jpbrooks

Your definition does indeed seem to have a number of good characteristics in its favor, but it may suffer from being too inclusive. I am not, of course, saying that the definition is wrong. I'm just saying that things that we would not ordinarily consider to be "works of art" would be able to be included in your definition. For example, a philosophical idea scribbled on a washroom wall (bringing to mind memories of my "pre-internet" days of washroom wall "discussions") that is seen by a number of people and eventually becomes a generally accepted idea in a culture, could, according to your definition, be cinsidered a "work of art".
In fact, practically everything in nature that has been written or spoken about, was, at one time, a thing that would eventually inspire new insights, novel meanings, etc..

In addition to that problem, there is also the problem of "cultural diversity". I.e., if more than one culture is represented by some arbitrarily selected group of people, and only one of the cultures that is represented in the group views a particular object as "inspiring" and therefore "artistic", how can we use the defintion to determine whether the object is actually a "work of art"?

jpbrooks

Yes, I believe you're right. These manifestations would probably be properly studied by Psychology. But that does not invalidate the study of cultural "artifacts" for the aesthetic values that they communicate, any more than the study of the behavior manifestations that are associated with talking would invalidate the study of language(s)

Such a study is probably possible. But if all we had to work with in our study of aesthetic "phenomena" were a seemingly disconnected assortment of human characteristics and independent fields of study to investigate those characteristics, how could we "synthesize" (or "draw together") all of the information, that the studies from those fields would provide, into a collection of facts that would be comparable to our current knowledge of art?

jpbrooks

Hi Amos!
That's an interesting definition of art.
But the idea that things that are "repulsive" or "ugly" should not be considered as art depends on one's subjective view of beauty. And I'm not sure that that can help us to arrive at a definition for the term "beauty" (which underlies the definition of art you suggested).

I'll be back later.

wordfailure

I don't disagree. I only wonder if our deliberations about art are sufficiently broad not to be a hindrance rather than a help to understanding. The study of cultural "artifacts" for the aesthetic values that they communicate , besides being valid, is very rewarding in humanistic terms, and also manages to be one of life's greatest pleasures, IMO.



I don't think I would advocate such a study in those terms. The problem, in my view, is that the current parameters of art studies do not encompass some critical considerations, a fact reflected in our attempts at definitions. Simple comprehension for my simple mind has been the consideration before now rather than fields of study. Thanks for the response.

King's Indian

Hello, JP!
Thanks for the counterexamples (not least the considerate way in which you raised them). I was trying to be inclusive: I was trying to see if I could find some common ground between things like Duchamp’s “Fountain” and, say, “Las Meninas”. This is based on the fact that they’re described by the same word. I know which I’d prefer to spend an afternoon gawping at, but I was trying to discount my personal taste as a criterion (impeccable though it be hem hem). Nevertheless, the points you raised do suggest over-enthusiasm on my part. While I reflect more properly on what you say, here are a few things that occurred to me: Funnily enough, we used to do that too. Although as I went to Art School, these tended to be more drawings in the style of Gary Panter, showing scenes from well-loved films. I remember a whole cubicle wall covered with scenes from “Easy Rider”. Eheu fugaces and so on. Anyway, your point reminded me of Jenny Holzer’s Stuff. It doesn’t seem a world away to flash up “protect me from what I want” on a Times Square billboard from what you used to get up to (although I’ll allow that your stuff had a bit more depth to it). Again, a direct hit, sir. I do not offer the following as a rebuttal, but as an example of how sneaky I can be: I did state at first that art was a cultural product etc. etc. In this case, it would be the writing & speaking that could fall under my definition. Slippery, eh? Really though, your point deserves more than that. I’ll try and think of something better. Hmm. On the one hand, I think that there are examples to bolster my case: On the one hand, when Picasso saw the African masks in the Museum, he was inspired along lines which (along with other considerations) eventually helped him to co-invent cubism. What he was taking from them must have been different from their original cultural use. Perhaps Aboriginal sand paintings, used as objects to transmit cultural traditions but fated to end up treated and hanging on gallery walls would be something else to consider. On the other hand, your point goes deeper: that “art” as I have been using it is a culturally specific term. Not all cultures use it in the ways we’ve come to know it, but use things we translate as “art” in ways that are more religious, or as vehicles to transmit understanding across generations. Not even Western culture has relied on “art” as we understand it: from Lascaux to Byzantine portrayals of Christus Patiens, at least, it has viewed its art more on the way just described. If my definition has any legs, I’ll have to incorporate its specficity, and would have to include such socio-economic aspects as the gallery, the collector, and the market amongst others.
Again, much thanks. If I think of anything remarkable, I’ll be back (maybe a new thread to incorporate all this). Until then, I’ll leave you and Philechat to get on with it (particularly on the questions of value and also “is/ought”, which I follow with interest).
Take care,
KI.

King's Indian

Hello, WF! (as "Wordfailure" does not suit you at all)
I'm not merely returning the compliment when I say that I agree completely with your suspicion of Grand Unifying Theories. In fact I think they show a longing for authority that I feel can be too distracting for a wide range of cultural activities. Even religion would seem more palatable without it. (Perhaps not). I had this distrust uppermost in my mind while contemplating JP's point about specificity, and your post gave my consideration some shape. If I had expressed myself more clearly, I would have shown that although there is a cultural object we may define as art (and in common usage, we can distinguish even if only to disagree), the interaction between observer and object is necessary and irreducible for the definition. I was also thinking about the distinction, rather than ideal forms as such.
In this sense, I should myself distinguish between the contemplation of art as the act of communication, and the object itself (whether performance, painting or found object).
After all this, it's only courtesy to specify the one thing that I would question: the idea of wordless language. It seems to me that once such contemplation does any work in the world, it is immediately caught up in language. This is not merely restrictive, but allows for contemplation's possibility to be so named. I also tend away from the idea that we can distinguish any thought as pre-linguistic (I have a marvellous example for this, but unfortunately the margin is too narrow to contain it). As you only consider the idea to discard it in favour of communication, this is not a rebuttal, but a statement of my general opinion.
As one newbie to another, I hope you enjoy it here.
Take care,
KI

Amos

[/B][/QUOTE]

Hello jpbrooks. Yes, my definition was short, wasn't it?

With regard to your objection, I think that gutter art is nice if we are in the mood for the darker side of life. Somewhere I think that beauty returns to, or leads us to connect with the divine and if the profane is opposite to this it must be less illuminating and never enlightening. Our appreciation of it is more like a sensation based on fear that leaves us with an after-taste like that of a greasy meal (hopefully not every day).

To dramatize this just think the effect horror movies can have on children, or the negative effect religion can have on adults wherein the peace makers built towers of admiration high into the sky while warriors built sleek vessels that crawl throught the darkness of night.

Sorry if I showed my preference here.

philechat

I wonder if "art" means that we must employ some judgments that are figurative, i.e. not taken at face value. But under this assumption, it seems that ordinary conversations could also be called "art", and so I guess I should seek a slightly narrower approach.

"Works of art" is a matter of degrees, as I have said previously. The problem is to set a boundary line that might be arbitrary in nature. My gut feeling is that an object/event that is called art is created with an observer in mind, observer meaning a person who would use judgments that is (in some sense) different from the creators' intentions. That is, a tool is not an artwork (unless it contains decorations) because the user is doing what exactly the creator expects, without adding the user's (different) interpretation toward the object created. An ordinary conversation would not be an art since the creator of the conversation expects the listener to hear what the creator (exactly) means.

I guess I should re-define my terms here. What I meant about the "degree of artfulness" concerns the form of the artworks (the means of expression, an orchestra concert being different in form from a novel). The "degree" here measures how much the outward form of the artwork satisfies the definition of art.

On the other hand, the "quality" of art concerns with the content of the artwork, therefore the different performers in the same orchestra concert could be compared and the "quality" of art be judged. In this example the player with more expertise would be judged to be a "higher" quality than the other, while the essential formal elements in the concert remain the same.

I guess it always exists, and some art critics insist that the moral element should be considered in art as much as the aesthetic elements. And among the art camps there has always been those who stress originality and those who stress continuation of cultural traditions.

wordfailure

I'm not really thinking in terms of pre-linguistic, but more extra-linguistic. Consider, for example, this anonymous Holocaust poem:


I believe in the sun
though it is late
in rising

I believe in love
though it is absent

I believe in God
though he is
silent...


Although it uses words, it isn't explanatory in the normal sense. What it communicates is something different from what the words say. I imagine here in the poet a need to express something that he can't explain directly in words. It's more like "I can't tell you but I can show you." He shows us by using a different form of communication, even though in this case utilizing words. (I think I'm having a wordfailure moment!)

So in this case the significance of the art would be in its degree of success in communicating and the content of the communication, rather than in the specifics of its form or its beauty. So the tin of poo is not judged in terms of comeliness, nor is the Mona Lisa.

Thanks for the friendly words, KI.

philechat

That is Keats' definition, by the way. He also talked about "negative capability" which is a facinating concept in itself. In his opinion, art must leave "negative space" which the observer reflects upon and add their own texts through the act of imagination, which would raise another interesting point about the act of human imagination in general in the field of artistic judgments.