Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ProNihil · 03-12-2003, 07:49 PM

Greetings,

I have not read much on this subject, but I have read Francis Schaeffers take on it. You might do well to explore Schaeffers writings on art, as they are well thought out and worthy of an intelligent persons time. Granted, Schaeffer was a Christian, but his views on the move toward existentialism in art intrigued me. Perhaps they would you too.

AdamWho · 03-13-2003, 08:45 AM

Art is what the artist intends as art. Without intention there cannot be art. Quality of the art is irrelevant and I think all aesthetic definitions of art will ultimately fail.

However, my definition begs the question "what is an artist?".

For instance can a curator find a piece of junk on the street, nail it to a wall and call it art? My answer is yes, because the curator is acting as the artist in creating a labeling the object as art.

So it seems a bit circular, the artist defines art by intending the object to be art and the person is an artist because they create art.

I think a way out of this is to qualify that the creation of the art requires that the artist intends to present the art and it is in this presentation and only in this presentation (even informally with one person) that the creator becomes an artist.

New definition:

Art is what an artist intends as art
An artist is a person who creates and presents objects which they have defined as art.

This definition can include performance.

jpbrooks · 03-13-2003, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by philechat
Thanks for the questions, jpbrooks. I would try to modify my definitions and theory as the discussion goes on, such that I will also gain more understanding as to the nature of "art".

Sure, but my own views in this area are still very much under construction.

Quote:

I would say "art" are things that requires symbolic interpretations by the participants (creator or audience) in perceiving the objects. Again it would be a matter of degrees rather than an absolute "line" dividing art/non-art. The idea lies in the act of interpretation, of assigning meaning to the objects beyond what is directly perceivable by the senses, or directly related to the physical actions performed (such as the action of drawing or listening)

But how does this explain "Representationalism" in art, where (if my understanding is correct) the object or "work" of art is represented by the artist as being (exactly) as it is perceived to be? This definition may be too restrictive.

Quote:

I will get back to you later in terms of details. I think there is a distinction between the degree of "artfulness" and the value assignment of art, though they are indeed interrelated in some sense. For example, we may want to rate the skill level of two performers in the same kind of concert (say, for example, two different violinists playing the same musical piece with the same orchestra). In this example the degree of "artfulness" would be similar, while the value we (as audiences) give to the two performers would be different.

So value assignment seems to correspond to personal "taste", whereas "degree of artfulness" seems to correspond to aesthetic value apart from personal "taste". If this is the case, then perhaps the closer that one's personal value assignments come into agreement with the actual "degree of artfullness" of the object or "work" under evaluation, the more "correct" one's personal value assignment is.

I have to run.

philechat · 03-13-2003, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jpbrooks

But how does this explain "Representationalism" in art, where (if my understanding is correct) the object or "work" of art is represented by the artist as being (exactly) as it is perceived to be? This definition may be too restrictive.

Doesn't the creator already participated in the act of interpretation when he/she/it is attempting to capture the "truths" of the experience? Doesn't the viewer also participate in an interpretive act when he/she/it is judging the artwork and the skill of the artist, with respect to the viewer's expectations about the artworks?

Even in the most "realistic" or "representative" of artworks, there is still some degree of which the artist and viewer introduce their (subjective) judgments in the act of creation and appreciation. This is where the function of interpretation comes in.

Quote:

So value assignment seems to correspond to personal "taste", whereas "degree of artfulness" seems to correspond to aesthetic value apart from personal "taste". If this is the case, then perhaps the closer that one's personal value assignments come into agreement with the actual "degree of artfullness" of the object or "work" under evaluation, the more "correct" one's personal value assignment is.
[/B]

I guess I wasn't clear enough in my last post. The case in my last post wants to show that in the same kind of concert (which two different people play the same musical piece in the same kind of situation), the degree of "artfulness" is the degree which the event could be described as an artistic event (needing the same amount of interpretation from the performer, creator, and audience). But in the same example the two performers do display different skill levels. In this case we can rate the quality of art based on the skills of the performers, whereas the degree of "artfulness" would be the same.

the_cave · 03-13-2003, 02:59 PM

Arthur Danto is one of the most well-known philosophers of art in the English-speaking world, and would be a good place to start. There would be many anthologies of aesthetics available in the philosophy section of most large bookstores.

philechat · 03-13-2003, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Arthur Danto is one of the most well-known philosophers of art in the English-speaking world, and would be a good place to start. There would be many anthologies of aesthetics available in the philosophy section of most large bookstores.

Thanks, I would check some of his works out.

What about the connection of aesthetics with human psychology? It has always been a facinating field, and there are quite a few evidence out there about the existence of certain properties in artworks which would induce favorable reactions from people. Not that tradition and prejudice do not play a role in artistic judgment, but there are certain agreements in art people make in designating a given work to be "better" than others.

And also what about the function of experience and expertise in a given field? How does prolonged exposure to an artistic field influence judgment?

jpbrooks · 03-14-2003, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by philechat
Doesn't the creator already participated in the act of interpretation when he/she/it is attempting to capture the "truths" of the experience? Doesn't the viewer also participate in an interpretive act when he/she/it is judging the artwork and the skill of the artist, with respect to the viewer's expectations about the artworks?

Even in the most "realistic" or "representative" of artworks, there is still some degree of which the artist and viewer introduce their (subjective) judgments in the act of creation and appreciation. This is where the function of interpretation comes in.

Here, I think I understand your point. (Please correct me if I am wrong,) The problem that arises in this case is that the same thing that is said about the experience of an object that is deemed a "work of art" can also be said of the experience of any object whether it is deemed a "work of art" or not. So assuming this to be the case, how can this definition of art help us to identify criteria for differentiating objects that are "works of art" from those that are not?

Quote:

I guess I wasn't clear enough in my last post. The case in my last post wants to show that in the same kind of concert (which two different people play the same musical piece in the same kind of situation), the degree of "artfulness" is the degree which the event could be described as an artistic event (needing the same amount of interpretation from the performer, creator, and audience). But in the same example the two performers do display different skill levels. In this case we can rate the quality of art based on the skills of the performers, whereas the degree of "artfulness" would be the same.

But here (and I hope my lack of understanding is not frustrating to you), I still don't see how the skill level of the two performers could be a matter that would be unconnected to the determination of the "degree of artfulness" of the performance(s). I can see how the two evaluations would be unconnected if the level of "skill" were an assessment of ability that includes "something other" than "artistic" ability. But, in reference to this particular performance, what could that "something other" possibly be? You mentioned "expertise" in your last post. What would "expertise" in performing a "work of art" be if it were not competence in producing a "work" that displays "artfulness"?

BTW, might there be an "is/ought" dichotomy in aesthetic considerations as there is in Ethics?

I'll be back later.

King's Indian · 03-14-2003, 02:30 PM

Hello all,

You all seem to be very busy with each other (and good thing too, because I'm enjoying reading this very much), but coincidentally I've been thinking a bit on the definition of art myself . Something occurred to me a couple of weeks ago, and it struck me that I had never seen this definition before. Perhaps I half-remembered something I saw somewhere. I haven't read a lot of stuff on aesthetics ,so if you could tell me if this rings any bells with you, or where the flaw is in my thinking I'd be very happy.
Righto, this is what I thought; "A work of art is a cultural object (so performance is included) that when considered by someone, it inspires them to new insights, (i.e. novel meanings, and connections between facts never before considered)".
Some points:
1) This avoids circular "art is what artists do" reasoning.
2) It allows a measure for determining between good and great art, in that great art constantly provides a stimulus for new thoughts for consideration. Art that stands the test of time would do so because it would keep stimulating new insights for each generation (an aspect of re-inventing itself, perhaps).
3) It allows a proper place for criticism which, as well as discussing historical developments, formal qualities etc., would be able to weigh and discuss the value of the insights that appear to the critic. Good criticism would then feed into art, and help us to enjoy it more.
4) It would still allow a measure of subjectivity, as these new meanings would not have to be historically novel; just fresh for the observer.
5) It might offer an explanation why larger works of art have more of a chance as being accepted as "great": the bigger the thing, the more there is to think about.
6) It would discount considerations of beauty, which would mean that even ugly things, such as Pierre Manzoni's tins of poo, would count as art (Yay!)
7) It allows room for different interpretations of art (i.e. music, plays), for the new insights generated.
As you can see this is pretty rough and ready, and all thoughts are welcome. I won't mind if anyone skips this post for lack of anything to get their teeth into, and hope I haven't taken up too much space.
Cheers,
KI.

wordfailure · 03-14-2003, 07:33 PM

Very nice post, King's Indian.

Do you suppose we could all be looking at this from the wrong direction, hence all the difficulty of definition? Could we be pulling out manifestations of human behavior that do not together constitute a discrete thing at all, then thinking about them as if they exist independently from mind or behavior together in some ideal form? Perhaps what we're looking at is more like a wordless language, or at least a means of communication. If so it is as inappropriate to fix upon the mode of communication itself (art) rather than the thing communicated as it would be to focus on language itself when, for example, a historian is speaking rather than on what specifically the historian is trying to communicate. Why does everyone act as if we need some Grand Unifying Theory of art anyway? If what we're really looking at is a means of communication, then we don't gain any understanding by stuffing all the things communicated by it into some one-sentence description any more than we would stuffing everything communicated by spoken language into one.

So why do I like your post so much, KI? This means of communication if it exists would be the thing that "inspires them to new insights" (possibly by communicating emotion more directly than spoken language) rather than your art as cultural object, and your seven points would still hold. All, of course, IMHO. I would be very interested in feedback on this, and I have thick skin.

03-15-2003, 08:34 AM

.
My definition of art is easy and short. In Karamazov I once read that "only beauty and truth are real." I liked it then and I still like it today.

If this is true, art is not an object but "an encounter with reality." An artist is a person who presents truth with a degree of beauty and in this effort he needs our participation as responders to the beauty of truth.

As a responder I would say that a poo poo can 'belongs' in the gutter, the Mona Lisa is 'at rest' in the Louvre and The Creation of Adam eternally 'remains' in the Sistine Chapel.

03-14-2003, 02:30 PM	#18
King's Indian Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Croydon: London's Second City Posts: 144	My twopenn'orth... Hello all, You all seem to be very busy with each other (and good thing too, because I'm enjoying reading this very much), but coincidentally I've been thinking a bit on the definition of art myself . Something occurred to me a couple of weeks ago, and it struck me that I had never seen this definition before. Perhaps I half-remembered something I saw somewhere. I haven't read a lot of stuff on aesthetics ,so if you could tell me if this rings any bells with you, or where the flaw is in my thinking I'd be very happy. Righto, this is what I thought; "A work of art is a cultural object (so performance is included) that when considered by someone, it inspires them to new insights, (i.e. novel meanings, and connections between facts never before considered)". Some points: 1) This avoids circular "art is what artists do" reasoning. 2) It allows a measure for determining between good and great art, in that great art constantly provides a stimulus for new thoughts for consideration. Art that stands the test of time would do so because it would keep stimulating new insights for each generation (an aspect of re-inventing itself, perhaps). 3) It allows a proper place for criticism which, as well as discussing historical developments, formal qualities etc., would be able to weigh and discuss the value of the insights that appear to the critic. Good criticism would then feed into art, and help us to enjoy it more. 4) It would still allow a measure of subjectivity, as these new meanings would not have to be historically novel; just fresh for the observer. 5) It might offer an explanation why larger works of art have more of a chance as being accepted as "great": the bigger the thing, the more there is to think about. 6) It would discount considerations of beauty, which would mean that even ugly things, such as Pierre Manzoni's tins of poo, would count as art (Yay!) 7) It allows room for different interpretations of art (i.e. music, plays), for the new insights generated. As you can see this is pretty rough and ready, and all thoughts are welcome. I won't mind if anyone skips this post for lack of anything to get their teeth into, and hope I haven't taken up too much space. Cheers, KI.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-12-2003, 07:49 PM	#11
ProNihil Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: USA Posts: 228	Greetings, I have not read much on this subject, but I have read Francis Schaeffers take on it. You might do well to explore Schaeffers writings on art, as they are well thought out and worthy of an intelligent persons time. Granted, Schaeffer was a Christian, but his views on the move toward existentialism in art intrigued me. Perhaps they would you too.

03-13-2003, 08:45 AM	#12
AdamWho Contributor Join Date: May 2001 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 13,389	Art is what the artist intends as art. Without intention there cannot be art. Quality of the art is irrelevant and I think all aesthetic definitions of art will ultimately fail. However, my definition begs the question "what is an artist?". For instance can a curator find a piece of junk on the street, nail it to a wall and call it art? My answer is yes, because the curator is acting as the artist in creating a labeling the object as art. So it seems a bit circular, the artist defines art by intending the object to be art and the person is an artist because they create art. I think a way out of this is to qualify that the creation of the art requires that the artist intends to present the art and it is in this presentation and only in this presentation (even informally with one person) that the creator becomes an artist. New definition: Art is what an artist intends as art An artist is a person who creates and presents objects which they have defined as art. This definition can include performance.

03-13-2003, 02:59 PM	#15
the_cave Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Earth Posts: 1,443	Arthur Danto is one of the most well-known philosophers of art in the English-speaking world, and would be a good place to start. There would be many anthologies of aesthetics available in the philosophy section of most large bookstores.

03-14-2003, 07:33 PM	#19
wordfailure Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: US Posts: 96	Very nice post, King's Indian. Do you suppose we could all be looking at this from the wrong direction, hence all the difficulty of definition? Could we be pulling out manifestations of human behavior that do not together constitute a discrete thing at all, then thinking about them as if they exist independently from mind or behavior together in some ideal form? Perhaps what we're looking at is more like a wordless language, or at least a means of communication. If so it is as inappropriate to fix upon the mode of communication itself (art) rather than the thing communicated as it would be to focus on language itself when, for example, a historian is speaking rather than on what specifically the historian is trying to communicate. Why does everyone act as if we need some Grand Unifying Theory of art anyway? If what we're really looking at is a means of communication, then we don't gain any understanding by stuffing all the things communicated by it into some one-sentence description any more than we would stuffing everything communicated by spoken language into one. So why do I like your post so much, KI? This means of communication if it exists would be the thing that "inspires them to new insights" (possibly by communicating emotion more directly than spoken language) rather than your art as cultural object, and your seven points would still hold. All, of course, IMHO. I would be very interested in feedback on this, and I have thick skin.

03-15-2003, 08:34 AM	#20
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	. My definition of art is easy and short. In Karamazov I once read that "only beauty and truth are real." I liked it then and I still like it today. If this is true, art is not an object but "an encounter with reality." An artist is a person who presents truth with a degree of beauty and in this effort he needs our participation as responders to the beauty of truth. As a responder I would say that a poo poo can 'belongs' in the gutter, the Mona Lisa is 'at rest' in the Louvre and The Creation of Adam eternally 'remains' in the Sistine Chapel.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.