unforum

[thebruce]

edit: hey! new page!

re: harpy eagles, proponents, hypotheses, etc etc
I won't bother commenting extensively on that part, cuz it's long and drawn out, still not addressing what I explained last time... the parallel doesn't work because as you say "To conclusively prove B, the proponents must find one at least one criterion that would fit in a universal definition of art. B's proponents need not find all of the criteria to prove B, just as B's proponents, above, need not find all of the Harpy Eagles to prove their hypothesis." However you're wrong in that part. To prove that the eagles aren't extinct, you need to find one eagle. To prove that a definition is universal, you need to find that all people agree with the definition. Those are not parallel arguments. A valid parellel would be, for instance, 'there are no definitions for art in existence' - to disprove it, all you'd need to find is one definition of art. But you're looking for a universal definition of art, which is on an entirely different level than finding one definition.

re: howso
when I asked 'howso?' I meant precisely the definitions you supplied - To what degree or extent? By what means? Please explain how? Perhaps I should have put a space between how_so, just to have avoided this pointless grammar chat

re: art appreciation
as it establishes a context - again, depending on where the teacher leads, it teaches to broaden your horizons within a framework or context. So how expansive is that framework? that's the question... many will argue that as soon as you put a boundary on what can be considered art, you limit exactly what makes art art - the ability to have total freedom of expression. Now we need to define expression, and find out what else may be missing, because obviously so far, we know that expression itself isn't enough to define 'art'.

"I don't really see a universal definition as requiring unanimous agreement across time."
But then it's not universal... because at any point, a definition may change... as you said, photography wasn't considered an art form until recently. But can photography contain a universal aspect of what is considered art? If not, then nothing relating to photography can be considered part of the universal definition, because at some point, it wasn't art. So what is it about photography that's common to -all- 'art' we know about today? very little, outside of that 'framework' context... existence isn't enough.

re: art value / personal taste
I think when you ask for a definition of 'artistic value', you are asking the same question - 'define art'. Personal taste expands beyond artistic value, yes, but personal taste is a heavy component of what one considers artistic value. 'artistic value' defines art. 'artistic value' may change at any time to individual people. This is why I don't believe there is a -universal- definition for artistic value or art itself.

re: flat earth
please stop paralleling the 'flat earth' theory with the idea that Art has a universal definition. We know the earth is round because 'round' has a specific definition already. It can be tested and shown to be true regardless of one's beliefs. The earth is 'round', because that's the definition of round. We have no basis of reference to define art. "the earth is round, because 'round' is...". "This is art, because 'art' is..." what? what is art? That's what we're looking for... if we didn't have a definition for round, then yes one would have the freedom to believe one way or the other of the nature or shape of the earth. But we know what roudn is, and we can demonstrate that the earth is that. But don't know what art is, and we can't demonstrate (yet, supposedly) that anything we compare to 'art' falls under its definition.

"I don't think a universal definition of art needs unanimous agreement"
"Universal definitions don't depend on unanimous or even majority opinion, they depend on universal applicability."
what's the difference? universal definition vs universal applicability?
any definition can be applied universally... but the deduction cannot be a final yes or no, because the definitions aren't mutually exclusive. One can't apply a definition and conclude therefore that this is or is not art - at least until it's known that a universal definition exists - ie that any particular definition has never been disagreed, and that any particular definition can be assumed never to be disagreed by anyone who hasn't yet been asked, now or in the future. That's the definition of 'universal' - all-encompassing, not 'currently known' or 'majority opinion'.

As I said previously, please define specifically what you are looking for...
- A list of definitions of what can be considered art? check!
- Evidence that all of humanity has the ability to recognize art? check!
- A definition by which anything can be compared to definitively conclude 'art' or 'not art' universally? point of contention, which I believe not possible to be known, by the nature of 'universal'.

if a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound?
the argument of 'putting a frame around it' to call it art, really, essentially, doesn't narrow anything down. Nature, itself, by that context isn't art, -until someone looks at it in a frame of reference-. Is nature art? Aside from the God argument, no, it simply exists. But do you need to physically take a picture of it in a certain way just to make it art? Can I not appreciate it for what it is, without having to put a 'frame' around it? How does photographic the scene artistically capture any more about the scene for me other than suddenly limiting its range and depth? I personally may find more artistic value in the natural scene itself than in the photograph.

But, in that sense, simply by gazing at the scene, I'm 'setting it apart', or putting nature into a frame - a frame in my mind, making it art to me... so if a 'frame' is anything from physically framing an image, to applying a microphone to a sound, to standing in front of a group, to simply gazing in awe at a scene, then technically the 'frame' is simply any attempt to draw attention to something in any way, positive or negative, publicly or privately. Again, in essence, anything has the potential to become art to someone.
The only thing by that definition that cannot ever be art, is that which has not seen the potential to be gazed at by those to whom 'art' exists... ie, if a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound?

I think also that the point remains that every time you've said "I think you're on to something" in response to a specific definition, it's been shown that it's not universal... ie, all of the definition shared here -are- valid definitions, but they aren't mutually exclusive, and they not everyone shares the same opinion... so how can any of these definition be 'universal'?

And if you're looking for a 'universal' definition, but you don't believe that 'universal' definition to necessarily be accepted by everyone, then I beg you use a different term, or at least clarify what you're looking for. Because I still hold a real 'universal' definition can't exist on a matter that is entirely subjective. But there are boatloads of definitions of that can be considered art, most also common across many if not all cultures.

[Nightmare Tony]

Amen, Bruce. It's been one fun week, and a nuclear bomb just dropped today, for which I am superbly happy.

Clayfoot, I found the rejoinder to me that Bruce quoted that you had said to me to be fairly insulting. Just an FYI. If you wish to argue professionalism in terms of artistic value, I have several degreed skills involving the audio and visual arts. That honestly deosnt meant anything when it all comes down to things. But when you have to get downright anal in terms of who defines what in art, then you have truly lost your objectivity and your point in your argument.