|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 04/20/2008 : 21:47:01 [Permalink]
|
filthy said:
| Let us examine this; are you saying that conciousness is a requirement for art? |
Yes.
Many natural phenomenon are beautiful, worthy of admiratioon, and all that.... but it doesn't make them "art".
"Art" requires a conscious act of creation.
Doesn't make the Grand Canyon any less impressive or awe inspiring, but it isn't art.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 00:12:43 [Permalink]
|
Dave......
| And I still don't see where the proposed definition is lacking. Does the person who created thing X consider it to be art? No? Then it's not art. Does thing X have a person or group of people who will appreciate thing X as art? No? Then it's not art. Two "yes" answers are required for thing X to be art. Where is the problem? |
Where did I say that a definition was lacking? I simply disagreed with the definition offered by Marf, the trained artist! I then supplied what I felt was a proper definition in:| About all that can be said with some degree of certainty is that the perceiver knows it when he perceives it, and the creator knows it when he/she has created it, and occasionally the two agree! |
I guess I must have erred in expression, Dave, but I intended to express precisely the meaning you just have! Art only happens when both the creator and the perceiver agree that something other than the mundane, something perhaps that touches the emotions as well as the cold calculus of reason, has been created!
And it does take at least two to do this tango, as art perceived as such by it's creator, but not received as such by any observer, is not art, it is sham, bunco, or simply a non-art-event!
But apply this logic to differentiating between "good" art and "bad" art, to use two terms employed here earlier. How does that work?
|
| Edited by - bngbuck on 04/21/2008 10:18:23 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 02:25:03 [Permalink]
|
Well, it got us thorough a slow Sunday -- could'a gone to church, but didn't.
So ok, art requires consciousness. Now, does it have to be human consciousness? Is the twig carefully fashioned just so by a chimpanzee to fish for termites art?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 04/21/2008 03:32:51 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 07:21:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Where did I say that a definition was lacking? I simply disagreed with the definition offered by Marf, the trained artist! |
Well, there's the thing: I don't see any substantive difference between the definition I offered and the one offered by marf. So if you "intended to express precisely the meaning" that I did, then you agree with marf, too.| But apply this logic to differentiating between "good" art and "bad" art, to use two terms employed here earlier. How does that work? |
It doesn't. What makes a piece "good" depends upon many factors, and will be highly subjective.
It's also critical to distinguish between the good/bad spectrum and the important/trivial spectrum. There's plenty of art out there that I agree is important (in terms of its meaning and/or effects in a historical context) that I don't think is particularly "good." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 10:42:00 [Permalink]
|
filthy asked:
| Now, does it have to be human consciousness? |
In general I'd say yes. There is probably some grey area when dealing with near-human intelligence of the other primates though.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 10:56:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Given an extreme enough example, I think everyone (except some psychotics) would agree on that. One extreme would be the idea of a serial killer who regards his methods as an art form. |
Who would think like that?
"Now, I can be theatrical, and maybe even a little rough - but one thing I am not, is a killer. I am an artist" |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 04/21/2008 10:58:58 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 10:59:23 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
But apply this logic to differentiating between "good" art and "bad" art, to use two terms employed here earlier. How does that work?
It doesn't. What makes a piece "good" depends upon many factors, and will be highly subjective. |
And I suppose that subjectivity will be both on the part of the creator and the perceiver, no?
So, "good" art is that which is subjectively deemed "good" by it's creator, presented to an audience of at least one (other than the creator) and subjectively received as "good" by that audience, yes?
Now, what is the situation if only one (possibly a spouse, or friend) deems the piece "good" and many others (thousands, perhaps,) see it as horsecrap? Or, more likely, many see the piece, it is highly controversial, but the best that anyone can tell (as there has not been a poll on the subject), the "art" is largely perceived as a particularly odius example of horsecrap - perhaps even mulecrap - what then would the status of the art object in question actually be?...."good" art, or mulecrap? | It's also critical to distinguish between the good/bad spectrum and the important/trivial spectrum. There's plenty of art out there that I agree is important (in terms of its meaning and/or effects in a historical context) that I don't think is particularly "good." |
Well, I guess we have to get straight on the difference between MOMA and a mule barn, before we can address those issues! |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 11:10:10 [Permalink]
|
Marf stated earlierThe term is defined by humans. Art is a human invention. I already put forth a definition of "art" which covers anything that humans have in history and various cultures regarded in that manner: Anything which is creative expression put in the context of art is art.
|
Which statement Dave is on record as agreeing with and I am on record as questioning! It now appears that the level of animal conciousness (zygospore to mature adult) and the species of animal cogitating is a factor in refining the definition of "what is art, good art, bad art, horsecrap, mulecrap, and artifact in general!
Then on to questions of triviality (not in this thread, obviously), and importance!
Comments? |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 04/21/2008 11:13:11 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 11:21:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
filthy asked:
| Now, does it have to be human consciousness? |
In general I'd say yes. There is probably some grey area when dealing with near-human intelligence of the other primates though.
|
But why only a primate? Species of parrot are known problem solvers and have been observed ... ah to hell with it. I could keep this going 'till the next Sahara monsoon, but it's getting silly.
It got us through the day though, didn't it?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 11:55:50 [Permalink]
|
Parrot, Dolphin, Bonobo....yes, you could could construct quite a list, Filthy, and you should! Because we are talking about some pretty important shit here, Filth | ah to hell with it. I could keep this going 'till the next Sahara monsoon, but it's getting silly. |
Silly, Christ, man, we're talking about the artistic sensitivities of parrots! Don't you see the big picture here? This is not just for the birds! It speaks to the sentience and higher conciousness of Mankind, and our (I am proudly a homo sap) essential superiority in everything important to us! If you were about to be hunted and eaten by a Googon, you would damn well start brushing up on the importance of Picasso and Andres Serrano in order to redeem the recognition of your erudition to save you from becoming dinner for a bunch of ferocious savages armed with clubs and atom bombs! |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 12:05:58 [Permalink]
|
How do you define art? I'm not at all sure exactly what it is.
But on that note, I recall an elephant in some zoo or other doing original paintings that actually sold -- wait a minute; here it is, one of 'em, anyway.
Like I said, it's getting silly.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 12:31:41 [Permalink]
|
filthy asked:
| But why only a primate? Species of parrot are known problem solvers and have been observed ... ah to hell with it. I could keep this going 'till the next Sahara monsoon, but it's getting silly. |
The criteria I'm thinking of requires the ability to think in the abstract. Humans, maybe some primates, have this ability. Other animals don't seem to exhibit it.
meh.. I'm probably not saying what I want to say very well here.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 12:50:13 [Permalink]
|
| The criteria I put forth requires intent on the artist's part to create art (or to have created art - there's no reason a person can't change her/his mind). Does an elephant that paints intend to create art, or does it just know that following its trainer's command results in positive reinforcement? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 14:12:51 [Permalink]
|
filthy wrote: | Of course I'm familiar with Piss Christ! But I remind: it had to be mechanically assembled before it could be photographed. Is the art in the photography or in the assembly? Or both? |
The final product would be categorized as fine art photography. The fact that he set something up to photograph is of course part of the art. Many artists such as Cindy Sherman do that type of photography.
| And remember, one man's art is another's litter. |
I reject this notion because it puts art up on a pedestal. Words do not have subjective meaning. If you walked into an art gallery and found “Piss Christ” on a wall, to call it “litter” would be a literary device, not a statement of fact.
| Seems I read that cow's blood was used for the reddish tint. |
Oops, my mistake. You are right: http://www.slate.com/id/74144/
We have grown used to beauty without horror.
We have grown used to useless beauty. |
Dude wrote: | Not quite as meaningless as your above sentence, but close. Any examples of a non-human invention? |
You've missed my point. I don't mean just any individual person, I mean the collective. I mean how the term is used is defined by human consensus.
| Ok. But in order for that to not be a circular definition you have to have a parameter for "creative expression". Doesn't have to be particularly strict, obviously, but it still has to be there. A sunset, the grand canyon, flowers, beaches, clouds, and all the things in nature we think of as "beautiful"... are not art. Because there is no human intent behind them. The same for human excratory functions. |
A sunset and all those other examples can't qualify as creative expressions because in order for something to be creative, there has to be a mind involved. So unless one is calling them God's artwork, natural phenomenon don't fit the bill.
| Its not "art" until you shit, piss, bleed, or spit ON something. Videotaping yourself shitting, pissing, or aborting falls short of the "art" threshold IMO. So does saving your excrement and putting it on display. |
Totally arbitrary distinctions.
bngbuck wrote: | By your definition, an audience of one, specifically the "artist", can specify anything as art, and by that act of specification, the anything is transformed into "art". Even if it is denied as such by any number (one to a million or more) other human beings! |
Wrong. The part of the definition that you are ignoring is that it must be creatively expressed in the context of art. So while a person can turn anything into art by how that person presents the thing, the PERSON DOING THIS is necessary, and thus, not anything can be art.
I almost agree with your paraphrasing of my definition: | Anything which is defined as creative expression by anyone, put into the context of art as defined by anyone, even the definer himself, is Art! |
The only thing I disagree with is the idea that anything can be defined as creative expression. Creativ |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 16:58:31 [Permalink]
|
| So much for discussing the value and merit of the work and avoiding a mind-numbing debate over the definition of art. *sigh* |
The fact of the matter is that being an art critic isn't my bag, even though I used to do some decorative wrought iron work (forge & anvil) and was said to be pretty good at it.
I go to the local (Raleigh) art museum once in a while, when I hear that they've put up an exhibit I might be interested in. But to me, the art either attracts my eye or it doesn't, 'good & bad' having nothing to do with it. If I don't like it, someone else with the taste of a Philistine probably does. There is a lot of art out there, much of it acclaimed, that is no more than visual or audio, or literary gibberish to me. In which case, I don't have to look/listen/read -- someone else can have it and welcome. But that shouldn't be taken to mean it's either good or bad, even in my opinion.
In the eye of the beholder, marf; all in the eye of the beholder.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 04/21/2008 17:04:49 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
using abortion as an art medium
