! FAPP and spiritual ones, too.
This world is but a canvas to our imagination.
Henry David Thoreau
When I judge art, I take my painting and put it next to a God made object like a tree or flower. If it clashes, it is not art.
Paul Cezanne
A sincere artist is not one who makes a faithful attempt to put on to canvas what is in front of him, but one who tries to create something which is, in itself, a living thing. William Dobell
As I’ve said previously in this thread, you people need to realize (lol i’m exaggerating, you don’t really need to) that art is just a word. It’s just a syllable, or three letters (depending on if it was spoken or written) which we arbitrarily designate a particular meaning. Once it is clearly defined, it will be immediately apparent what is and is not art. Once that’s apparent…so what? You know, so what? All the important questions still remain. Questions about whether or not you enjoy something, find something beautiful or meaningful or mysterious, etc. All those questions, the only important ones, still remain after deciding if something is art or not. So how about you just skip the step of defining the word and go straight to the heart of the matter when you go to an art show/museum. Next time you look at something presented as art, don’t ask “Is this art?” Instead, ask what matters. That’s a more efficient and more relevant approach.
I’m not saying nature can’t be beautiful, perhaps even indepently of our awareness, I’m saying that it can’t be art, for art is an invention of human beings. You have to redefine the word art in order for nature to qualify as art. As for art existing independently of human awareness, I don’t know, how do we know a acorn exists independently of our awareness. Well, I seem to have no control over an acorns movements, I can be mistaken about it. When I turn my head and look the other way, the acorn goes on interacting with it’s environment. Can we prove that art goes on being art, that is, beautiful, meaningful, symbolic, independently of our awareness? Well, once a painting is no longer percieved by humans, a painting goes on existing in a physical sense, but in an artistic sense, what proof is there? It’s meaning isn’t percieved by the rocks, trees and walls that surround it. The fact that it’s imaginative and inventive is lost on the goats who glance at it. There is no solid proof that a painting can be anything but paint, long after sentient life has vanished from our planet. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible though. Anyway, what use is beauty, sexuality, passion and symbolism without our comprehension of it?
As you have your definition of art I have mine. Mine includes nature I do not see that man is the only thing that can create. A flower is an intentional creation is it not? It is designed to attract. Sounds like art to me. As wind, sand and rain scour the surface of a stone designs are created on that stone. Creation is all around us man alone cannot hold the only claim to beautiful artistry… We could get into the elephant paintings but, you know I have no idea wether they do it for themselves or if they are merely trained.
If you want art to be only human created then so be it, I still will disagree. I iknow what is in my heart and head and I see art in this world created by nature. I see humans imitating or trying to compliment that art by putting their interpretations in it. All is good and all will not last, all will change or cease to exist eventually. Time has away of eliminating colors, shapes and thoughts. Art is what a person decides it is. My men think a "45"Chevy is a work of art. I would not disagree with them. Because that is what they see. They see a well crafted tool as art, a computer game as art. They see the female body as art. This is their view and I would not take it from them. For that would be selfish and arrogant. Your view is right for you as mine is right for me.
Unless there’s an observer there, nature is just nature. But having already viewed it, we know how beautiful it can be at least those of us who have felt it as such.
What we are trying to do here is to define it, not by nature of a definition so much but as according to our subjective perceptions/sensations/spirit, ad infinitum.Is that the same? I suppose there are any number of objective qualities which would define human art. I was trying to go beyond the usual in order to come back and see it as more than, if that makes sense to you.
It is actually weird as we have already observed many acorns but according to quantum theory, nothing exists until the moment that we have observed it. The wavefunction is not the probability of finding an object in a particular place but its about the probability of the object being there. Once that acorn has been consciously observed, it is there in that moment. The moment before it was observed it was not there.
Only when someone observes it.
Well, the beautiful clear moon in the awesome night sky…if no one has ever seen it, all it is is there. Of course, according to QT, it wouldn’t be until observed. But aside from that, once we observed [human] art and perceived and sensated it as those things: beautiful, meaningful, symbolic, it will continue to go on in that way until we perceive it differently.
But I think according to how I get your question above, the object still needs to be perceived as such. It may hang in a museum, but until actually looked at, it is just a human construct. It doesn’t matter how many people have viewed it. Maybe it doesn’t even need to be viewed once seen - but just a conscious awareness and thought of it makes it art again. I think I’m going beyond art here. But this IS what I actually feel.
If a goat looks at it, I mean, there is consciousness there ) it becomes. And how do we know that a goat doesn’t sensate those things in a meaningful way, somehow, though perhaps not as we do? Everything is interconnected and i don’t think we’ve come far enough in defining what consciousness is. The rocks, trees and walls may perceive one another in a sense, interconnectedly.
I may be using quantum theory incorrectly ‘here’ but for me unless something ‘is’ observed, it is nothing but an object. Observing it had already made it such, but as far as art goes, it’s just paint and canvas, material. We might like to romanticize and be nostalgic about it, but if no one is left in the universe to give it meaning, what is it - nothing.
Those things are wonderful and deeply mysterious. There is much that we don’t understand in the universe but they still hold great meaning to us as human beings. Just our brain matter and chemicals alone would make it that way. What use are they: To bring us joy and to make us more fully human, whether we comprehend how that could possibly be or not. I don’t understand how a tree would look, how it really looks, with its atoms swirling around because my brain has not evolved far enough, probably never will, to know this, but there is still great beauty in that and the passion and the mystery that THAT holds for me is awesome.
I’m not saying yes or no. I’m saying the question is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if something is art or not. That’s just a word. What’s more than just a word is how things make you feel or what they make you think, and more things along those lines.
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
I suppose there are any number of 
