In the vulgarity thread there was an interesting discussion going on about what art is and what counts as such. I'm posting several definitions of art, feel free to accept one of them or post your own.
Reading:
A clusterfuck of philosophical definitions. Some interesting, but one sided with regard of this discussion.
http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/entries/art-definition
From Wiki's aesthetics definition:
The main recent sense of the word “art” is roughly as an abbreviation for creative art or “fine art.” Here we mean that skill is being used to express the artist’s creativity, or to engage the audience’s aesthetic sensibilities, or to draw the audience towards consideration of the “finer” things. Often, if the skill is being used in a lowbrow or practical way, people will consider it a craft instead of art, a suggestion which is highly disputed by many Contemporary Craft thinkers. Likewise, if the skill is being used in a commercial or industrial way it may be considered design instead of art, or contrariwise these may be defended as art forms, perhaps called applied art. Some thinkers, for instance, have argued that the difference between fine art and applied art has more to do with value judgments made about the art than any clear definitional difference.[10]
...
Perhaps (as in Kennick's theory) no definition of art is possible anymore. Perhaps art should be thought of as a cluster of related concepts in a Wittgensteinian fashion (as in Weitz or Beuys). Another approach is to say that “art” is basically a sociological category, that whatever art schools and museums and artists get away with is considered art regardless of formal definitions. This "institutional definition of art" (see also Institutional Critique) has been championed by George Dickie. Most people did not consider the depiction of a Brillo Box or a store-bought urinal to be art until Andy Warhol and Marcel Duchamp (respectively) placed them in the context of art (i.e., the art gallery), which then provided the association of these objects with the values that define art.
Proceduralists often suggest that it is the process by which a work of art is created or viewed that makes it art, not any inherent feature of an object, or how well received it is by the institutions of the art world after its introduction to society at large. Whereas if exactly the same set of words was written by a journalist, intending them as shorthand notes to help him write a longer article later, these would not be a poem. Leo Tolstoy, on the other hand, claims that what makes something art or not is how it is experienced by its audience, not by the intention of its creator. Functionalists like Monroe Beardsley argue that whether or not a piece counts as art depends on what function it plays in a particular context; the same Greek vase may play a non-artistic function in one context (carrying wine), and an artistic function in another context (helping us to appreciate the beauty of the human figure). '
MW definition:
1: skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2 a: a branch of learning: (1): one of the humanities (2)plural : liberal arts barchaic : learning, scholarship
3: an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4 a: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1): fine arts (2): one of the fine arts (3): a graphic art
5 aarchaic : a skillful plan
b: the quality or state of being artful6: decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter
My guess is we won't be able to agree in this thread, so let's have them opinions going.
Personally I'm in the camp that
most inventions and utilities are not art because I believe that art requires an intent to stimulate human senses, which lacks in almost all appliances. I'm not against the possibility of some industrial creations being art, but against the absolution that everything created by humans is.
Is your coffeemaker art D&D? What about your keyboard?
Does art encompasses all products of human activity?
Are copies art?
Are inventions art?
Anything else.
Posts
Okay, but many/most appliances these days are made to stimulate the senses. A person is generally more likely to buy a coffee maker that is more aesthetically pleasing to them. This is why companies hire artists and designers to work on the appearance of their products. Hell, I've seen Kohler commercials (faucets/etc) that specifically play to the art/design aspects of their products.
I certainly would agree that not everything created by humans is art, but there's an extremely wide range and it includes many everyday items.
I don't believe that adding a curve to a vacuum cleaner or a bright red cup to a coffeemaker would make a work of art of either of the two as I seem to be siding with the procedural definition to the point where the process of creating art is important to be able to recognize it as such.(I don't like the example given in wiki though, so my guess is I don't really support their view if words are involved.)
Art is anything in which the physical objects or mediums you interact with to experience it "disappear."
For example, when you're reading a book, the book "disappears." The physical object of the book evaporates as you internalize and experience the code of the words on it.
Similarly, when you watch a movie or play a videogame, the glass and plastic of the television disappears, as do the phosphors of light. Those lights are a code that you internalize and the physical structure that gives rise to the code evaporates.
Same can be said with paintings and maybe sculptures. But obviously some paintings and sculptures are a stretch, as is any piece of art that draws attention to its medium. Also, this definition would cover other forms of writing, pictures and video that are not considered "art" (such as newspapers and the Weather Channel).
But I think it's an interesting place to start.
There's really no other definition that manages to not exclude some obvious hypothetical examples of art that most people would consider legitimate. Better to just call everything art and then piss and moan about good art vs bad art, with the understanding that it's all subjective.
But I can't fucking accept that a "keyboard" can be referred to as art. Seriously, the shit is a total slave to functionality, there is virtually zero possibility for actua creativity and the only thing that it invokes is achy wrists.
Qingu, I like your definition, but isn't that pretty much what "stimulating aesthetic sensibilities" means, except it also includes music & probably others I can't think of right now? Still, abstraction from the physical medium as a requirement for many objects to be considered art is something I'm ready to sign up for.
Well... you're disagreeing with your own beliefs.
The designers who work for companies on the aesthetic aspects of their products are most certainly designing them to stimulate your senses.
I'm not saying I agree with your definition (Hell, I tend to agree more with ElJeffe's point), but you don't even seem to have your own beliefs straight about it.
Edit: Also, no, I wasn't disagreeing with myself, I was simply unable to express what I thought better in English. I meant to say intent to stimulate should be driving force behind the object's creating, but couldn't put it into words.
My keyboard is black, with slick little black covers over the capslock indicators, and the brand name is written in edgy silver lettering. I imagine the designers (read: graphic artists) they hired to make the concept for this keyboard realized I would find it more aesthetically pleasing then the ivory/grey brick keyboards of yesteryear.
Are the ivory/grey brick keyboards of yesteryear today's irrelevant pieces of art or were they never art in the first place?
There are probably people that thought they were alot more attractive than typewriters
Well, according to my definition, it's only art if someone says it is. Say I take that keyboard, stick it on a pedestal, and call it art. When pressed, I give some claptrap about how it represents the modern 9-5 cubicle drone and his struggle against ennui.
You say it's not art, I say it is. Demonstrate to me why you should be right and I should be wrong. I fully admit that my stance is based on expedience. What's yours based on?
I think this calls into question whether the balance needs to be in favor of form over function. I think in the case of many primitive designs (of most objects, whether cars or keyboards) there was far too much worry over getting the function right to worry about form...at least beyond the utilitarian aspects of form (size, weight).
I think once function is nailed, many times companies can begin worrying about the aesthetic to the point that honestly, a keyboard or car can reasonably be considered a work of art.
Though all of this is really secondary to my actual feeling on the matter, which is pretty much what ElJeffe said.
Shouldn't art be recognizable as such with age?(I'm actually not sure if it should be...) If you hear a song from 200 years ago, you know it's art, if you see a picture or see a sculpture or read a book, even when you're unable to appreciate it, you realize there was creativity involved. Do you feel the same way about brand new keyboards in yesteryear's ivory grey colors as you feel about your slick black one? My initial argument from the OP was about most. I do believe that a keyboard may be work of art, I just don't believe that keyboards may be called a work of art because of that one that actually makes you giddy when you look at it. I wasn't fucking clear enough again, was I?;o((( The original quote should have been
There's a whole lot of contemporary art that I can't recognize as art now. Including some of the wackier abstract art and certain genres of really terrible music.
Jeff is right that if you call something art, it becomes art. Because when you call it that, you're drawing attention to particular elements of the thing, and considering them in an artistic context. This is essentially what Andy Warhol did with the soup cans.
I think it makes sense to have a really wide definition of art.
...
I think I just blew my mind.
This. In fact, I could probably name you 10 or 12 bands whose music I'm less likely to consider "art" than my Apple PowerBook.
I did not think there will be much demonstration involved in the discussion and said so in the OP. Opinions is what we should be able to get many from, and that shouldn't be so bad.
What I would say about your example is that again, in this case I'd agree that said keyboard is a form of art, but only because it was promoted so and the same would not apply to any other object of the same type. Does your definition imply that if something is not explicitly called art, it just sits on the sidewalk in the rain and is quietly passed by and admired, but never actually pronounced, it would not actually be art? Or are there art works that are self-evident and don't need the affirmation?
Edit: recognizing art:
About the contemporary art, do you not re cognize it as such as in "When I see/hear it, I don't actually realize it's art." or as in "I know it's music/sculpture/painting and somebody probably considers it art, but I don't like that shit."? I find the difference pretty important. I'm pretty much ignorant on contemporary art, but I have never seen an actual art piece where I didn't realize the intent behind it was to be art without need for affirmation.
I don't think that someone has to formally declare "this is art!" before a witness, or anything, but rather just look at something and think, "Huh, art." I made a bunch of shit when I was an ME. I doubt anyone ever considered any of it art, and so it's not. But in theory, if someone took something I'd welded and bolted together and sat down to admire it's aesthetic qualities and thought, "Wow, this is really beautiful," then maybe it is.
I mean things that, were I not specifically told they were are, I probably wouldn't realize they were. John Cage's 4'33", for example - I think anyone would be hard pressed to listen to four minutes of nothing and think of it as art. There's something that, for lack of a better term, I think of as "noise metal" which is atonal instrumentation and incoherent shrieking. If I were to hear it out of context, I doubt I'd think of it as music. I'd probably think it was audio from a hideous construction site accident, or something. In MOMA awhile back there was a piece that consisted of a piece of corrugated cardboard with a spritz of spray paint on it. It would not have looked out of place in an alley beside a dumpster.
That's what I mean when I say I wouldn't recognize something as art - I mean it quite literally.
For me it would simply be a matter of whether I believe you believe they're art, or what I think you mean when you call it art. If I thought you and the engineers were sincere in presenting the gears to me as a piece of art, I would stop to consider them as such. It would help if you took them out of your car and hung them on a wall, but it's not required; it would just be a signal of your sincere intention to present the thing as art.
A few posts up Jeff typed an elipsis and called it art. I don't consider that art, not because I think such an object can't be art - I've seen modern art that isn't much more than an elipsis on a blank space - but because I don't really think he considers it art. I think he was joking. If I thought he was sincere in presenting the post as art, I would have stopped, looked at it, considered it in the way I consider art. Then, maybe, I'd decide that it sucks, but I wouldn't say "that's not art."
I didn't mean formally demonstrate so much as explain why you hold your opinion. After reading your last post, it sounds like we might largely be in agreement.
I agreee with ElJeffe here, it is completely subjective, but we can still define some of the subjectivity. I've always thought of art as value, as in the value people place on a painting more than just the paint and canvas. And this value is not as a means to an end, but as a value in and of itself.
I'm not concerned with how they look on the wall though, I'm simply appreciative of their interpretation of the classic gear ratio and how it moves my car differently, for example.
I understand what you are saying, though - I personally consider "Did the creator even give a shit?" a great litmus test for a piece being presented as art.
I agree with this definition.
And if a person failed to recognize something as art, that does not mean it isn't art. The only problem with this definition is that is makes it useless as a tool for lawmakers. I'm guessing you were hoping this thread would help with the line on vulgarity thread...but I doubt it.
I flipped through a maxim magazine and they had some beautiful pictures of topless women in waterfalls and what not, with the line "its official, its ART!" printed in the corner or something to that effect. What would not be art?
All you can do is argue that its bad art (if you don't like that kind of thing :P).
Zing!
OK, what about graphic violence then? I think most would agree movies/DVD's and video games are generally a form of art.
Is it not art if its all gore? Who decides what is not art? And if someone starts with erotica and slowly makes it dirtier and more porn like when is it no longer art? Share with us your wisdom.
I personally don't consider porn art. I'm just trying to play devil's advocate here and point out that if someone says its art who are you to say it is not art? A swimsuit is ok but topless is not art? Topless is okay but take away the panties and its no longer art? The more you think about it the more you realize its entirely subjective.
Anyway, my blog-killing post:
I'm also remembering another piece of "art" I saw at the Tate. It was simply a slide projector pointed at a wall projecting an image of a light switch. Literally, that's what it was. But what I found interesting was the juxtaposition or traditional roles. Normally, a light switch controls the light but in this case the light switch owed its existence to the light emitted from the projector.
So, from those two examples I'd just say that art is a) anything crafted by humans which also b) provokes thought in its viewer.
Ideally of course, that thought or question shouldn't be "what the fuck is this crap?" . . . or maybe it can be, what do I know?
How about a urinal?
Fix'd.
ITT: We wind up discussing Two Girls One Cup