unforum

[Clayfoot]

[thebruce]

The Harpy eagle example is faulty, because the proofs don't both require knowledge of all possibilities - one claims the eagle is extinct, one says it is not. To claim it's extinct, you have to prove that none exist - near impossible task, if not impossible. To claim it's not, all you need to find is one. Finding a universal definition is not the same - you can find a definition, but you have to prove that it's universal - that's not the same as finding *1* eagle. You can find *1* definition, but you have to know that it's the same for all people that currently and ever existed. Neither can one say to an end that no universal definition exists, as one cannot say that one does exist. The cases of "finding a universal definition of art" vs "finding a single eagle" do not parallel.

And please, I have very respectfully avoided pointing out your grammatical and typing errors, knowing the points you're getting across, and yet you choose to point out errors of mine, so that what - you can attempt to lower my impression to others, or reputation? Please respect me as I've respected you. "How so?" is a valid statement. "How does your claim so exist?" Howso, Howsoever, and "how so" are all understood to mean the same thing, even if miniscule details differ... this isn't a battle of grammatical intellect or keyboard prowess.

So, the point is - what you are looking for is a universal definition of what specific examples can fall under the umbrella of 'art'. You aren't looking to describe an emotion. Sadness is known to have a common attribute throughout humanity - we know what sadness is because it's inbuilt to humanity - and even then, what makes some sad, confuses others as to why, and vice versa. Sadness is very good parallel to art in that sense, because sadness is much more definable, since it's a natural emotion that's fairly constant across humanity. Art is nowhere near that defined and simplistic, per se. Art has a much wider range of being than sadness... you might say art encompasses sadness in many cases.

I'm just going to lay it out here...
You are looking for a universal definition of art - what you believe is inbuilt to humanity - helping us know by nature, what is considered art, to the same degree that we for example, know what sadness is. In order to know that definition, we need to have a knowledge of what is common across all cultures and peoples of our world, and through documented history.
You say we know by nature what art is. I agree. Art, in its emotional/cultural connection, is universal. But in order to define a specific example as 'art', so that all people, and assumedly, all people who've existed, will also all agree that it's art, there needs to be a universally agreed upon definition of what defines any specific example as art -- not a universal definition of the act of considering something art... I'm not sure how to better articulate it. But you're conflating a definition of what is and isn't an artistic work, vs the emotional aspect of the fact that all humanity knows what 'art' is.

What I'm saying is that 'art' itself is known and is universal, but the actual definition by which we can define specific examples of what is art and what is not art, agreeable to all people through all time (ie, universal), will take an unknowable amount time, if ever...

re: beautiful landscape not being art

You're claiming to say that, if universal, nature can never be considered art, and anyone anywhere who considers it art is -wrong-. How can you say that? I would very much consider a beautiful landscape art. If a photographer takes a snapshot of it, that snapshot I would consider art. As for nature itself being art, well that, as you say, entirely depends on whether you consider God an artist, or value the beauty in chaos, or value some natural process if you don't believe in God... and please don't bring up the issue of a definition of 'value' again... if you value something, you need to define what you mean by value. I explained what I consider valuable in my eyes as art. When I say 'artistic value', you need to ask whoever is considering something art, not me, what they consider artistic in what they call art. This is why the specific definition of art, by example, is entirely personal, whereas the fact that all of humanity has the common acceptance that art exists is universal. But that's as far as 'universal' goes.

On the largest scale, art exists. Therefore art is universal. Any narrower of a definition, and you're already bound to find disagreement, I believe. As you search for how deep that common definition may go, all you can say is that 'so far, the agreed definition of art that I've found is...' but you can't say 'this is the universal definition of art...' the first is a statement of fact, the second expands your search to a universal assumption. Such as 'innocent until proven guilty'. Except there, innocent is assumed knowing full well that it may be false - guilty parties have been released as innocent, if the defense is greater than the prosecution. Art is an elusive party. Is it art or is it not? In this case, one can't state for a fact "this is art", because it very well may not be; nor can one state for a fact that "this is not art", because it very well may be. What you are looking for is a definition that is more absolute than a court ruling, which is a ruling by limited human judgement. What you are looking for is a definition that all courts in the world and throughout human existence, would agree unanimously is a valid definition. ie, if you take it to all courts, never will one jury member, judge, or even courtroom guest, voice an opposing opinion.

Now, if you believe that art is majority rule, then that whole argument gets thrown out the window. Art is no longer a universal definition, it's a 'generally agreed' upon definition. Therefore one who goes against the flow therefore becomes "wrong".

My challenge is simply for you to find that universal definition. We all know art exists, therefore art is universal. But the definition of what is art universally, is here what is being discussed. And that, I say, is something you'll never be able to find out.

We all agree art exists. We all agree art is universal, because it exists across all cultures in some form.
We do not agree that there is a universal definition by which specific examples can be compared in order to determine, universally, that said example is or is not art.
That is your mission, and as hmrpita said, I wish you the best of luck!

[Clayfoot]

[Nightmare Tony]

You have me all wrong, Clayfoot. I do not consider my statement to be baiting of you (it's not in my genes to play those kind of games). I was merely stating an observation concerning art and that uyou may consider your constant deconstructionism as art.

You have made a faulty rejoinder since I *DID* specify that the photographic or recording angle is not a valid consensus as to nature as art. That is merely the intetrpretative eye of the photographer.

Art being beautiful is a purely subjective thing. We have discussed THAT point to death as well. Not a valid point there. I must ask you to please stop attempting to bring up that point again. They say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. A true statement there.

I had stated before about Frank Zappa's interpretation of art mentioned in one of his books. It is basicalyl drawing a frame around it and calling it art. If you attach a microhpone to your throat and drink carrot juice and record the sounds and call it art, then it is art. Otherwise its just someone gargling carrot juice.

[Dorkmaster]

First, a Pre-emptive clause: I have not read all of Nightmare Tony's posts on this subject.

Now, my thoughts:

I tend to wholeheartedly agree with Nightmare Tony's last posting, where he states the "Zappa method" of defining art...

The only interjection I would make is that the intention is what makes this work...

In the example of the gargler of carrot juice... what made that art? The microphone! And why would you have a microphone if you had no intention of broadcast or recording? And it's quite difficult to broadcast or record completely unintentionally. Therefore, the intention was to record or broadcast, and that's what makes it different from some guy gargling carrot juice! There was an intentional shift in the action to make it something "set apart" from the normal... does the action/piece have to be ABnormal then to function as art, NO! (But it could be!) It just has to be taken away from the normal context and set aside, in a manner that calls attention to itself.

The microphone draws attention away from the normalcy of the situation. Yes, gargling carrot juice is a bit abnormal, but say it was gargling water alone... but the "creator" of the "piece" wanted to record it... that simple action of recording makes it art, instead of someone waking up... They may never intend for someone else to view the "piece", to hear the recording... they may not think it is "pleasant" or they may... They may want the situation to seem completely "normal" in its presentation... however, the fact that it would be presented... that it would be set aside in a manner that takes it out of context intentionally, makes it art.

(I know I'm gonna get quoted and ripped apart here, so let it fly)

But in short (for those who wish to quote something easier):
1 - Art must be intentional (either in its creation, or in its modification to become such)
2 - Art must be "set apart" from the ordinary (but could be completely ordinary in and of itself)
3 - Art's beauty and value are completely subjective.
4 - Art can be, but doesn't have to be, public to be called art.
5 - Anyone who creates art (by abiding by the previous 4 rules) is an artist.

[water10]

[Nightmare Tony]

Dorkmaster: if I remember correctly, Zappa also describes in there that his define is putting a frame around it to call it art. The microphone recording it could amplify or record or be in front of a live audience. so the microhpone is not necessary.

Because I view nature, I define it as art which is my own subjective. Especially where I live. about 400 feet behind my house is a hill and behind THAT is a couple of thousand of acres of unspoiled forest preserves. So while nature over here is commonplace, it is also a thing of beauty and thereby artistic. If you took a simple photograph without even setting up for a shot, you could do an art gallery gig based on point and shoots alone.

From beautiful patterns of a snowflake to the majesty of the redwoods, we find beauty and grandeur and artistic value wherever we seek. From the lights at night of the metropolis to the interstate roads fading off into the horizon, there is unintentional art. The rollercoaster structures I love so much are the artistic dream of building architects, for their majesty, form and balance.

Art simple IS.

[Dorkmaster]

Tony, the only point I wish to make is this: (cuz again, I don't want to get into another deep topic of theology as far as "nature being art" and my opinion is that you cannot separate the two, so agreed or not...)

What makes it art is the frame, like you said... Therefore, someone is taking something that may very well be beautiful in itself, but not art, until the "artist" takes that frame and makes it so. There is an intentional "click" that shifts something from ordinary to artistic. Taking a point and shoot of an already beautiful forest makes the ordinary Art, because you've "framed it", with the intention of making that moment stand out. That piece is now "set".

And just to be clear, the microphone isn't necessary for the example you gave to make it art because it amplifies or records, specifically, but more so because it does take that ordinary action and "set it apart" by recording or amplifying, or whatever the microphone is doing... The point is that you wouldn't put a microphone there unless you wanted to draw attention to the action you are using the mic for, right? Therefore intentional "separation" from the ordinary, and TA-DA! Art.

And since I see the argument coming, I once more state that the piece of art doesn't have to be public! It just has to not be "the ordinary state of things."

my only criteria for art (until proven otherwise) are as such:

1) Is it intentional?

2) Does it amplify or set apart something from the ordinary world?

3) Is there an artist behind its creation? (More to the point, does that creator consider itself an artist in respect to that specific piece?)

Pretty much, if I see yes to those three questions, then I say it is art. And if it doesn't say yes to any of those? Then I really have to have some huge or amazingly interesting compensating factors to give it a chance as art.

Again, I know this is taking something typically seen as "fluid" and giving it "structure"... like putting a straw in Jell-O and calling it "solid" So people will disagree with me... but if there are rules to art, (and I believe that there are) then I see no problem with these being those defining set of rules. (Of course, I'm not a good speaker or writer, so I'm sure they could be written more elegantly.)

[Clayfoot]

[Clayfoot]

[Clayfoot]

[Clayfoot]

[aliendial]

Gah! If we can't have word limits on posts, at least PAGE limits! That's the ticket...

[hmrpita]

[ariock]

The inverse relationship of post length to number of posts