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 Tue Nov 12, 2024 3:39 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 8 of 10 [137 Posts]

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

Author

Message

krystyn
I Never Tire of My Own Voice

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

It was delicious!

Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2005 11:26 am

Phaedra
Lurker v2.0

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

krystyn wrote:

It was delicious!

Then who cares if it's art?

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

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind

Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2005 11:28 am

thebruce
Dances With Wikis

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

may I say, ouch!

What kind of butter is it? I'd say it's good if it's garlic butter. love garlic butter...

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

Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2005 11:28 am

Phaedra
Lurker v2.0

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

thebruce wrote:

may I say, ouch!

What kind of butter is it? I'd say it's good if it's garlic butter. love garlic butter...

*Phaedra has a sudden desire for a crumpet with honey butter.

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

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind

Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2005 11:30 am

thebruce
Dances With Wikis

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

I've got a tortilla here and the pattern on the wrap looks strangely like clayfoot... oh hey, and the lettuce that just fell out kind of looks like... krystyn, dancing with angelo! crazy!

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

Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2005 11:33 am

Dorkmaster
Unfictologist

Joined: 27 Jul 2004
Posts: 1328
Location: The People's Republic of Dork

Phaedra, you make my mouth water with that whole honey butter thing... *DM makes Homer Simpson-style gurgling sound

Anyway, sorry to get back to stabbing each other with our minds, but I just wanted to clarify something that Clayfoot brought up when discussing my "intentionality" concept that I just won't let die... (See, I know!)

Just having something intentional does not make it art. However, when someone is intending to create art, then they do... That's what I meant. just to be clear.

(See, no long winded speeches, no muss, no fuss Cool

)

_________________
"The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet." -William Gibson
"Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it." - PJ O'Rourke
"ACADEMY, n. A modern school where football is taught." - Ambrose Bierce

Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2005 2:34 pm

Clayfoot
Entrenched

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

thebruce wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Oh, I don't claim to have the last word on what defines art. I claim that we have a word "art" that's defined differently from "stuff", because we all know that it means something different, that art has a universal meaning that we all share, a meaning that transcends personal taste. Preference for a given set of artworks, however, is purely based on personal taste, background, and any number of other personal factors. I know you want to conflate the two, but it's really not helpful. However, I understand how hard it was for you to admit you that you can't prove your point about the nonexistence of a definition, and I applaud your dignity and bravery.
Definitions do not require unanimous acclaim to be true; widely accepted is more than good enough. In this case, I claim that all of us carry around this definition; some of just just don't want to believe it.

thebruce wrote:

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.

Yep, that's the thing about definitions and facts. They're either right, or they're not. Of course, not everyone believes the facts, no matter what evidence is available. As of 2003, the Flat Earth Society still had about 3000 members. It doesn't actually take universal acceptance for a universal definition to stand.

thebruce wrote:

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.

Actually, it just says that I know I may be wrong on the specifics, while still holding to the principal. If anything, my position reinforces the notion of a definition of art that exists, but is elusive. The fact that I was able to come up with relatively good criteria so quickly and easily suggests that the definition is really pretty well understood by all of us on some internal level.

thebruce wrote:

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.

Actually, not only have I assumed to know, I have tried in my own humble way to proved that it is a fact. Yet, you keep repeating this business of "art is art to you", without proving that it has any meaning beyond personal preference. I'm convinced that you believe in this notion, however misguided.

thebruce wrote:

Quote:

vector wrote:

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.

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.

It was a pompous comment, however true. I withdraw the sentiment. Let me illustrate what I meant by example. At one time, my daughter pointed to pigeons and said "Chicken! I eat it." Now, she was right about eating chickens, but those weren't actually chickens at which she was pointing. They may have looked tasty and been "chickens to her", but they were still pigeons at the end of the day.
The definition of art extends to everybody, whether they accept it or not. The earth is round, whether the Flat Earth Society accepts it or not --though it might advise their travel plans... I don't need to poll everyone to get their opinion on the shape of the Earth, and the existence of 3000 doubters does not refute the principal of a round Earth. Pigeons are not chickens, no matter how tasty they looked to my daughter. Believe me, she was hard to convince on this point, too.

thebruce wrote:

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.

Perception is always colored by experience, so a reaction to something as artful (i.e., beautiful, moving, or substitute your favorite art-y adjective) or unartful (i.e., ugly, unoriginal, or substitute your favorite negative art-y adjective) is necessarily subjective, but that's just an expression of personal taste. That subjective reaction takes nothing away from the universal quality of art as a conceptual collection of works.
By the way, asserting (again and again) that my position is unproven while ignoring every example and piece of evidence I've offered is interesting as a tactic, but unconvincing. When you use an unproven counter assertion to "prove" that your position is correct (again, without supporting evidence), your claim is particularly weak.

By now, I am convinced that you believe beyond persuasion that art is subjectively defined, all evidence to the contrary not withstanding.

thebruce wrote:

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:

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.

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.

Actually, you said, "I believe art is some thing or act which is perceived to have value by one or more entities." link
How that's different from saying "anything that has value is art" is beyond me.
Of course, you never said what you meant by "value."

thebruce wrote:

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.

I want you to add what you mean by "expression" and "value". Neither define art, because neither define anything at all, without some specificity. Without specifying what you mean by "value" and by "expression", you haven't made it clear what you're trying to say. There's no value in your expression. Razz

thebruce wrote:

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.

By learning the underlying context, we can even add the art of other cultures to the collection of work we consider art. Why do you suppose that is? Why, it's because across cultures, languages, and preferences, we have a common concept and definition of what qualifies as art. We all know what art is, even if we don't agree on what we like.

thebruce wrote:

Quote:

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

No, it isn't.

Howso?

Did you mean, "Howsoever?" ?
To the extent that art is not individually defined. To the extent that personal preference does not define art.

thebruce wrote:

Quote:

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

Yes, there is.

tell us

What, again? The mind positively boggles.

thebruce wrote:

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.

That is incorrect. All that I have to prove is that such a definition or criteria exists. Technically, I do not have to find the criteria or prove that any particular criterion is part of the definition. My burden of proof is actually lower than yours, in this case.

thebruce wrote:

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.

A definition need not be accepted by everyone to be a fact. See the Flat Earth Society, described earlier.

thebruce wrote:

Quote:

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.

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

I have added evidence and examples. I understand that you might dispute some or all of that evidence, but I have at least offered it for consideration.

thebruce wrote:

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".

I'm saying all of those groups and the rest of humanity already agrees that art has a common definition, and that personal preference is all that is defined subjectively. I'm saying that regional tastes do not redefine the concept of art.

thebruce wrote:

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.

That is a description of what guides your personal tastes, not a definition of art.

thebruce wrote:

Quote:

That is a definition; it's just a circular one: Art is what someone says art is (okay, to them). If your definition 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.

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.

Art appreciation classes teach students how to find the underlying art in unfamiliar places. They establish context to recognize the inherent (universal, general, common) art in artworks. If the art was purely defined by personal preference, there would be no way to convey appreciation of existing works. Either students would already like (appreciate, react to, etc) it, or they never would. No need to have a class for that.
It's an interesting (and by interesting, I mean baffling) tactic to claim that your own assertion cannot be proven. That implies you believe both that your assetion is true and that it cannot be true. Concluding that my assertion is unprovable because of yours is a non sequitur; it doesn't follow logically.

thebruce wrote:

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.

If you consider something art, you are expressing your personal opinion, to which everyone is entitled. Diverting to a definition of love does nothing to describe what "artistic value" might mean, though I might point out that everyone understands what love is and shares a common definition of it. Nevertheless, asserting that your definition must be true because you believe it does not logically lead to a conclusion that a universal definition does not exist.

thebruce wrote:

Quote:

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."

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.

Unversal agreement is not required for definitions. Facts are handy that way. I don't even have to complete the definition to prove that it exists. Logic is convenient that way.

thebruce wrote:

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.

Art appreciation classes don't have to define art; it's already innate. Art appreciation classes establish context for appreciating art. We have art appreciation classes, because we already believe that art is a universal quality, requiring only context to spur recognition of art. To the extent that art and music appreciation establish the context to recognize works of art and of music, these lessons imply that art is already defined.

thebruce wrote:

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

You could always try a new strategy...

_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 1:47 am

thebruce
Dances With Wikis

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

Ok, maybe I do have too much time on my hands Razz

my afternoon's free.. hehe
This might actually become the longest thread page I've ever seen... Shocked Silly

If you want to skip the whole post (I wouldn't blame you), the last section gets down to the point without refuting each and every comment I'm replying to... Razz

So...

Clayfoot wrote:

It's not conflating anything... I'm never saying someone is wrong for their definition of art. A definition can include the parameter of a personal opinion. Art does have a different definition that Stuff. But now you need to tell what you state is the universal definition of Art. And if you don't have one, then you can't say there is one. But you can say you're seeking to find that definition. That statement I can concede to... but you can see the difference. One is a statement of fact which is not currently known, the other is a statement of a goal.

Quote:

However, I understand how hard it was for you to admit you that you can't prove your point about the nonexistence of a definition, and I applaud your dignity and bravery.

Well thank you, I think. However I still see you trying to prove an unprovable claim... if that's wrong, tell me how you can be absolutely, 100% positively sure that there is a universal definition for Art.

Quote:

Definitions do not require unanimous acclaim to be true; widely accepted is more than good enough. In this case, I claim that all of us carry around this definition; some of just just don't want to believe it.

Interesting theory... so how can you possibly find that universal definition if some aren't willing or able to state that definition and prove that it's universal?

Quote:

Ah, resorting to indirect examples... proving that the earth is round versus flat is simple procedure that can be proven by action, demonstration, mathematics... the earth is obviously not flat because we have the ability to prove its roundness. We don't have the ability to prove (or disprove) that there is a univesal definition of art, except that it's entirely subjective and accepted on a majority basis withint the bounds of the group.

Quote:

Exists, but elusive; wrong on specifics, but holding to the principal... sounds like you're saying what I'm saying. There is so specific definition of art, and the search for it will be a long and tedious one. Can we not agree on that? We agree that everyone has the potential to define art in their own way, regardless of how the 'art' makes them feel. Your strive is to find a commonality between everyone's definition of art - not in a cultural, individual, or corporate way, but in a universal, never-changing way. Is that not what you're trying to find? So what are we disagreeing on?

Quote:

All I've been saying is that any definition you seem to find, you'll be able to find a situation which shows it to not be enough of a definition. Can I give a specific example of 'art' that falls outside a definition that's given? No. But alternately, can you give evidence that a specific example can never exist? No. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying it's not a position that can be supported with absolute certainty, which is what you are claiming. Why can we not agree on that? Seems easy to understand

Quote:

At one time, my daughter pointed to pigeons and said "Chicken! I eat it." Now, she was right about eating chickens, but those weren't actually chickens at which she was pointing. They may have looked tasty and been "chickens to her", but they were still pigeons at the end of the day.

Again, a matter of simply showing the fact by demonstration. We already have the definition of a chicken, that's what the word means, that's the purpose of it by language. A chicken is not a pigeon, and we can demonstrate why, just as we can demonstrate that the earth is not flat. However, if hypothetically, say, in another language, chicken meant something else, then one cannot say that universally, the word 'chicken' means the animal that lives in a coop, if somewhere else, 'chicken' had a different meaning. Even the meanings of words become a matter of majority rules, in a sense. In this case it's language, and even then the line can be blurred.

Quote:

Not necessarily, being subjected to something doesn't automatically make something 'art', or 'not art'. Plenty of people will agree (as previously in this thread) that your taste in something doesn't make something art, whether good or bad. I would agree that you'd need to be subjected to something in order for it to have the possibility of being art. But then, what if someone makes something with the intent to keep it hidden as part of the expression? There's an interesting question... in a sense then, everyone has become subjects to that pieces intent, its goal... so whether that's art or not, would depend on who you ask... even then, the only person who would know about it would be the artist, so no one could have the chance to consider it art or not, because they'd have to know about it, and then its purpose would have been destroyed... nice little paradoxical dilemma...

Quote:

By the way, asserting (again and again) that my position is unproven while ignoring every example and piece of evidence I've offered is interesting as a tactic, but unconvincing. When you use an unproven counter assertion to "prove" that your position is correct (again, without supporting evidence), your claim is particularly weak.

Again, I state I have not ignored every example and piece of evidence you've offered... I've simply shown the scope of the evidence you offer, and how it support a particular definition, or range of definitions, of what art is, subjected to those in its bounds. All I've ever said, while not disagree with any definition, was that the definition cannot be universal. It can be considered part of the definition within the group who would agree.

Quote:

By now, I am convinced that you believe beyond persuasion that art is subjectively defined, all evidence to the contrary not withstanding.

I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary to show that art cannot be subjectively defined...

Quote:

Actually, you said, "I believe art is some thing or act which is perceived to have value by one or more entities." link
How that's different from saying "anything that has value is art" is beyond me.

If you please remember, I said "I believe", ie that's my definition of what art is... others may not hold to that definition.
I've never attempted to give a universal definition of what art is. Simply that any definition we find can only be considered to be the definition until someone is found to disagree. That's not the same as stating a universal fact.

Quote:

Of course, you never said what you meant by "value."

Actually, yes I have, inclusive within my definition of what I consider art. And please remember I speak of artistic value, but strictly monetary value, as I've alluded to previously.

Quote:

Wordplay... all wordplay... expression and value have been defined, and their defined - as it relates to art - on personal levels. At least, they've been described as they related to helping define art for an individual or a group.

Quote:

And that common definition of art has only been proven to be common between those you describe, it hasn't been proven to be universal, which is what you say you're trying to prove. Or are you just trying to find a generally accepted definition of what art is? It's gotta be one or the other, or you'll just confuse people.

Quote:

thebruce wrote:

Howso?

Did you mean, "Howsoever?" ?

No, I meant howso... well maybe "How so?"... yet both howso and howsoever are valid terms (IIRC - Phaedra, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong Razz

)

So you're saying...
Art is art to the individual to the extent that art is not individually defined.
That's a circular argument if I ever heard one Smile

. It's obviously true. That's like me saying "looks like it might rain today, unless it doesn't." Proves nothing...
Whereas, I'm saying...
Art is art to the individual or group of people who commonly agree on a definition of art.
By its very nature it can't be disproven... I'm not offering a universal definition of art (that doesn't include the clause that it's defined specifically by personal choice). You're saying that's not a definition because it's entirely personal, subjective. But then in that case, nothing can have any definition because if someone disagrees then it can't be a definition.

But as I said before, even definitions of words are based on groups of people, such as a language barrier, sometimes country barriers, belief barriers, physical barriers, political barriers, cultural, even temporal barriers... so what's the definition of anything? The definition is simply what is most widely accepted within a group of people.

So, are you looking for a universal definition, or what can be considered most widely accepted as the definition of art at this time within the group of people you ask or receive report? If the latter, I can join you in that quest Smile

. But you lose me as soon you start saying that you've come to the conclusion that for a fact, the definition you arrive at is unviersally, the definition. In which, you're claiming that you, nor anyone else, will be able to find disagreement from any person who is asked through all time, of what is art.

[quote]There is no standard of reference from which to define art universally.
- Yes, there is.
tell us
- What, again? The mind positively boggles.
*sigh*, let me quote - "Peter Vidmar does a speech on Risk, Originality, and Virtuosity that might help us define art....We might say....may just depend...." doesn't sound like a be-all and end-all of the universal definition of art. Many will disagree that art can be defined by a formula, as the very act of applying a structure to art suddenly limits its ability to be creative. Would I agree that for me, Vidmar's speech is a fairly accurate way to define art? Well, I haven't read it, but I'm fairly confident I'd agree with his speech. But that's for me. His speech may offer the way to best define art for the scope of those who agree, but by nature, once again, it doesn't provide a universal definition. Just the definition that is most widely accepted at this time.

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.

Sorry that makes no sense. All you have to prove is that a universal definition or criteria exists - that no one through all time and places disagrees or offers an example that counters an aspect of the definition? And that's a smaller burden of evidence than stating that that very act is not possible? *confused*

Quote:

A definition need not be accepted by everyone to be a fact. See the Flat Earth Society, described earlier.

By demonstration we can show that the earth is flat. We can't demonstrate that art is art (insert universal definitoin here).

Quote:

I have added evidence and examples. I understand that you might dispute some or all of that evidence, but I have at least offered it for consideration.

The only thing I've disputed is the claim that any definition is universal. Not that it's a valid definition with a scope.

Quote:

The common definition of 'art' is that it's a personal opinion. Again, one person's art may be another person's trash. There are many dictionary definitions of art, and really nothing is exclusive, and each of those definitions is still based on personal preference. 'beauty', 'creativity', 'originality', and what have you... art is an additive definition in that sense - someone may find something fitting to a definition of art and consider it art, whereas someone may not find it suitable within any definition...

Quote:

That is a description of what guides your personal tastes, not a definition of art.

My taste in something may be aweful, even hateful of the expression or the purpose... does that stop me from calling it art? If the artist's intent was to get the reaction he got, then I would call it art, even if I hate it. But, that's my definition of art. Others may disagree. Others may not hold any artistic value in something they dislike or hate. It's not art to them... personal taste is only one factor of what people may consider art.

Quote:

That's as deep as the argument of 'teaching creativity', and why I dislike art, or english classes which mark you based solely on the teacher's opinion. If the teacher gives you a specific goal, and marks on whether you accomplish that measurable level - ie spelling, grammar, realism, etc, I can agree. But a teacher who gives a bad mark for a creative piece simply because they didn't "feel what the writer/artist what expressing", I can't agree with. I can't agree with art appreciation classes where the teacher goes and says "this is art" and "this is not"... I can respect art appreciation classes that guide students to look for value in their own way within what may be considered art... or present an object or act, and ask students to describe it, offer their expressions, reactions about it, why they think what they do; or encourage students to study an artist or writer, and help them better be able - themselves - to empathize with the artist, to understand them, to attempt to connect with the purpose of the artist. THAT is an art appreciation class I can respect. But not one that claims to define what art is by stating what art is not.

Quote:

It's an interesting (and by interesting, I mean baffling) tactic to claim that your own assertion cannot be proven. That implies you believe both that your assetion is true and that it cannot be true. Concluding that my assertion is unprovable because of yours is a non sequitur; it doesn't follow logically.

Not sure what's illogical. I've stated that no, I can't prove there is no universal definition, but I've also stated that neither can you prove that there is a universal definition, and I've given a reason why, which is quite logical. A universal definition must be a universal fact, in other words, demonstratably un-disprovable (is that a word?), which in this case is not possible... what you're looking for is the most generally accepted definition of what may be considered art.

Quote:

As I said, I believe it to be true through logical deduction, but I cannot prove it to be true as fact. You are claiming that there is a universal definition as fact, which you cannot prove to be true.

Quote:

Unversal agreement is not required for definitions. Facts are handy that way. I don't even have to complete the definition to prove that it exists. Logic is convenient that way.

Sure, art exists. We know it does. But you're not simply looking to prove that there is a definition for art, you are looking for a universal definition by which to define what is or is not art.
Now, if you were simply looking for definitions of what people may consider art, I'd love to aid in your search... we could write a book about art, and the definitions people have, with example, of what some consider art, through history and around the world presently. But that book can not at any point state what is not art.

Quote:

The very fact the class is "Art appreciation" shows that someone out there considers the subject being observed are art. But that does not prove that all people everywhere through all time consider those same pieces art, nor does it mean that anything not included in the class is not art. It does mean that the teacher may not include something in the class which they don't consider to be art, but the fact someone offered it to be studied as art must mean someone out there considers it art. Are they then delusional?

Quote:

You could always try a new strategy...

So who's the wookie? Razz

---

Ok... I've probably PO'd a bunch of people, or helped in the entertainment that is this thread, and I don't know how better to describe my position, so I hereby withdraw my position in this 'debate'. I've probably lost a lot of respect in some people's eyes by saying I'd stop, and still continuing, so I'm gonna do my best to let this be my last word in this thread as it relates to this lengthy art posting subject. (note, 'in this thread' Razz

I may continue by PM if I feel led) But I'm sure Clayfoot will reply once again with a lengthy post rebutting each of my points...
My only hope (I like that song! Smile

) is that you can see what I'm trying to say - that any definition proposed is a valid definition for those who agree, but no definition can be proposed as a universal--as in agreed amongst all people throughout all time--definition, only as a most widely agreed upon definition within a group of people of any size, or to an individual. That definition describes what people would consider 'artistic value', ie the value of something to consider it art - a definition. Personal taste is an aspect of artistic value - some may hold artistic value with negative taste, some may not. But in the end, art can't be defined by "is" and "is not", only by the amount of artistic value that you find in it yourself.

So, in an effort to avoid ruining my reputation in these forums any more as a debater of inherently undebatable topics, this is at... you can all breathe a sigh of relief. Razz

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

Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 6:45 pm

Motoss
Decorated

Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 170
Location: Ohio

The massive amount of free time being experienced now that the game is over is certainly embodied by this thread. I mean, wow. I'm exhausted just from reading the last page.

_________________
"My life is a chip in your pile...ante up!"

Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 8:50 pm

Clayfoot
Entrenched

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

This reminded me that I had not yet posted a prompt reply.

thebruce wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

It's not conflating anything... I'm never saying someone is wrong for their definition of art. A definition can include the parameter of a personal opinion. Art does have a different definition than Stuff. But now you need to tell what you state is the universal definition of Art. And if you don't have one, then you can't say there is one. But you can say you're seeking to find that definition. That statement I can concede to... but you can see the difference. One is a statement of fact which is not currently known, the other is a statement of a goal.

"Universal" is such a vague term that I'm going to clarify it further. In this case:
universal - Something that exists in every culture.
Art is like feelings. We all have the same feelings, even though different things will inspire those feelings in each of us. Take the feeling of sadness, for example. Everyone in every culture knows the feeling of sadness. It's very difficult to define "sad" without using an emotional synonym (sorrow), an emotional antonym (happiness), or an indirect description of showing sadness (showing sorrow or unhappiness). We can individually describe what make us sad to others, and they will know what we mean, even if it does not make them personally sad. We still know the universal (in every culture) definition of sadness, even if a nice, rigorous explanation escapes us.
Your definition of art is conflating personal preference with the universal definition of art; it's just like saying that the definition of sadnesss is whatever makes one sad. Sadness is not definied by what makes us sad; it's the same feeling no matter what causes that feeling. In exactly the same way, art is not defined by what appeals to us individually, it is a universally shared concept.

thebruce wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

However, I understand how hard it was for you to admit you that you can't prove your point about the nonexistence of a definition, and I applaud your dignity and bravery.

I am sure that there is a universal definition for art, because art exists in every culture. Like language and feelings, art is basic to human experience.

thebruce wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

Interesting theory... so how can you possibly find that universal definition if some aren't willing or able to state that definition and prove that it's universal?

Because I'm using "universal" in the sense of existing in every culture. Unless there exists a culture that has no concept of art, then universality holds. I suspect you're trying to using "universal definition" in the sense that everyone at every point in time has a certain set of personal preferences about what artworks appeal to them (and consequentially, to everyone else).

thebruce wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

When discussing abstract concepts, analagies that involve concrete concepts are quite helpful. Allow me to complete the analogy explicitly. In the same way that the Earth is round no matter how many people believe it, art has a universal defintion no matter how many people believe it --or conflate a definition with an expression of personal preference.

thebruce wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

We no more agree on that than we agree that sadness is defined differently by everyone. We all feel it and know what it means. We still mean exactly the same thing when we say "I'm sad", but we pick different things that make us sad. We still mean the same thing by art, we just pick different things that appeal to us.

thebruce wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

A specific example of a work of art has nothing to do with a universal definition, any more than a specific example of what makes someone sad has anything to do with the definition of sadness. It would be hard to talk about sadness without some examples of what makes most people sad, but it would still mean the same thing. It would be hard to talk about art without some examples of artwork, but it would still mean the same thing.

thebruce wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

Yes, I find that concrete examples really help to clear up abstract concepts. Taking the "chicken" example further, I dare say that a chicken or a pigieon (genus, species, breed, and whatever) is exactly the same animal, no matter where it lives or whether someone there eats it. Art works just like the chicken and the pigeon: it's the same thing, no matter where it lives.

thebruce wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

This is like the If-a-tree-falls-in-the-forest-and-no-one-hears-it argument: the laws of physics aren't suspended just because a recording engineer didn't show up, and Chaos Theory says we'll all hear it eventually, anyway. It's a pretty dry line of reasoning, since every piece has at least the creator as an audience. I will allow that art did not exist before the first person.*

Spoiler (Rollover to View):

* I know, I know: there was God creating beautiful things before man existed, but this really does lead to art being the same as stuff, since God created everything and everyone, and everything God created is perfect, 'cause He made it according to plan, and so everything is beautiful and perfect in its own way, and therefore everything is art, and so there's really no point in chasing down that rabbit hole, I hope.

thebruce wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

Sure. This particular group includes the entire human race, 'cause the concept of it exists in every culture. If my meager faculties can't articulate it a satisfactory way, I apologize for that, while still maintaining that said definition exists in everyone's mind.

thebruce wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

By now, I am convinced that you believe beyond persuasion that art is subjectively defined, all evidence to the contrary not withstanding.

I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary to show that art cannot be subjectively defined...

Clayfoot wrote:

Actually, you said, "I believe art is some thing or act which is perceived to have value by one or more entities." link
How that's different from saying "anything that has value is art" is beyond me.

As I've said, belief has no sway over facts and definitions, any more that the Flat-Earthers' beliefs have any sway over the shape of the Earth, or any more than my daughter's (former) beliefs about the nature of pigeons transmogrifies them into chickens. A belief is any cognitive content held to be true; a definition is an explanation of the meaning of a word, phrase, or symbol. As the late Senator Moynihan was found of saying, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."

thebruce wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

Of course, you never said what you meant by "value."

Actually, yes I have, inclusive within my definition of what I consider art. And please remember I speak of artistic value, but strictly monetary value, as I've alluded to previously.

Oh, that's right. You said (in the linked post) that

thebruce wrote:

...if one person holds value in something...
...value is one aspect...
...hold artistic value in the loaf of bread.
...to put artistic value on the Mona Lisa...
...to hold artistic value in a glob of spit...
...the purchaser holds artistic value in the piece...
...they[sic] person holds not artistic value in the piece...
...one possible aspect, just as monetary value is.
...what I consider art is anything...which is accepted and holds value with at least one person...
...if only the artist holds value in it...
...wouldn't consider something of value only if it has monetary value...
...the value they hold in it...
...hold value in it...
...holding artistic value in it...
...Many will not find value...

That's every, single reference to "value" in the entire post. You've use "value" over and over without saying what you mean by "value". Repeating that "something has value" or "someone holds value" over and over is in no way the same as an explanation of your use of "value".

I would point out that "artistic" value once again defines nothing at all... unless when you say "artistic value" you mean "that which appeals to me", in which case I would say that you have found an excellent definition for personal taste --Useless for defining art, whatever your "beliefs" about that definition, of course.

thebruce wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

Wordplay... yes, yes. You haven't said anything at all by flippantly throwing in terms like "expression" and "value", yet I'm the bad guy for pointing it out? You're using an interesting ploy, and by "interesting", I mean "useless". If you can't do any better than "artistic value", you'll never get anywhere with that argument for ~~personal taste~~ --I mean, personal definition (how silly of me!)

thebruce wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

Ah, yes. You're using the wrong sense of "universal". Moving right along...

thebruce wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

thebruce wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

thebruce wrote:

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

No, it isn't.

Howso?

Did you mean, "Howsoever?" ?
To the extent that art is not individually defined. To the extent that personal preference does not define art.

No, I meant howso... well maybe "How so?"... yet both howso and howsoever are valid terms (IIRC - Phaedra, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong Razz

)

"Howso" is short for "howsoever", and "How so" doesn't mean the same thing as "howsoever", but I take your intended meaning now.
Art is not art just to the individual, in the way that "sadness" is not sadness just to the individual. Everyone has the same feelings, even though different things inspire sad feelings to the individual. Personal taste does not chance the universal meaning of "sad". "Sad" still means the same thing to everyone, and so does "art".

thebruce wrote:

So you're saying...
Art is art to the individual to the extent that art is not individually defined.
That's a circular argument if I ever heard one Smile

. It's obviously true. That's like me saying "looks like it might rain today, unless it doesn't." Proves nothing...

Actually, that was just me having a little fun with your question. It says "A is true, if A is not true."

thebruce wrote:

Whereas, I'm saying...
Art is art to the individual or group of people who commonly agree on a definition of art.
By its very nature it can't be disproven... I'm not offering a universal definition of art (that doesn't include the clause that it's defined specifically by personal choice). You're saying that's not a definition because it's entirely personal, subjective. But then in that case, nothing can have any definition because if someone disagrees then it can't be a definition.

That's only a definition of an individual or group's personal preferences. It cannot be disproven, because it is a definition of personal taste. As I've pointed out with more concrete examples, definitions and facts do not depend at all on whether everyone agrees. As I've pointed out with a more abstract example, concepts can old a universal definition with regard to personal taste or opinion.

thebruce wrote:

But as I said before, even definitions of words are based on groups of people, such as a language barrier, sometimes country barriers, belief barriers, physical barriers, political barriers, cultural, even temporal barriers... so what's the definition of anything? The definition is simply what is most widely accepted within a group of people.

The working definition is the most widely accepted one. The world was still round, even when the working definition said it was flat. Even conceptually, "art" is something that holds up across cultures, languages, and physical barriers, just like "sadness".

thebruce wrote:

So, are you looking for a universal definition, or what can be considered most widely accepted as the definition of art at this time within the group of people you ask or receive report? If the latter, I can join you in that quest Smile

I'm talking about a universal definition that is as fundamental as the definition of feelings or the shape of the Earth. That definition exists in all cultures, no matter what language they use to describe it. That definition does not depend on any one person or on all of them to believe in it. And even if I can't explain that definition to my own or to anyone else's satisfaction, I understand what art means just like everyone else.

thebruce wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

thebruce wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

thebruce wrote:

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

Yes, there is.

tell us

What, again? The mind positively boggles.

*sigh*, let me quote - "Peter Vidmar does a speech on Risk, Originality, and Virtuosity that might help us define art....We might say....may just depend...." doesn't sound like a be-all and end-all of the universal definition of art. Many will disagree that art can be defined by a formula, as the very act of applying a structure to art suddenly limits its ability to be creative. Would I agree that for me, Vidmar's speech is a fairly accurate way to define art? Well, I haven't read it, but I'm fairly confident I'd agree with his speech. But that's for me. His speech may offer the way to best define art for the scope of those who agree, but by nature, once again, it doesn't provide a universal definition. Just the definition that is most widely accepted at this time.

Well, it's pretty good on short notice. And a few other folks thought it was good for a start, too. Why, I must be carrying around some innate understanding of what art is to come up with that so quickly. Of course, it could use some work, but we're zeroing in on it. For my next trick, I will define [drum roll].... sadness! Defining abstract concepts is hard, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

thebruce wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

thebruce wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

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.

It's okay. Allow me to use a concrete example.

The Harpy Eagle was widely held to be extinct, because no one had seen one in years. Now, either that bird was extinct or it wasn't, no matter what everyone thought. If you wanted to prove the hypothesis that "The Harpy Eagle no longer exists", you would have to examine everywhere that the Harpy Eagle could be until the end of time. Either that, or you would have to prove that the "There cannot be any more Harpy Eagles, therefore there are none." All that would be necessary to disprove the belief that they were extinct was to find one, and that's exactly what happened in November 2003.
All I have to do is find evidence of one Harpy Eagle. You have to prove that the Harpy Eagles can't possibly exist anymore.

thebruce wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

A definition need not be accepted by everyone to be a fact. See the Flat Earth Society, described earlier.

By demonstration we can show that the earth is flat. We can't demonstrate that art is art (insert universal definition here).

Yeah, abstract concepts are real messy that way. That's why I threw in the definition of sadness. It's hard to make or to prove a definition of sadness, but we all still know what sadness is. Same thing with art.

thebruce wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

I have added evidence and examples. I understand that you might dispute some or all of that evidence, but I have at least offered it for consideration.

The only thing I've disputed is the claim that any definition is universal. Not that it's a valid definition with a scope.

You're free to dispute anything. You'll just have trouble proving it. "Valid" just means well grounded in logic or truth, as in "a valid argument." "Scope" means an area that something covers. I already tried to provide the beginnings of a "valid" definition of art; in fact, that's how I came up with it. I'm not sure how to address your new "scope" requirement, unless you're referring to what separates "art" from "stuff" again.

thebruce wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

The common definition of 'art' is that it's a personal opinion.
Again, one person's art may be another person's trash. There are many dictionary definitions of art, and really nothing is exclusive, and each of those definitions is still based on personal preference. 'beauty', 'creativity', 'originality', and what have you... art is an additive definition in that sense - someone may find something fitting to a definition of art and consider it art, whereas someone may not find it suitable within any definition...

Clayfoot wrote:

That is a description of what guides your personal tastes, not a definition of art.

Once again, that is not even a common definition of art. It is a common definition of personal taste, which you seemed determined to conflate with art. You can call a pigeon a chicken, if you want, but it won't change anything.

thebruce wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

Yeah, but that Harpy Eagle was out there all along, just the same. Just waiting for someone to find it.

thebruce wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

It means that your conclusion about my assertion is not proven by concluding without argument that your argument is unprovable.
Neither "demonstratably" nor "un-disprovable" is a word, but I assume you mean "demonstrably provable", which is redundant, since "provable" means "demonstrably true", but never mind that.
I'm not looking for the most generally accepted definition; that's easy to get. I want the hard definition, that we all carry around inside. That's the universal definition I expect to find. I know already that it doesn't depend on personal taste.

thebruce wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

Logical deduction is proof. A proof fails on its assumption or its methods. Your proof assumes that a universal definition of art cannot exist because (a) you have never seen a satisfactory definition and (b) you cannot imagine a satisfactory definition. Failure of imagination is the flaw in your proof. The Harpy Eagle really was there the whole time, even though no one could imagine finding one.
I claim that the Harpy Eagle is still out there --that art has a universal definition. It would be really difficult for you to prove that there are no more Harpy Eagles left, but all that I have to do is find one Harpy Eagle. I assume that the innate sense we all have that art is different from stuff is proof that the Harpy Eagle is still out there somewhere, waiting to be found.

thebruce wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

Unversal agreement is not required for definitions. Facts are handy that way. I don't even have to complete the definition to prove that it exists. Logic is convenient that way.

Sure, art exists. We know it does. But you're not simply looking to prove that there is a definition for art, you are looking for a universal definition by which to define what is or is not art.

The fact that art exists, and that we know that art exists, proves that a universal definition at least exists, even if my feeble powers cannot explain it completely.

thebruce wrote:

Now, if you were simply looking for definitions of what people may consider art, I'd love to aid in your search... we could write a book about art, and the definitions people have, with example, of what some consider art, through history and around the world presently. But that book can not at any point state what is not art.

There are plenty of books on personal and group tastes, which is what you propose, I believe.

thebruce wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

It's like studying feelings. You can't attack the subject directly. You have to use artifacts and examples that help understanding along. Rather than delusional, I would say that they are doing the best they can to clarify a tough concept.

thebruce wrote:

any definition proposed is a valid definition for those who agree, but no definition can be proposed as a universal--as in agreed amongst all people throughout all time--definition, only as a most widely agreed upon definition within a group of people of any size, or to an individual. That definition describes what people would consider 'artistic value', ie the value of something to consider it art - a definition. Personal taste is an aspect of artistic value - some may hold artistic value with negative taste, some may not. But in the end, art can't be defined by "is" and "is not", only by the amount of artistic value that you find in it yourself.

Try "universal" in the sense of something that exists in every culture, and we'll find it. Don't worry, that Harpy Eagle is still out there somewhere.

_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 6:47 pm

hmrpita
Unfettered

Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 629
Location: East of the Ocean, West of the Bay, Close to many faults

Clayfoot wrote:

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?

You seem obsessed with criteria. You won't find anyone who says, "Art is" all that concerned about criteria.
I have taken Philosophy of Art classes... "If you call it art, it is art." or Statement: "My five year old could have painted that." Response: "Yes, but your five year old DIDN'T." Blah blah blah.

Following is the quotation section of the post. Just because I am posting these does not mean I agree with all of them.

We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize the truth, at least the truth that is given to us to understand.
Pablo Picasso

Keep your love of nature, for that is the true way to understand art more and more.
Vincent Van Gogh

Art is never finished, only abandoned.
Leonardo da Vinci

Art is a step from what is obvious and well-known toward what is arcane and concealed.
Kahlil Gibran

Art is a collaboration between God an the artist, and the less the artist does the better.
Andre Gide

Art is not a handicraft, it is the transmission of feeling the artist has experienced.
Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy

Art is contemplation. It is the pleasure of the mind which searches into nature and which there divines the spirit of which Nature herself is animated.
Auguste Rodin

Art is making something out of nothing and selling it.
Frank Zappa

The only valid thing in art is the one thing that cannot be explained, to explain away the mystery of a great painting would do irreplaceable harm, for whenever you explain or define something you substitute the explanation or the definition for the image of the thing.
Henri Matisse

Now I am off to do something pointless. Is it art? Does it matter whether it is or not?

pita throws a dagger and strikes a cool pose

_________________
As is your sort of mind,
So is your sort of search;
You will find what you desire.
--Robert Browning

Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:34 pm

Clayfoot
Entrenched

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

hmrpita wrote:

Clayfoot wrote:

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?

Perhaps I am overusing the word "criteria".

My point goes more like this: Not everything that is beautiful or appealing is art. What makes a scenic view into art is the viewer's or photographer's choice of location, viewpoint, and time. So, a beautiful view is just that: a beautiful view. It takes some creative effort (a little, at least) to select the right place for a Kodak moment. Most cityscapes are exactly the same way: appealing or not, but not really art. Because there is at least some creative effort into the buildings and arrangement, we could at least imagine that a cityscape was intentionally arranged to be appealing, and that little bit of creative input gives us the chance to label it art as a cityscape. I separate the beautiful or appealing that occurs by chance from the beautiful or appealing that occurs by creative effort.

There are beautiful men and women wandering the earth, but we don't refer to them as "a work of art" until they've been to the hairdresser, the tailor, the plastic surgeon, or they've at least put on some makeup or a snappy outfit. That's because their features match this ideal of what's beautiful in a human. Some research a few years back studied pageant winners and discovered that the criteria for beautiful is a rather narrow set of measurements and symmetries. Those people were born with those features as a matter of chance (ie, lucky to have the right parents and the right combination of genes from those parents). "Art" is a word we use to separate "beautiful by chance" from "beautiful by creative effort".

Of course, there's even more to it than that, but that explains why nature is "beautiful by chance" and a cityscape is potentially "art" or "beautiful by creative effort".

hmrpita wrote:

Following is the quotation section of the post. Just because I am posting these does not mean I agree with all of them.

I don't get it. Why would you offer these quotations, if you don't agree with them? How did you select these particular quotations? What ties them together? You seem to be simultaenously making an argument from authority and disclaiming any authority to make an argument.

_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 11:11 am

hmrpita
Unfettered

Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 629
Location: East of the Ocean, West of the Bay, Close to many faults

Clayfoot wrote:

hmrpita wrote:

Following is the quotation section of the post. Just because I am posting these does not mean I agree with all of them.

Or maybe I am just goofing with you. Razz

I don't think beauty=art.
The quotations indicate that everyone has a different opinion. And opinion is all it is. If finding a universal definition for Art is your mission, then good luck to you.
I don't think I belong here.
Looks around, sees nothing familiar, proclaims it art, and leaves.

_________________
As is your sort of mind,
So is your sort of search;
You will find what you desire.
--Robert Browning

Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 5:10 pm

Nightmare Tony
Entrenched

Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 824
Location: Meadowbrook

I do consider beauty to be art.

Consider that if you do not consider nature to be artwork, then why would a photograph or a painting of nature be sold or considered a work of art?

and PLEASE do not go off about camera angles or such. That is merely the interpretative of the one capturing the artistic in a recording phase.

and Clayfoot, I dont know if you do, but some would indeed consider your obsessional desire to deconstruct everyone in sight to be art. I do not myself, but as I said, others might.

_________________
For this is the place where dreams and nightmares are birthed and bred
Nightmare Park

Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 9:47 pm

darkmoonz
Unfettered

Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 330
Location: Gainesville, FL

i love you guys... (:

_________________
reveal:
!label darkmoonz

Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:25 pm

Display posts from previous: Sort by:

Page 8 of 10 [137 Posts]

Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 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