So art becomes art because someone says it is? Then can art become art in retrospect, like say, imagine this painting, the author decided it wasn't art, and a few days later he changed his mind. Does it really change from non-art to art at a whim?
Art becomes Art in retrospect all the time. Though it doesn't usually hinge on the intentionality of the object's creator.
There are, obviously, lots of competing views on what "Art" is but it is a consistently fluid category. At the very least it is expansive, such that non-Art objects can become Art objects.
Well, as a quick example you can take a peek at the Arts & Crafts Movement which expanded Art to include objects that before were merely decoration and furniture.
And technically speaking, any Art-objects that predate the modern usage of "Art" have become Art in retrospect. For example the famed Greek and Roman statues were not considered "Art" in any sense of the word as we use it today, so they have been retrospectively categorized as Art.
This thread is plain out fucking stupid, anything worthy of artistic merit can be art, nobody defines so, you just know so.
Some blank canvas in the MoMA isn't art, some masterful graffitis are undoubtly art. If you have to ask it, then you don't know it, if you don't know it, you don't understand it.
>it becomes problematic the moment anyone disagrees about the specifics.
But then fuck those people. Art is personal. It's based solely on an individual's (artist or observer) connection to the work.
If it arrises sufficient polemic, it is art, no question about it. Then again, a mass of people can be awfuly wrong about a subject, and those saying the contrary to the trend (A: it's art, B:it's not art) can still be right. But these situations are so specific it's no use to discuss them, the general rule "you know it when you see it" is in 99% of cases, correctly asserted.
art becomes art when it is displayed in some sort of artistic institution, or accepted as such by the community that runs those institutions, or based on the guidelines for deciding art in the first place.
that is if you mean Art with a capital A because there are different ideas about 'art' in general.
>Some blank canvas in the MoMA isn't art
Well, I say a canvas is a canvas. The question is why do YOU think it's art?
>inb4: it's a reflection that on art as in life you can do as you wish and succeed #YOLO #YoungWildAndFree #ArtIsSubjective
because it is placed in the context of an art institution and is a deliberate response to ideas about art production. it has been transformed into art through some artistic process
but it's bad art and there probably haven't been any blank canvases in moma
That seems awfully assumptive and dismissive. Already in this thread there's disagreement about a blank canvas in the MoMA, that isn't a significant point of contention? Why is such a disagreement trivial and why is one side right and the other wrong?
So Art lies in the Eye of the Beholder then? And everyone knows it when they see it? Very well I suppose, though that begs the question of what is even the point of the word "Art". Seems like a completely empty word at that point.
It's an interesting question, even if poorly formulated.
Don't have access to my HD right now though, but I wouldn't be opposed to pic dumping while talking about Heidegger's train or some such.
I guess the problem is with the possible answers to the question. No one can completely claim that they're right but you still know what art is either way.
Always found that the least satisfying basis for what Art is. "Because the Museum says so" is right up there with "You'll know it when you see it". Both amount to arbitrary declarations. At the very least it should be broadened to an empirical investigation of what is called Art regardless of institution to develop a definition based on practice.
I don't see how it's dishonest, at all. Sure, tons of the art produced during the Renaissance was purposed as religious iconography and if not commissioned as such, was still very functional. The other half was mostly portraiture. The underlying question is why choose a certain artist, if one doesn't appreciate their work artistically? Why have Caravaggio paint your daughter if not for the fact that you liked his work to begin with? So, I stand my original statement, even if it hasn't always been the primary ideal of art, I think it's always been there.
To be honest it works, as a vague notion, to say you know Art when you see it. But it completely shuts down discussion of the matter, so it's a rather dysfunctional definition on that basis.
Although it seems people in general couldn't give two shits about fine art since it endeavored to leave the public behind in the dust, so it may be just as well.
Personally I'm of the view that "Art" is a "broken word" in need of rehabilitation or outright replacement. But so far I've been trying not to shill my own view, since that's a bit of a discussion killer too.
>Why have Caravaggio paint your daughter if not for the fact that you liked his work to begin with? So, I stand my original statement, even if it hasn't always been the primary ideal of art, I think it's always been there.
Maybe the price was right? Hard to charge top dollar as a fugitive on the run.
when people say 'art institutions' they don't restrict it to museums, since art had been institutionalised a long time before museums came into existence (around the start of the 19th century iirc)
art institutions had very specific reasons for why art was art. sometimes it was even illegal to produce art outside these institutions, like in france where to be an artist you had to belong to either the guilds or the academies. there is a long history of how 'art' developed and primarily this was through the institutions in which it was produced. people were taught to make art in a very specific way, for very specific purposes.
Art is a marketing product. It doesn't matter what the product is nor what it's made out of. It's worth, importance and message of feeling better than others is strikingly similar to any advertised product. Art is worth something not because of it's material or work but because someone tells us it's worth something.
To be honest, I believe most of the history of aesthetic thought and exploration into art and the general lead up to institutionalist definitions were that inevitable failure. Institutionalism was the 'fuck it' at the end of the discursive tunnel. I can say it isn't satisfying, but it's fairly conclusive, save for maybe Experiential accounts.
I personally romanticize the "it's in the eye of the beholder" arguement because in a way it's the most elitist take on Art. I think it solves many other problems as well like your view of "Art" as a broken word since them the can define all aspects having to do with Art. Also I believe that people in general don't care about art because it takes work and knowledgeable to appreciate it and that's how words really do change and "break".
the appreciation of art in history comes from the literature about art. it's less about personal response than it is about the correct response and being able to read a painting. vasari's 'lives of the artist' for example was a parochial work written specifically to enhance the reputation of florentine artists -- little to do with personal response and everything to do with being just how you support the artists in your city
>because in a way it's the most elitist take on Art
The individualist argument for art seems like the least elitist if you ask me.
Art is usually associated with extremely rich people, and I don't think they would take kindly to some yokel saying their paintings look shit, because muh eye of the beholder.
I guess I meant those rich people as the individual or someone completely devoted to it, that way that individual has complete ruling over the artistic value of whatever work presented. I didn't mean retards who don't know anything about the subject. I should have clarified that.
art is a very defined category: it's all the things that are done on purpose yet are not useful.
good art and shit art are a little less simple to distinguish.
>it's all the things that are done on purpose yet are not useful.
Your definition does not reflect already-accepted-as-art pieces, friend. MANY works of art can be said to have a use.
While true, it really doesn't provide any reason or justification for why anyone should care for a particular institution's decree. Let alone what if different institutions disagree, so it's kind of like kicking the can down the road and saying "not my problem".
everything that exists could conceivably be used for something. that's not the point.
art is more in the creation than the existence. if the creation doesn't aim at anything else, it's art.
>if the creation doesn't aim at anything else, it's art
How is the creation's aim discovered? What about things that were originally just made for the purpose of decoration? Propaganda posters? Early photography? My point is that your definition is writing off too much and leaving a lot of cases (in which things are already accepted as art) vague. I also don't like the fact that you posted that aloof manga picture when trying to define a term that has been in contention for thousands of years.
>How is the creation's aim discovered?
I really have no idea why you think that is my problem. do I have to solve the problem of induction before i can posit a definition?
>What about things that were originally just made for the purpose of decoration? Propaganda posters? Early photography?
the value of those things as art and as history perfectly accounts for all of it. decoration and trying to affect people are very obviously "art".
do you think I'm saying things can't become beautiful by accident? neither of us would call the sunrise art.
>if the creation doesn't aim at anything else, it's art.
>decoration and trying to affect people are very obviously "art"
So what is art then? Those things are clearly designed as functional artefacts.
In fact, the whole movement of
along with its offshoots, and clearly all of early photography prior to its appropriation into art institutions were functional things prior to acceptance as art. Hell even in discussion of retrospective art, anon >>519451 covers things that were originally functional and not considered art which now are.
You have stated art is "all the things that are done on purpose yet are not useful", while also maintaining that "if the creation doesn't aim at anything else, it's art". The things you say are "very obviously art", are not obviously art according to your definition.
>I really have no idea why you think that is my problem. do I have to solve the problem of induction before i can posit a definition?
Specifically there is a problem with this definition because it's practically unknowable. It becomes a pointless and useless definition because you can never apply it to anything without knowledge of authorial intent (a concept thrown out in most discussions nowadays).
>So what is art then? Those things are clearly designed as functional artefacts.
"exist and be looked at" is not a function but a universal property of everything
art that serves a function for the purpose of being art that serves a function. if the purpose was for the thing to exist within these rules rather than get a thing done, that would make it art.
>Specifically there is a problem with this definition because it's practically unknowable. It becomes a pointless and useless definition because you can never apply it to anything without knowledge of authorial intent (a concept thrown out in most discussions nowadays).
arguing about unknowable facts is levels above arguing about unknowable definitions
>"exist and be looked at" is not a function but a universal property of everything
Senpai, things made specifically to entice a TYPE of looking (propaganda, looking as a citizen or swaying opinion; fancy wallpaper; patterns to draw the eye directionally) are functional. You can't just classify them all into "things which are looked at" when the way one is drawn to look is the function.
This isn't even mentioning photography which I assume you don't know the history of if you classify pre-art photography as "exist and be looked at".
"art that serves a function for the purpose of being art that serves a function. if the purpose was for the thing to exist within these rules rather than get a thing done, that would make it art"
You can't just slap on that label of "art that serves a function", if your definition of art is something that doesn't serve a primary function... One of the selling points of constructivism was things which were functional. For example, Rodchenko's photographs which assaulted the norm of a viewpoint with confusing angles and positions as a way of challenging the current culture. You're conflating common-use definition with your own at this point. I know the wikipedia page I linked says "art", but you can't move with that as a stepping stone when you're putting forward a definition of art which can be in contention with wikipedia's use of the word.
>arguing about unknowable facts is levels above arguing about unknowable definitions
Debatable, because your definition is just as pointless and useful if you cannot apply it to anything.
>You can't just classify them all into "things which are looked at" when the way one is drawn to look is the function.
everything that exists is "things that might get looked at". for things untouched by human hands it's redundant to talk about it. things changed for a different reason aren't "not art", but they're something else primarily. what's left is proper "art".
the prestige of proper art comes from the statement: it's something that wasn't made for some other purpose. I put effort into this purely so that it would exist. therefore I must have held its existence to have value.
>Debatable, because your definition is just as pointless and useful if you cannot apply it to anything.
you can't know if there's a cat behind a door but you can reason that if there is one he might have killed the pet mouse you keep there. that's perfectly valid and logical.
whereas if you have no definition of "cat" you can't infer anything.
Art relates neither to a physical state nor a strict descriptor from an ancestor of reason, rather existing as a manner of holding─ every or no thing could be held as art, while only a few would have weight in the hand. Every film is an artistic form, masterpieces are rare.
tl;dr art is a way of viewing things not a strict yes or no
This is art. Its a page from the Book of Hours circa 1450. Illuminated manuscripts are beautiful. Where my fellow bibliophiles at?
I hope to some day make enough money to build a small collection of illuminated manuscripts. I would just sit there and smell them. Is that weird?