View topic - possibly a dumb question with an obvious answer...

unforum
a.r.g.b.b

Welcome!

New users, PLEASE read these forum guidelines. New posters, SEARCH before posting and read these rules before posting your killer new campaign. New players may also wish to peruse the ARG Player Tutorial.

All users must abide by the Terms of Service.

Website Restoration Project

This archiving project is a collaboration between Unfiction and Sean Stacey (SpaceBass), Brian Enigma (BrianEnigma), and Laura E. Hall (lehall) with
the Center for Immersive Arts.

Announcements

This is a static snapshot of the
Unfiction forums, as of
July 23, 2017.

This site is intended as an archive to chronicle the history of Alternate Reality Games.

Our Esteemed Contributors

The time now is Sun Nov 17, 2024 8:42 am
All times are UTC - 4 (DST in action)

View posts in this forum since last visit
View unanswered posts in this forum

Calendar

Forum index » Archive » Archive: The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!) » The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!): Questions/Meta

possibly a dumb question with an obvious answer...

Page 7 of 10 [137 Posts]

Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Author

Message

Clayfoot
Entrenched

Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA

hmrpita wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

I'm just saying that nature can't be art.

Oh it can't be, can it? You are certainly sure of yourself.

That's because I'm relying on the criteria. You're welcome to dispute the criteria, but I would expect you to substitute some other criteria...

hmrpita wrote:

clayfoot wrote:

Now would I since, since the beautiful city could be art, and the beatiful nature could not be.

I don't agree.

I don't understand. Do you say that nature meets the criteria, or that the criteria is false? What criteria would you use to judge whether nature is art?

_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:24 pm
Last edited by Clayfoot on Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:41 pm; edited 2 times in total

Phaedra
Lurker v2.0

Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously

Post the 1010th, in which Phaedra Realizes That While It Is Fun To Burst Into Other People's Fights, Picking Her Own, Then Watching From The Sidelines Is Just As Fun.

_________________
Voted Most Likely to Thread-Jack and Most Patient Explainer in the ILoveBees Awards.

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind

Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:28 pm

thebruce
Dances With Wikis

Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario

Quote:

That's because I'm relying on the criteria. You're welcome to dispute the criteria, but I would expect you to substitute some other criteria...

But if the argument is that there is no criteria, then you're saying anyone who doesn't offer criteria is wrong automatically, with no need for a reason.

Well, like I said Clayfoot, I'm confident that your search for a universal definition of Art will never end... intentionality may be a value one person may hold to judge art, but not to someone else. Anything you find someone considers in order to judge art for themselves, I'm positive you will find someone or something that defies that definition... you're looking for something that can't exist. Can I prove it can't exist? no, because we'd need to ask every single living person for everything they consider when calling something 'art', in order to find a common denominator. And as time goes on, the chances of that commonality between every person remaining the same are practically nil.

But, it is a great discussion into what comprises art, and hopefully will help people examine 'art' or 'stuff' more closely, and learn to appreciate things for what they are, or aren't, worth. It's a healthy, though endless, and possibly confusing, discussion Smile

_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:30 pm

Clayfoot
Entrenched

Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA

vector wrote:

Art being more or less officialy defined much the same way porn is, as "you know it when you see it" can encumpus nature.

Supreme Court Justice Steward offered that definition for pornography, because he wanted to avoid defining it more specifically ('cause of the gross out factor). We, on the other hand, want to define art more specifically.

vector wrote:

As you are the one perceiving it and you are the one that sees it, you define if that bit of nature/city/act/picture/nothing is art to you.

That is not correct. You have not defined it as art, you have merely recognized that you like it.

vector wrote:

Many things that are considered art is only art because we collectively decide to procive it as art even though it is a big pile of crap (some times it is literaly a big pile of crap). The requirement for something to be art is that that it is created by an artist, but that it is seen by someone that is moved by that image/sound/feel.

As Phaedra pointed out, it's a circular argument to require that art is created by artists. As Dorkmaster pointed out, nobody else has to see it.

_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:50 pm

Clayfoot
Entrenched

Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA

Foz wrote:

Not to throw the proverbial monkey wrench but Ken Griffey's swing is art.

That's a great example! Let's try it.
Is his swing original? Does he do it in some way that nobody else does it?
Is his swing risky? Does he do something that's edgy or a little dangerous?
Does he swing with virtuosity? Is it perfect, or nearly so? Is his skill so beyond his peers that you can see it?
If the answers to these questions are "yes, yes, yes!", then Ken Griffey's swing is an artistic act.

_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:06 pm

water10
Unfettered

Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 712
Location: EvadeEvadeEvade

Quote:

We, on the other hand, want to define art more specifically

We? I think most people gave up already! Except you ... Laughing

_________________
You�d better not mess with Major Tom!

Gamertag: Waters100

Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:26 pm

Clayfoot
Entrenched

Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA

thebruce wrote:

Quote:

-snip- The requirement for something to be art is that that it is created by an artist, but that it is seen by someone that is moved by that image/sound/feel.

vector, I think this is the first time I actually declare that I 100% agree with your post Smile

Then, you agree with a circular argument that doesn't really define anything, at all. Once again, that is Phaedra's point, originally.

thebruce wrote:

stuff vs art
if you choose to see everything as stuff and nothing as art, that's your choice. Art is a personal definition.

No, it isn't. Art has a common definition that we share.

thebruce wrote:

how do you determine value?
As you say, by the word of the observer - do they like it? do they hate it and yet hold artistic value in it? 'how much will they pay' is just one aspect of value.

If we didn't think of art as being a different word from stuff, your statement would be correct. Stuff has value, too. Unfortunately for your argument, we do not think that art is synonymous with stuff.

thebruce wrote:

aspects of art
Expression is one aspect of art, value is another.

It's pointless to use terms like "expression" and "value" alone. "Value" is just the concept of worth in general, and "expression" is merely communication in one form or another. Without qualifying what you mean by "value" and by "expression", you haven't added anything to the discussion.

thebruce wrote:

everything is art
only if everything is considered to be art. there is no line with which to define art universally.

One of must be wrong. At least, I've provided a framework within which my defintion can be judged. Your definition requires the existence or nonexistence of a hypothetical person anywhere in place or in time.

thebruce wrote:

halo novels != art
again, your opinion.

Under your definition, my opinion weighs on whether the novels are art.
Under my definition, my opinion of how good they are is irrelevant, because the novels demonstrably lack artistic value.

thebruce wrote:

And while personal tastes dictate what we indiviually enjoy, it need not dictate what we collectively do or don't call art.
exactly my point. Art is art to the individual, or to a collective group of people.

No, it isn't.

thebruce wrote:

criteria
the criteria I listed were my own criteria, for what I consider art.
Dorkmaster showed that his definition of art is different than mine.

I stand corrected.

thebruce wrote:

There is no standard of reference from which to define art universally.

Yes, there is.

thebruce wrote:

So this topic can never end. Smile

Perhaps, but the discussion hinges on whether there is a standard reference or not. The discussion doesn't go on because there is no standard of reference. That fact has not been proven. And since nonexistence of a standard of reference is a negative assertion, it likely cannot be proven.

thebruce wrote:

There is a set of common criteria that seperates art from stuff
Give us your definition Smile

*sigh*

thebruce wrote:

personal preference
What you're looking for is a universal definition of Art, which does not exist.

That is not true. That is not a fact. You have not proved it. Your saying it over and over does not make it a fact. Adding some evidence or examples that prove there is no universal definition would help.

thebruce wrote:

There is lots of "stuff" with commonly-held value that is not art, in any sense.
until someone comes along and admires it for what it took to create it, or holds value in it as art by their own definition.

That is not true. If you want to convince anyone that it is true, you really should offer some evidence that art can only be defined on an individual or group level.

thebruce wrote:

I asked you to describe this "value" you talk about; it's pointless to ask me to explain it.
It's pointless to ask me to explain it as well, because you may simply disagree with the points that I use to hold value in something as art. Which is precisely my point.

If it is pointless to ask you to explain what you mean by "value", perhaps that is because neither of us knows what you mean by it, and that it doesn't really support your point.

thebruce wrote:

your examples and criteria described above, it seems that you want your definition (personal preference alone) to be correct, but that you believe there are other valid criteria involved
I'm not giving art a definition, I'm saying anyone can define art on their own terms.

That is a definition; it's just a circular one: Art is what someone says art is (okay, to them). If your defintion is correct, we should definitely cancel all art and music appreciation classes, since there is no common framework within which to teach what's artistic. To the extent that art and music appreciation classes continue, their existence alone supports my definition.

thebruce wrote:

Quote:

I say there is a set of common criteria that can distinguish art from stuff, regardless of my personal preference. You say that there is no criteria except personal preference.

Precisely. You can search all your life, and I guarantee you'll find no universal definition of what art is, outside of personal preference.

I already have, and I'm not even very good at this sort of thing. Perhaps, you should spend a little longer looking, eh.

thebruce wrote:

art vs stuff, revisited
by your definition, you are considering now art to be equivalent to stuff because there is no universal definition of art, which you are searching for.
by my definition, stuff is stuff only until someone is found to hold artistic value in it.
Universally, stuff just is. That's the only common criteria. There is stuff. Do you hold value in it as art? Then it's art to you.

Yes. Universally, stuff just is. Also, art just is. There's no such thing as "art to you"; that's just personal preference again.

thebruce wrote:

Q: is something (that is, anything) that may or not be considered art, really art, universally?
A: I already answered that, just not to your satisfaction.
Then the thread has been answered, and the question of what art can be defined as has now been answered by Clayfoot. Is that what you're saying? Smile

So why are you still asking for a universal definition?

I reply, because a universal definition exists, but you and others keep refuting that existence (albeit without evidence...). If the universal defintion does not exist, then we should definitely shorten up art appreciation class by saying, "Kids, it's all good. Now, go home."

_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 6:00 pm

Clayfoot
Entrenched

Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA

Phaedra wrote:

Post the 1010th, in which Phaedra Realizes That While It Is Fun To Burst Into Other People's Fights, Picking Her Own, Then Watching From The Sidelines Is Just As Fun.

You can't be just now realizing that. BTW, I could us a pinch hitter (hint, hint).

_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 6:01 pm

vector
Unfettered

Joined: 28 Aug 2004
Posts: 721
Location: Portland OR

Clayfoot wrote:

vector wrote:

Art being more or less officialy defined much the same way porn is, as "you know it when you see it" can encumpus nature.

I belive that he presented that deffination because porn canot be defined, it is changeing and different to those who perceive it and as the times change. In exactly the same way that art canot be defined except by those who perceive it. which was of course my point.

vector wrote:

As you are the one perceiving it and you are the one that sees it, you define if that bit of nature/city/act/picture/nothing is art to you.

That is not correct. You have not defined it as art, you have merely recognized that you like it.[/quote]

Unless ofcourse I recognise that I hate it and still call it art. Nature is not all beuty and happy squirrls hopping around. Nature is also terrible and frightning and powerfull and moveing, which I can still recognise as art.

vector wrote:

As Phaedra pointed out, it's a circular argument to require that art is created by artists. As Dorkmaster pointed out, nobody else has to see it.[/quote]

dang it, there was saposed to be a NOT in that sentence. read as The requirement for something to be art is NOT that that it is created by an artist, but that it is seen by someone that is moved by that image/sound/feel. I compleately agree with Phaedra and Dorkmaster as they rock my world.

_________________
The bookworm is just the larval form of the barfly

Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 6:02 pm

Phaedra
Lurker v2.0

Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously

vector wrote:

I compleately agree with Phaedra and Dorkmaster as they rock my world.

Burrito for you.

But can you agree with both of us? I think (and I've been away playing with my blog and ~~plotting world domination~~ helping plan the Chicago Hivemeet, so I've checked this thread only sporadically and sort of lost track and am currently feeling too lazy to catch up...) that Dorkmaster and I disagreed with one another.

Or maybe I was just giving him a hard time. I don't remember exactly.

_________________
Voted Most Likely to Thread-Jack and Most Patient Explainer in the ILoveBees Awards.

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind

Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 6:09 pm

Clayfoot
Entrenched

Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA

thebruce wrote:

Quote:

That's because I'm relying on the criteria. You're welcome to dispute the criteria, but I would expect you to substitute some other criteria...

But if the argument is that there is no criteria, then you're saying anyone who doesn't offer criteria is wrong automatically, with no need for a reason.

I warned you that it's hard to prove the negative...
Here's the thing: In order to prove that there is no criteria, you can't just prove that every criteria I can think of is not correct. You must prove that there cannot exist a criteria.
Here's one approach:
Postulate the existence of some hypothetical criterion that defines art.
Prove that this hypothetical criterion cannot exist.
Assert that this proof demonstrates that are no criteria sufficient to define art.

thebruce wrote:

Well, like I said Clayfoot, I'm confident that your search for a universal definition of Art will never end...

No, really; I'm done for now. Maybe I'll find some other criterion to add later, but my current framework seems to hold up. Some folks even think it's pretty good.

thebruce wrote:

Anything you find someone considers in order to judge art for themselves, I'm positive you will find someone or something that defies that definition...

Possibly true, but I'm willing to face that eventually, and adjust my definition when the time comes.

thebruce wrote:

you're looking for something that can't exist. Can I prove it can't exist? no, because we'd need to ask every single living person for everything they consider when calling something 'art', in order to find a common denominator. And as time goes on, the chances of that commonality between every person remaining the same are practically nil.

Well, that's one approach to proving it, but I think the approach I proposed above wouldn't take quite as long.

thebruce wrote:

But, it is a great discussion into what comprises art, and hopefully will help people examine 'art' or 'stuff' more closely, and learn to appreciate things for what they are, or aren't, worth. It's a healthy, though endless, and possibly confusing, discussion Smile

Gee, I hope you're right. Phaedra thinks this kind of discussion is fun, but I'm sure to have blown out a few folks by now.

_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 6:21 pm

Clayfoot
Entrenched

Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA

vector wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

vector wrote:

Art being more or less officialy defined much the same way porn is, as "you know it when you see it" can encumpus nature.

Supreme Court Justice Stewart offered that definition for pornography, because he wanted to avoid defining it more specifically ('cause of the gross out factor). We, on the other hand, want to define art more specifically.

I belive that he presented that definition because porn canot be defined, it is changeing and different to those who perceive it and as the times change. In exactly the same way that art canot be defined except by those who perceive it. which was of course my point.

You may be right about Justice Stewart's private motivation, but that is not what he said about it, and his opinion was only one of the three Justices' opinions used to write the Court's definition of obscenity. The others were much more specific. From the article linked above (sorry, a a bit graphic):

Spoiler (Rollover to View):

According to The Brethren, the law clerks that drafted the Justices' opinions created the following short hand for how their bosses decided if material was obscene:

Justice Byron White's Definition: "no erect penises, no intercourse, no oral or anal sodomy. For White, no erections and no insertions equaled no obscenity."

Justice Brennan's Definition, The Limp Dick Test: "no erections. He was willing to accept penetration as long as the pictures passed what his clerks referred to as the 'limp dick' standard. Oral sex was tolerable if there was no erection."

Justice Stewart's Definition, The Casablanca Test: "
. . . I know it [obscenity/pornography] when I see it." In Casablanca, as a Navy lieutenant in World War II and watch officer for his ship, Stewart had seen his men bring back locally produced pornography. He knew the difference between that hardest of hard core and much of what came to the Court. He called it his 'Casablanca Test'."

There now; we're free to define art more specifically, too.

vector wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

vector wrote:

As you are the one perceiving it and you are the one that sees it, you define if that bit of nature/city/act/picture/nothing is art to you.

That is not correct. You have not defined it as art, you have merely recognized that you like it.

Unless ofcourse I recognise that I hate it and still call it art. Nature is not all beauty and happy squirrls hopping around. Nature is also terrible and frightning and powerful and moving, which I can still recognise as art.

That is not art that you're recognizing, even if you choose to call it art.

vector wrote:

dang it, there was supposed to be a NOT in that sentence. read as The requirement for something to be art is NOT that that it is created by an artist, but that it is seen by someone that is moved by that image/sound/feel.

Oh. Can the artist and the audience be one and the same? Would this audience judge the work by its originality, virtuosity, and riskiness? Maybe we agree on this more than I thought.

vector wrote:

I compleately agree with Phaedra and Dorkmaster as they rock my world.

Phaedra is right: they don't agree on a definition of art. They can still rock your world (and mine), but there is no way to agree with both of them about this.

_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 6:50 pm

thebruce
Dances With Wikis

Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario

edit: blah! I've done it again... *sigh* (I promise this is my last enormous post, I've made my points Wink

)

Clayfoot wrote:

Quote:

But if the argument is that there is no criteria, then you're saying anyone who doesn't offer criteria is wrong automatically, with no need for a reason.

But in the same way, as much as you are able to show that there are common requirements to define art, they do not define art universally, they only define art for those whom agree with you. If you find that intentional expression is an aspect of what defines art, it only defines art for the extent that your postulation is tested. Saying that's a universal definition is a comment that cannot be proven either. Just as I cannot say there is no universal definition, you cannot say there is. Both require knowing everyone's opinion, which neither of us can. So, while I focus on the idea that no matter what definition you propose to define art, there will be someone who disagrees, you focus on the idea that if it's widely accepted, then it must be universal.

Quote:

I'm done for now. Maybe I'll find some other criterion to add later, but my current framework seems to hold up.

For your own definition, and many others... I would agree with many definition of what art is to people. I have no right to disagree with your definition of art. But as I said, what may fall under 'art' for you, may not for someone else. And you're saying that doesn't matter. Or at least, because I don't name a specific case, then I'm wrong. I'm not trying to prove a point by example - I'm simply saying, if you can agree that at the point someone disagrees with the definition of art you propose, that that definition cannot be universal, then you'll search your whole life for a definition that will never be disagreed with. That doesn't need an example to prove.

Quote:

thebruce wrote:

Anything you find someone considers in order to judge art for themselves, I'm positive you will find someone or something that defies that definition...

Possibly true, but I'm willing to face that eventually, and adjust my definition when the time comes.

Again, there you go... an altering definition is not a universal definition. If a definition can change at any time, who says it needs to change and when? It's a change that is based on one or many opinions, an individual or a group of people. And then the definition applies to that group of people, who accept that definition as a valid standard to determine what is art.

Quote:

thebruce wrote:

And as time goes on, the chances of that commonality between every person remaining the same are practically nil.

Well, that's one approach to proving it, but I think the approach I proposed above wouldn't take quite as long.

But then you assume to know what is fact, and apply that fact to every person in existence (merely by stating it as the universal definition of art). But as usual, if one person holds value in something you don't consider art, and wants it for themselves as art, then it is art to that person, even if you and the majority of others consider it otherwise.

Quote:

vector wrote:

That is not art that you're recognizing, even if you choose to call it art.

That's a pompous comment Razz

you're telling someone that what they consider art is not art. Who are you to say that? If he, and 1000's of others agree that it's art, is it now art? Or does it not matter how many consider it art, because it's not art (by your definition)? Can you not see my point here? A definition of art only applies to those who accept that definition. If anyone disagrees, they're not in that bubble of artistic appreciation. What you consider a 'universal' definition, only applies to those in your bubble of artistic appreciation. I can't say that bubble doesn't extent forever (not a universal definition), but you can't say it does.

Just as you're asking to prove that there cannot be a universal definition, I ask you to prove that any definition you find is a universal definition. Neither can be proven. In that, I rest that art is appreciated and considered on a personal level, and agreed to be art corporately within a group of people falling under the same culture or artistic appreciation. If you don't think it's art, you don't belong in that bubble; but you can't tell them they're wrong for considering it art.

Quote:

if you choose to see everything as stuff and nothing as art, that's your choice. Art is a personal definition.

No, it isn't. Art has a common definition that we share.

So you're stating that as fact. Why are you trying to find a definition then if you know there is one already?

Quote:

I never said anything that has value is art, I said value is one aspect of what one might consider when deciding if something is art. I pay for a loaf of bread to eat, but I don't consider it art. Though someone may appreciate how the loaf of bread was made, how every loaf has a unique form, how the hands that made it rolled it and took the care to produce a good, satisfying loaf of food; that breadmaking is an art form. They hold artistic value in the loaf of bread. You could set up a number of loaves and they could choose their favourite... it might sound wierd, but how many wierd art shows are there out in the world we hear about on a regular basis? Someone's purchase may be another person's art; someone's art may be another person's garbage. Just by that fact alone we are hard pressed to find a unversal definition for what and is not art. But it is easy find a majority of people who will agree to what art is. I tell ya, to not have the artistic appreciation to put artistic value on the Mona Lisa is quite odd. But the artistic appreciation to hold artistic value in a glob of spit on a napkin is also quite small... most will not... but there are the few who will.

Quote:

Expression is one aspect of art, value is another.

"Value" is just the concept of worth in general, and "expression" is merely communication in one form or another. Without qualifying what you mean by "value" and by "expression", you haven't added anything to the discussion.

so... what do you want me to add? If one expresses oneself, that may be considered art; or it may not. If one purchases a piece of art, it may or may not mean the purchaser holds artistic value in the piece, just as not buying a piece of art does not mean they person holds not artistic value in the piece. Expression is one possible aspect, just as monetary value is. Neither define art, just as neither are excluded from defining possible art.

Quote:

At least, I've provided a framework within which my defintion can be judged.

As have I. My definition is what I consider art. And for the most part I'd agree with you. I think we can agree that in our culture, there is quite a commonality for what is considered art and not, but there are fringe definitions, usually groups of people who hold to themselves and enjoy their own lifestyles... So, what you've provided is a definition with which you define art. But not a definition with which every living person defines art. And you'll never be able to find or offer a definition that you can prove is a universal definition.

Quote:

Art is art to the individual, or to a collective group of people.

No, it isn't.

Howso?

Quote:

There is no standard of reference from which to define art universally.

Yes, there is.

tell us

Quote:

And since nonexistence of a standard of reference is a negative assertion, it likely cannot be proven.

Yeah... but nor can an assertion that claims to define a universal fact.

Quote:

There is a set of common criteria that seperates art from stuff

Give us your definition

*link*

Sorry, that's your (and many other people's) definition - not the definition. How can I say that? I'm saying it's the definition for all of us who accept it as the definition. By nature, it can't be assumed to be the definition also for everyone we haven't asked if they agree.

Quote:

Your definition is not universal. You have not proved it. Your saying it over and over does not make it a fact. Adding some evidence or examples that prove it's the universal definition would help. See, it can go both ways Smile

Quote:

If you want to convince anyone that it is true, you really should offer some evidence that art can only be defined on an individual or group level.

Sure. The definition you provided is defined by those who agree it's the definition. That's a group of people. The definition a hermit may consider art may only be his own opinion. The definition of what North American considers art may be only accepted by North America. Same with Australia, or Ethiopia, or Venice, or the House of 1000 Corpses... who knows. That's what I'm saying. I'm not saying your definition of art is wrong, I'm saying there's more to it than simply saying "my definition".

Quote:

If it is pointless to ask you to explain what you mean by "value", perhaps that is because neither of us knows what you mean by it, and that it doesn't really support your point.

Ok, what I consider art is anything that is expression of one's emotions, or an expression of belief, which is accepted and holds value with at least one person out there. I generally don't consider something art if only the artist holds value in it, because the goal of expressing was not reached. My exception is when an individual performs a detestable act with a goal to gain a reaction. If the goal is reached, I'd consider it art as well. I wouldn't consider something of value only if it has monetary value, ie that someone is willing to pay for it, but I would say something is as valuable as what someone would give to own it or appreciate it if it's not ownable. For me, art is an expression, whether it be by action or materialistic, and I consider it art if the goal of its expression is reached - be it being purchased, or evoking a response, positive or negative (being purchased in a sense is a monetary expression of the evoked response of the observer, so if someone wants to buy a piece of art because of the value they hold in it (not just because), then the art has accomplished its purpose.
But as I say, that's my definition of art, and not necessarily every person on this planet. And my definition may change as new points are brought forth. What I consider art now I might consider garbage years from now, or I may have considered trash years ago... that's the beauty of art, it's ever changing, never the same, unique; if not piece by piece, then by the very definition that makes it art to the observer.

Quote:

No, it proves my point that artistic appreciation is valid to the group, or teacher, for whom it applies. Art and music appreciation classes teach how to appreciate art, in the opinion of the one teaching. Many would find such classes boring, or misleading. My point is, find out what you connect with, appreciate it, learn to connect with artists' minds, what their expressions are all about... that's why there's different kinds of museums, different cultures and such. Because the general consensus of what composes art differs from group to group. There is no universal definition of art, at least, there can never be proven to be; that's my assertion, and it's an unprovable one. just as unprovable as saying there is a universal definition.

Quote:

Yes. Universally, stuff just is. Also, art just is. There's no such thing as "art to you"; that's just personal preference again.

But if I considers something art, and hold value in it, then you come along and say, but no, that's not art, I'm not just going to go 'oh, ok then'... because it won't stop me from holding artistic value in it... 'define value' you say... I say, prove to me you love your mother. It's an emotion, it's a connection, and emotions cannot be proven outside of expression. Perhaps that might be a definition of what art is - an expression of emotion in some form or other. But I'm sure there are examples of art that weren't expressions, or were simply emotionless. So there goes that possibility of a universal definition.

Quote:

You say a universal definition exists. So, tell us what it is, and prove to us that no one on this world disagrees, and no one will ever disagree or has ever disagreed. Then you'll have proven that there is a universal definition. Art appreciation class isn't there to define art. It's there to allow people to open their minds appreciate certain things for their artistic value. Many will not find value where the teacher leads. Many will. The classes don't define art, they guide people to help them with an ability to empathize with the artist and appreciate expressiveness. You can say "it's all good, now go home", but then it wouldn't be an art appreciation class. But there can be 50 different kinds of art appreciation classes, all appreciating different kinds of art, some even disagreeing that what they're appreciating is art.
So again, art appreciation class doesn't prove the existence of a universal definition, nor does it disprove it.

ok tell me how this happens... one minute I'm answering a couple comments, the next I've written a book... *sigh*
Ok, I promise I'm now done. I waste too much time writing Razz

hehe

_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2005 12:21 am

krystyn
I Never Tire of My Own Voice

Joined: 26 Sep 2002
Posts: 3651
Location: Is not Chicago

I am eating toast with butter that melted in the shape of thebruce's face.

Is it art?

Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2005 10:39 am

Phaedra
Lurker v2.0

Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously

krystyn wrote:

I am eating toast with butter that melted in the shape of thebruce's face.

Is it art?

Is it good?

_________________
Voted Most Likely to Thread-Jack and Most Patient Explainer in the ILoveBees Awards.

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind

Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2005 10:49 am

Display posts from previous: Sort by:

Page 7 of 10 [137 Posts]

Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Forum index » Archive » Archive: The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!) » The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!): Questions/Meta

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum