Which is more likely: >Everything is Art >Nothing is Art

Everything is what you can make of it, even if its nothing.

Art is a meme

art depends only on intent

le everything is le fart

>>10002343
Stupidest post of the day. Well done.

>>10002348
no u

>>10002283
The second one

>>10002283
I only see people with no artistic skill talking shit about art, so i think i will go with the artist choice: everything is art.

>>10002343

Art is dependent on the belief of the viewer.

If a man walks up to the Mona Lisa and believes he isn't looking at art, then for all intents and purposes, it isn't art (in his reality)

>>10002377

The War of 1812 was art?

>>10002381
the mona lisa was created as a piece of art. the intent of the creator is all that matters.

>>10002393

In the artist's reality, perhaps, but that has no effect on the "art's" status as art in my reality.

I'll allow that the artists can believe his work to be art, but that doesn't make it automatically art in the reality of the viewer. Only the viewer's acceptance makes it so. If the viewer reject's the art label, it is not art in their reality.

>>10002408
there is only one reality.

also you don't exist btw.

>>10002421

*disappears from this reality*

Heh, nothin' personal, kid

>>10002425
that was a fast shitpost

>>10002283

Everything has the potential to be art
Some things are art

>>10002343
Looks like someone hasn't read Barthes

>>10002440

Did the things that are Art have the potential to not have become Art?

Where is the point at which something becomes Art?

When David was being sculpted, was the original block of material Art? Is it only Art once the artist stops making it?

Art I think is the communication of an idea through a different medium than language, sometimes you can't really explain how you feel with words, so you do it through an extended metaphor like a book, or if you replicate the embodiment of an idea through the essence of a painting.

Okay, so what makes art good, well - two things, if it cannot be easily replicated by someone else, and if it makes the viewer feel something unorthodox that they cannot explain in words, the essence of the painting, which would have been validly translated from the artist to the viewer.

I don't think its productive to say which is more likley if nothing or everything is art - it's a false dichotomy that would lead you no where when trying to define something as cerebral as art.

>>10002465
>Art I think is the communication of an idea through a different medium than language

Poetry, Literature, and vocal music are no art?

>sometimes you can't really explain how you feel with words, so you do it through an extended metaphor like a book,

Sometimes you can't explain it in words, so you explain it with an extended metaphor made up of words?

If a tree falls in a forest, and nothing is around to hear it, is it art?

>>10002474
I meant, you can't explain how you feel directly with words. Same thing with poetry and literature, it would have made more sense if I said it that way.

>>10002506
>you can't explain how you feel directly with words

Says who?

>>10002283
>Art is an arbitrary and shifting category that only has meaning insofar as we assign that meaning to it.

>>10002543
Answer OP's question or get the fuck out.

Christ, you're worse than those Democrats who show up at parties and instantly start messing with the playlist before they've even had a drink!

>>10002456
>Did the things that are Art have the potential to not have become Art?
sure
>Where is the point at which something becomes Art?
yes
>When David was being sculpted, was the original block of material Art? Is it only Art once the artist stops making it?
depends

>>10002625

What a useless person you are

Beuys is always right.

File: incredibles-2.jpg (153KB, 677x371px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 677x371px

>>10002283
>if everything is art, nothing is

neither. art is created by artists. if you go hiking and appreciate a sublime landscape that's not art, though it is beautiful and can make you feel strongly. only when you take a picture, create a painting, etc. that it can become art.

>>10003152

>If everything is a car, then nothing is a car

What?

Some things are art, you fucking buffoon. What would be the use of a term that everything and nothing?

>>10003220
He's not saying it's everything and nothing, he's asking if it's either everything or nothing.

>>10003170
>everythings is a car now
>you can't distinguish between anything
>you point to a car and say "hey what a nice car"
>nobody knows what you're talking about because you're a car too

>>10003224
neither make sense. a term has to separate certain things from others, otherwise it has no meaning

File: 1453950350847.jpg (221KB, 827x1024px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 827x1024px

>>10002283

Are is skill applied in a creative way.

If someone was skillfull at peeling potatoes and did it in a unique and interesting way, you could say they were creating art. Only peeling potatoes and being conscious of it does not make it artistic.

To have skill is to be an artisan. To apply that skill in creative manners is to be an artist.

>>10003262

>you can't distinguish between anything

Unless everyone and everything has become a single car, this is not the case.

Can you not tell the difference between two identical vases if they're put side to side? Even if you can't denote differences, they're still two separate objects.

>nobody knows what you're talking about because you're a car too

So people can't distinguish things that they are? If I pointed to a baby and said "Nice human being", people wouldn't understand what I'm saying?

>>10003264

>a term has to separate certain things from others, otherwise, it has no meaning

Says who? If I say everything exists, that has meaning, even though we have no experience with something that has absolutely no existence from which to contrast with.

Neither of them are true but everything being art is more likely. The idea of 'art' was something describing the result of some process implemented by some specialist along some pre-existing, likely codified, conception of the functioning of reality. It used to be 'imitating' reality (either by mimesis its appearance or, through consolidating appearances, the 'ideal' or 'metaphysical' nature of reality) and has since been expanded to include the 'reality' of personal expression (conscious or unconscious).

Beuys is interesting, but I don't agree that anything with some sort of considered application of thought (i.e. 'design', not to be confused with 'disegno' -- the close study of nature through drawing and the application of compositional principles to represent underlying reality) is art. Art seems to be to be a meditation on reality, whether natural or cultural realities. It requires (but not always takes the form of) a material existence, reconfigured by the free will in accordance with an understanding of a deterministic world (some will say ethics and aesthetics are related). Art exists, even as a social construct to describe the 'result' of an activity. If nothing is art that means that there is no material existence from which to develop an idea of art, therefor nothing exists. But since something exists, and art is a process enacted on this physical existence, then something is art. The step to say that 'everything is art' ('everything exists') requires the scope of art (i.e. the frame, which currently sits at 'the gallery') to expand further and include 'everything' by way of, I don't know, the Absolute Spirit or something.

The 'reconfiguration' I described earlier seems to be purposeful, or teleological, so it may be the case that art is a way for the Absolute to realise itself, given the space for 'anything' (eventually 'everything') to be 'allowed' within a frame. A fair amount of critically-relevant contemporary (and postmodern) art does this; the randomness of the universe existing as an object of study, even sometimes allowing things other than the will of the artist to be included in the work (chance, etc.) as a part of its form and content.

Art still requires that specialist though, and we haven't really thought of a way to include 'everything' as art while still considering the role of the specialist. It is more likely though that 'everything' and 'art' can exist at the same time (perhaps a way of realising the everything) than 'nothing' and 'art', which is impossible.

>>10002381
>>10002393

The moderating factor between artist and viewer are the conventions used to communicate between the two, which includes a conception of 'art'. These conventions are accessed by both but neither completely dominates them, so the artist may consider his work art and the viewer doesn't, but the key to understanding the status of the 'artwork' is by considering the conventions themselves rather than the limited opinions of either artist or viewer. This is why we have critics and art historians after art became more of a public affair in the 18th century rather than patron - artist relationship (where common opinion didn't matter, only the person who commissioned the work) as it was prior.

>>10002440
Yeah this is the sensible position. Also I'm having a deja vu right now.

> Is it only Art once the artist stops making it?

This was the traditional view. After the 'finish' was added the art was technically complete. This isn't really the case now and often the creative process and the reception of the viewer becomes part of the art.

>>10002283
Art is the addition of beauty to the world and nothing else. There is no other meaningful definition of the word.

A beautifully peeled potato is beautiful. So yes.

>>10003294
>Everything and everyone merges into a single automobile
I call it the End of Carvangelion

>>10002283
Everything is art. That's just how i see it.

File: Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion.jpg (116KB, 1536x651px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1536x651px

>>10003460

>Addition of Beauty

Is Francis Bacon art?

>>10002465
>>10002506
Why could just 'talking' as a proper medium of communication not be art though?

>>10003460
'Beauty' can mean a lot of things, and when someone says a 'beautifully peeled potato' they generally mean that the potato is peeled optimally, rather than the potato appearing beautiful. In this case a work of art is something 'optimal', which can be applied to both the purpose of the work and the means by which that purpose is realised. So a work can be 'ugly' but done 'beautifully', therefore contradicting the idea that it is the addition of beauty to the world, but still otherwise remaining true.

The relationship between beauty and art is comparatively recent anyway, when aesthetics was written about by philosophers. Art prior to the Renaissance was not necessarily predicated on fulfilling a function as something beautiful, but instead something devotional, or some other purpose than being simply an object to look at.

>>10003460

this is how you get a bucket of shit being called art

beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so your definition is pretty meaningless and holds no weight in a discussion trying to ascertain a real meaning to the word art

>>10003411
>reconfigured by the free will in accordance with an understanding of a deterministic world

This sounds nice, but since there is no prove that free will exists doesn't that mean that we have no certain criteria to decide if art exists?

>>10003525
not all art is good. some of it is shit.

>>10003105

ask pointless questions, ...

>>10003539
Even if it does or not, the idea of free will existing has played such an important part in how we consider ourselves within nature and society, which includes our roles and the best ways to perform them within these spheres (e.g. the artist). So art 'exists' in the way that justice exists, or whatever, by assuming that free will exists and plays a part in the workings of the world.

>>10003485
Not really. Like Picasso and Warhol, Bacon isn't truly an artist and to consider him such does a disservice to the Arts as a whole.

They're performance pieces, actors taking the role of artists without the skills or talents of artists, just those of well-trained mimes.

>>10002476
btw as a stem, the original "does it make a sound" is already proven. it does not make a sound. it makes a sound wave. to be a sound it itself needs to be perceived with ears

>>10003598
Art is a performance as much as any role, but the rules that govern that performance have changed along with the philosophy behind them. The ideas behind art are different between the early Italian Renaissance, High Renaissance, Mannerism, the Baroque, etc. (without even introducing regional variations on artistic practice) and can't really be read as the linear development of more and more accurate depictions of visual reality, which with still lives and landscapes occupied a lower spot on the hierarchy of genres in the Academies anyway.

who gives a shit? all this discussion is gay

definitons are irrelevant, artistic quality can be perceived with a glance

>>10003637
Artistic quality can be perceived with my glans.

>>10003637

Define what you mean by artistic quality

>>10002283
Everything is art if and only if you are basking in the splendor of God's creation

>>10002283
Well the barrier to entry is that art isn't accidental. Even found objects must be selected, arranged, and displayed in a context they are never otherwise seen in.

>>10002377
so the universe is art?

>>10004245
>Well the barrier to entry is that art isn't accidental

Says who?

What if I believe that nothing is accidental?

>>10002283
Art is just kind of vaguely defined. That's just how natural language is. I don't really think there's any value in arguing the definitions of words.

>>10004286
Anon, don't bullshit. Art is necessarily a transformative and deliberate act. if I'm slathering paint on something with a cock I'm still choosing which paint, how much, which side of my cock I'm touching it with, what kind of material I'm touching my cock to, and which locations I'm dragging my cock across. It's a cock painting and may not be a good one, but it is a something which wasn't there until I got the idea to put paint on my cock. It's necessarily human, so even if you attribute the natural world to the divine will it still isn't art, it is just nature or creation. (Of course humans may be manifestations of divine will, but that still makes their arts different from the natural creation)

>>10004313
>Art is necessarily a transformative and deliberate act.

Says who?

Give me what manifesto you're pulling this from?

Or is this your own manifesto?

lol?

>>10004297
How do we know we're on the same page unless we have a common agreed upon mode of communication? How can we form concepts without concretely outlining what it is we are talking about?

>>10004327
I presented my argument already, can you read?

>>10004337

Lol, as you can see by citation of "Anon's Manifestl", (9 September 2017, boards.4chan.org/lit), we can see the true nature of art

Lol, get the fuck outta here nigga, nothing is art, art doesn't actually exist.

The label of "art" of exists, but our applying of it to certain things doesn't change the fact that art can't exist.

>>10004330
We don't know we're on the same page, and threads like this are a good example of that. You can argue endlessly about what the 'true' definition of something is without reaching a conclusion because there is no right answer. Natural language is a bunch of heuristics and vague agreements, not some exact science.
Language is inexact, but it seems to work well enough for most things.

>>10004340
You didn't even attempt to address my argument. Anything you see in a gallery is there on purpose. Even if you put a rock from the street in a gallery you're transforming the context in which people see the rock. Do you have any basis whatsoever for this "lmao nigga everything is art" hogwash? Why is it then we call some particular things art and other things we do not? Would art not be an entirely meaningless distinction if "everything" was art?

>>10004347

Nigga, it doesn't matter what we do and do not call art.

Art doesn't exist.

Why should I concern myself about what plebians mislabel?

>>10004351
What do you call the things in galleries? How are we to address the phenomenon of human beings making aesthetic creations and displaying them in certain contexts? How does anything of what you're saying resemble an argument?

>>10004355

>What do you call the things in galleries?

Paintings, nigga

>How are we to address the phenomenon of human beings making aesthetic creations and displaying them in certain contexts?

Autism, nigga, nothing is actually artistic, you just think it so because you mistakenly believe art exists

>How does anything of what you're saying resemble an argument?

Lol, nigga, why you gettin' so mad?

How about they're not mutually exclusive you knave

>>10004362
Anon your inability to form sincere thoughts coincides with your inability to form coherent thoughts. I'm well aware you're shitposting but being ironic doesn't make you any less wrong.

>>10004365

If everything has the quality of A, then there is nothing that doesn't have the quality of A, meaning the statement "Nothing is A" isn't true when "Everything is A" is true

>>10004370
Whatever you say, nigga, how 'bout you go spend another decades of dollars on "Art" museum memberships

>>10002348
>help i accidentally make an art

o shit

>>10004340
The label 'art' exists and is commonly applied to objects or activities for which no other term is adequate. When we think of art we have a fairly good idea of what the term refers to. I don't know how you can say art can't exist without actually proving it, which ironically you can only do by defining what we commonly refer to as 'art' before saying it is inaccurate.

>>10002283
subjective
u
b
j
ec
at
skiiidslmaw
weqwive

Everything is art, but not every art is good art.

>>10002387
All wars are Art.

>>10004632
Almost

>Everything is Art, but because not everyone is an artist, not everything is well-done Art

FTFY

>>10002283
The problem with this discussion is that we try to capture art as a situation when it's mostly just a momentum.
Art doesn't lie in the work, it lies in the conjuction between act / artifact (the work), the artist / gallerist / curator (the actor) and the spectator / critic / viewer (the acted upon).
There's no materiality to art, things that aren't made as art can be "consensed" into art (I always use this guy's work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Bispo_do_Rosário as an example).

>>10006381
Everything can be art, although not everyone is an artist.

>>10004632
Define "good art".

>>10002283
saying that "everything is art" would mean that "art" is just a synonyme for "everything".
the group of things called "art" would be the same as the group of things called "everything".
so the question would be why then we need a second word for the exact same thing.
similarly,in your second proposition "art" would
be the exact same thing as "nothing".
so,in conclusion,art has to be something else entirely.

>>10006573

Same reasone we can say "Everything" and "All things"

You can have two terms for the same thing.

Just because Art and Everything are synonymous doesn't make one untrue.

>>10006573
>so the question would be why then we need a second word for the exact same thing.
So you are dismissing both propositions because you don't know about the existence of synonyms?

Sztuka is Τέχνη.

>>10002283
art objectively exists so "nothing is art" is immediately disqualified

File: 1502603178950.jpg (5KB, 250x174px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 250x174px

>>10006783
>objectively

>>10006783
How can an abstraction objectively exists?
How do you prove the existence of an abstraction?

>>10006834
abstractions are the only thing that really exists
it's just self-evident

>>10003598
kys

Even if its art, then what?

>>10006859

I win

>>10003598
>Not really. Like Picasso and Warhol, Bacon isn't truly an artist
the absolute state of this board

File: Oscar the Mad Man.jpg (166KB, 1200x785px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1200x785px

>>10006852
>>10006871

>The artist is the creator of beautiful things. To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim...
>Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.
>Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope. They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only beauty...

>The nineteenth century dislike of romanticism is the rage of Caliban not seeing his own face in a glass. The moral life of man forms part of the subject-matter of the artist, but the morality of art consists in the perfect use of an imperfect medium. No artist desires to prove anything. Even things that are true can be proved. No artist has ethical sympathies. An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style. No artist is ever morbid. The artist can express everything. Thought and language are to the artist instruments of an art. Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art. From the point of view of form, the type of all the arts is the art of the musician. From the point of view of feeling, the actor's craft is the type. All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital. When critics disagree, the artist is in accord with himself. We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.

Picasso, Warhol, Bacon, and their ilk are not artists

>>10006871
why don't you consider the relative state then?

File: Guernica-Picasso.jpg (159KB, 1101x501px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1101x501px

>>10006896
>different artist have different conceptions of what art should be
WOW! Picasso BTFO! Every artist that didn't or doesn't completely agree with Wilde BTFO! How could i be such a fool?

>>10006916

Disgusting...

Art is where aesthetic is,and aesthetic is potentially everywhere.
Which is the same to say nothing is art by default.Most artist (and the cultural industry) are a scam by definition,distorting this dichotomy with ideology,religion,politics,economy etc.

>>10006579
>>10006584
Retards he only meant that it's a useless word if art is everything or nothing. When humans use the word art we obviously want to say something more than all things or no things.

>>10006929
>When humans use the word art we obviously want to say something more than all things or no things.

Says who?

I want it to mean everything, because everything is Art. The only reason I feel the need to create the synonym is because of retards like you who think there exist things that are not art.

Paintings are art, divorce settlements are art, rape is art, electromagnetic attraction is art.

>>10006916
i don't even hate picasso but guernica is trash

>>10002283
Everything can be art but not necessarily good art

>>10006988

Way to add literally nothing to the thread.

You and >>10004632 should go jerk off together.

>>10006945
Good for you enjoy not being able to communicate with the rest of us.

I feel like the debate on "What is Art?" is a misdirection. The real question/analysis should be on the beauty of experience, not the triggering object of that experience.

>>10002343
That's gift giving, actually.

>>10003439
wow, those medieval plebs didn't realize processes were art they probably even didnt read john cage lol

>>10006573
name one (1) thing that isn't art and present your argument why

>>10007033
for that we need to turn to music, for it is the most immideate asthetic

>>10007267

Art to them was the finished product.

The creation of Art was the Craft.

ART IS BUT AN AFTERWORD TO FART

What is the point of arguing about whether something is "art"? People use the term to refer to a consciously produced aesthetic object. What exactly that constitutes is subjective. Trying to pin it down is just semantic wrangling.

>>10008382

Because millions of dollars exchange hands every week over "Art"

>>10008385
So? Will that change if you come to a decision about the specific boundaries of "art"? Perhaps trying to elevate the term into some abstract sphere, detached from its normal use, is part of the problem.

>>10008389

Nigga, if we can pin this shit down, we can get fucking rich jipping off rich cunts for a living.

File: 1504017249201.jpg (1MB, 3993x2387px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3993x2387px

That nothing is Art. Nothing was Art for 13.82 Billion years.

Then a guy smeared a berry on a rock and thought of the sunset.

Human appreciation, sentiment, and aesthetic sense contributes volumes to what it means to be a person, a patrician, and even a citizen. It is ultimately only the human eye which can define an object as Art, or insert handful of species here. The white tailed deer does not care for the mist rising through the trees in morning, nor stars infinite glinting in the dark. The beaver checks no glint on the surface of the sylvan pool, nor does he pause to watch the aquatic things, slipping through the dark. There is no art outside the minds of men, no hope, and no God.

>Pic related, Albert Biersadt's Among The Sierra Nevada Mountains, California. Famed in the school of Luminism, which intended light as a tool to create emotion of reverence.

>>10002345
This guy gets it

File: 1362347641565.gif (2MB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x168px

>>10008364

Life, as we live and understand it. And that is assuming that every word in her quote is perfect, and true. There is also death. One can die beautifully. Decay less so, but rest eternal is a nice concept. Until they poor concrete over your coffin to prevent the ground from sinking in. Until it does anyway, because even concrete decays. Until your bones turn up in the next flood, or the grave markers at Arlington aren't really correct and the man looking to dig a grave for another man who died fighting for something on soil that isn't his own puts a shovel through your skull because he legitimately did not know you were there, or were ever there. There, in your own soil.

Maybe that's art too. But the tree whose roots will pierce your hollow chest will not have heard this story. It will not think so much on the subject.

File: 1499576678630.gif (87KB, 192x197px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 192x197px

>Art
We're a bunch of hairless apes that through unlikely odds gained whatever sentience is, and are constantly hurtling through the cosmos strapped to the soft outer shell of a colossal molten metal jawbreaker by gravity at a leisurely 108000 km/h.

Whatever art is or is not, it resides solely in the space between our auditory sensing organs.

File: HRSOA_AlbertBierstadt-Storm_in_the_Mountains.jpg (561KB, 1500x944px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 1500x944px

>>10008591

I said essentially the same thing
here:
>>10008436

This (You), necessary so that you'll read my post and I'll have some source of existential validation. You don't even have to comment on it, I'll just pretend you read it. Here, have another Bierstadt.

File: 1503572342067.jpg (20KB, 552x526px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 552x526px

>>10008611
Sassy internet jerk minds think alike, my dude.

>>10004517
This is actually possible, so it doesn't even work as an argument. Claiming that intention to make something 'art' makes it so is exactly the kind of pointless idea that people associate with the dumber fringes of post modernism.

>>10002465
>if it cannot be easily replicated by someone else, and if it makes the viewer feel something unorthodox that they cannot explain in words
This concept of art is old and dead. Looks like something doesn't know Andy Warhol

>>10003285
Sure, maybe in the Renaissance.

>>10002381
Only true post itt

>>10008436
>There is no art outside the minds of men, no hope, and no God.

This doesn't disqualify art from existing if. You may as well argue that there's no such thing as language. Like language art is measurable, and in fact was highly regulated by certain institutions invested solely in the creation of art. It doesn't not exist just because we can imagine a universe without humans, because humans do exist within that universe.

>>10007033
I completely agree with this and feel that focusing on the art object specifically and how to classify it is a hideous mistake that has held aesthetics back.

>>10002393
Something "mattering" can only be subjective to the one to which it matters. If the viewer of the painting doesn't care about the creator's intent, then the intent doesn't matter.

>>10002421
The only reality that can ever be experienced is the one in your brain. So there are as many realities as there are conscious entities.

>>10008713
What you are saying is no argument against anything he is saying. Think about it for a bit.

>You may as well argue that there's no such thing as language.

Without a group of entities who agree that certain practices constitute language, then no. Of course language could still exist theoretically, but only in the same way that all possible languages and modes of communication 'exist'.

>>10006896
>>The artist is the creator of beautiful things.

This is only useful for discussion of art in the context of the 19th century. It's not universally true, and you're more likely to find quotes from more qualified people that contradict this argument than ones that support it.

>>10006927
There is literally no art separate from ideology, religion, politics, economy, etc. so I don't know where you get the model of 'true' art from.

>>10008720
Since the 60s this hasn't really been a concern.

>>10002283
Art is a product. Everything a consumer would "buy" as art is therefore art.

>>10008382
Logical reasoning isn't subjective. One can easily argue whether something is art or not using precedent set in the history of art in all cultures. Your response whether you like the art or not is subjective, but not the conditions that constitute its status as art.

File: Jacques Derrida says Viola.jpg (28KB, 640x449px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 640x449px

>>10008389
>Perhaps trying to elevate the term into some abstract sphere, detached from its normal use, is part of the problem.

>>10006896
Wilde was a sissy faggot and a complete hedonistic piece of shit. I'm glad he died in complete sadness and I wish AIDS was already a thing when he was alive so he could have died in even bigger suffering. I'm not even homophobic, but Wilde was incredibly dumb and it surprises me that people follow his aphorisms in a world (we're in 21st century) where they don't even make sense. Why should this fuccboy cunt hold the secret of the objective?

>>10008732
Without stars there would be no stars. It's not a real argument because stars exist.

>>10008754
>Logic
>Art
Are you autistic?

>>10002393
show someone that doesn't know the intent and who isn't familiar with portraits or most conventional art and they won't think much of it

>>10008754
>One can easily argue whether something is art or not using precedent set in the history of art in all cultures.
That argument wouldn't matter if it produced an answer contrary to the manner in which people use the term "art". You'd be talking about something other than "art" at that point.
>Your response whether you like the art or not is subjective, but not the conditions that constitute its status as art.
Whether a person likes it is not the point. It's common for people to think of something as "art" without personally liking it.

>>10008768
Use your words.

>>10008754
There really isn't any 'logical' argument for what constitutes art that isn't inherently circular. It all comes down to what you choose to define art as.

>>10008764
That's simply a basic tautology though. Of course without any 'x', then 'x' wouldn't exist. The original point was that Art is specifically contingent of the existence of humans to perceive it, and is meaningfully defined through their perception, given its subjective nature. That is a meaningful statement, as it denies that Art could otherwise be defined 'objectively' without reference to a group of perceivers. There is no measure of Art independent of such minds.

>>10008741
No, aesthetics past the '60s has become horrific because it largely ignores the kinds of experiences that philosophers of aesthetics specifically used to define it, and instead relies on a mass of intercultural nebulousness that chooses not to attempt to ground itself even when it should have reason to (even if I don't disagree that such grounding is not ultimately possible in a complete sense).

>>10008770
>That argument wouldn't matter if it produced an answer contrary to the manner in which people use the term "art".

People tend to use the term 'art' in a fairly consistent way, based on what we have come to infer on the subject from our experience with it and experience with the framing discourse around it. That discourse is based on a historical development of art and its theories and is constituted by vast amounts of texts and ideas that make up an art history course. I think it is near impossible to consult the body of art history and come up with an idea of art that is much different than the way dedicated art historians have thought about the subject.

>Whether a person likes it is not the point.
This is what I'm arguing but liking something or not is the subjective response to art, rather than the qualification of what art is or isn't, which is based on history and theory (generally the same thing).

>>10008781
Someone can 'arbitrarily' choose if something isn't art but I don't think the conclusion is very sound if you're tossing out other reasons for considering something as art just based on a subjective whim.

>>10008782
But those minds exists therefor it is impossible to say art doesn't exist regardless of its contingent nature.

>>10008792
No really, the incessant classification of art to adhere to its history was a problem with modernism and formalism, which is something brought up by the postmodernists. That's the point I'm raising, not the state of aesthetics today.

>>10008803
>People tend to use the term 'art' in a fairly consistent way, based on what we have come to infer on the subject from our experience with it and experience with the framing discourse around it. That discourse is based on a historical development of art and its theories and is constituted by vast amounts of texts and ideas that make up an art history course. I think it is near impossible to consult the body of art history and come up with an idea of art that is much different than the way dedicated art historians have thought about the subject.
You're talking about a definition which exists somewhere other than the common usage of the term "art". The term does not belong to scholars. You can formulate your historical conception of "art" if that's what you'd like to do, but if it doesn't match what people mean when they say "art" then you're talking about different things.
>the qualification of what art is or isn't, which is based on history and theory (generally the same thing)
It's based only on how the term is used. People's use of the term may be informed by history and theory or it may not. Whichever way it ends up being used is correct, because that is its use.

>>10008811
>But those minds exists therefor it is impossible to say art doesn't exist regardless of its contingent nature.

But nobody is saying this? What are you even implying? Are you saying that 'art objects' could be meaningfully defined without reference to those who experience them, such that that even an alien without completely different brain structure and senses would somehow agree with us on what an 'art object' would be?

>regardless of its contingent nature.
So you agree with us then that art is contingent? Then who do you even think you are disagreeing with?

>>10008821
> the incessant classification of art to adhere to its history

I'm net arguing specifically for this though, but there is a large amount of agreement on what aesthetic experience involves, even if the specifics differ between people and there's no outright way of defining it. At the very least we should focus on understanding what these experiences have in common and why we believe they are worth classifying.

>>10008828
>You're talking about a definition which exists somewhere other than the common usage of the term "art".

Yes, is it's exactly that definition that is interesting. Otherwise, who cares how a given word just happens to be used? I mean, people use tragedy to refer to sad events all the time, but that sense of it is irrelevant to an aesthetic understanding of Attic drama.

>>10008828
> if it doesn't match what people mean when they say "art" then you're talking about different things.

I don't think so, because the common experience of art is within a gallery or museum and is put on exhibition by those scholars. Also those scholars are people too, just with a more extensive knowledge of art than the common person. That means a common person may come to the same conclusions on art if exposed to the same knowledge and reasoning held by the scholars. It's worth mentioning too that it was the literate classes who commissioned (and theorised) the highest forms of art since the Renaissance. Art is very much tied to literature and history, which is filtered through to us in the gallery/museum system (a relatively recent addition to the development of art collection and display).

>Whichever way it ends up being used is correct

Not necessarily. One can't escape the history of Western thought that is intrinsically tied up in the conception of 'art' from its beginning so there isn't really a way possible to consider art without referring to that history and still be correct. Just like I can't make up my own philosophy without abusing the term 'philosophy' I can't just decide whether something is art or not just by saying so.

>>10008842
>But nobody is saying this?

This guy is: >>10008436

>I'm net arguing specifically for this though

I'm arguing that the following point hasn't been a relevant concern of aesthetics since the 60s:
>>10008720
> the art object specifically and how to classify it is a hideous mistake that has held aesthetics back.

>>10006988
Anything can be art but not everything is art.
ftfy

>>10002283
I reject the dichotomy.

>>10002283
when everything is art then nothing is

>>10003294
>two identical vases if they're put side to side? Even if you can't denote differences, they're still two separate objects.

No you fool. "Sides" are now cars, "two" is now car, "separate" is now car - everything is cars now. That's how'd you know you fucked up - if only "knowing", "up" and "fucking" wouldn't be car also.

>>10003644
nice

>>10008866
>This guy is

He's not, and I don't know why this need to be pointed out to you.

>the art object specifically

Which I am specifically contrasting with the 'experience' of art, which is what I'm claiming is more important and deserving of focus.

>>10002283
Both are false statements. Likeliness has nothing to do with it.

>>10008993
>He's not, and I don't know why this need to be pointed out to you.

He's saying it's more likely that nothing is art but that is literally impossible given the reasons I have discussed.

>which is what I'm claiming is more important and deserving of focus.

Yes I know, and critics in the 60s thought the same thing. You're not disagreeing with me.

>>10008733
>you're more likely to find quotes from more qualified people that contradict this argument than ones that support it.

Please, find one.

You only believe it not universally true, because you're personally flawed.

Even if different cultures disagree on "beautiful" it doesn't change the fact that true artists are always the creator of beautiful things.

>>10008904

In favor of what? Or are you just a Rejectionalist?

>>10008911

You're misunderstanding the existence of actual things and the "existence" of language descriptors

Unless you wish to be a Neo-Platonist and argue the "Form of the side" and the "Form of the two"

I feel like when someone questions art and what is it, it's always someone who sees something "simple" or "stupid" like a blank canvas being sold for a significant sum of money and think: "if that's art then i can be an artist XD". The thing is that, in the art market (at least the modern one), something like pure artistic value us barely important. There are many other factors that play a bigger part in the selling of an art work, like the reputation of both the dealer, the cost of making the artwork and the demand it has (a sole artwork worths more than several individual copies). The art business is as much business as it is art. Though, that's not to say that these works are worthless as "real art". All of the works being sold in high prices did require a lot of effort and talent, and it's not just some jerk that got lucky.

File: Untitled, 1982.png (2MB, 1239x821px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1239x821px

>>10009588

>$110.5 Million

>>10002381
If he doesn't believe the Mona Lisa is art, he either doesn't understand what it is or he has a very peculiar definition of "art." If the former, his own ignorance does not change the fact that it is art. If the latter, it may not be "art" according to him, but that's purely a result of semantics.

File: IMG_20170911_155103497_HDR.jpg (1MB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1440x2560px

>>10002283
Everything CAN BE art.
That doesn't mean it is good art.

Pic related: shit art

>>10010458
>tfw I find that image profound and comforting

File: 1473668555399.jpg (46KB, 654x525px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 654x525px

Everything is indeed art.

Art can exists without a creator, art can exist without an audience.

Art is expression, art is also a mindset, a point of view. Art is beauty within being able to absorb life.

The universe is expressing itself through existence, all of being, every expression of existence is art.

>>10002283
They're the same.

>>10003618
No you stupid STEMsperg, the thought experiment is to open dialogue on whether a sound must be perceived to be sound, or whether sound is independent of a perceiver. Simply defining the answer as the latter isn't a fucking answer.
>UH... LE SCIENCE SEZ SO... FUKKIN RTARD

>>10002283
>Everything is x
>Nothing is x
It's not a distinct thing either way.

File: I laugh because I care.jpg (132KB, 731x1092px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 731x1092px

>>10010740
>art can exist without an audience.

You can't be this retarded.

>>10010182

Once art hits the million-dollar mark, they become vehicles of investment more than anything. The prices are [knowingly] artificially inflated because of the context (the artist is famous, owned by a famous auction house, simply right place/right time, etc).

Anyone complaining about a white painting selling for millions doesn't understand why they sell for millions in the first place.

>>10011891

Once Art is bought and sold, it isn't art anymore.

Yes, Art didn't exist for a good deal of human history.

>>10002283
Both statements are the same in that they are completely meaningless.

>>10009371
>Please, find one.
How about a whole article?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20027805

>You only believe it not universally true, because you're personally flawed.
No, you only believe it universally true because you don't know anything about art or philosophy.

> true artists
What if the artist is a Scotsman?

>>10003285
fucking pleb, read some philosophy of art

>>10002283
Everything is art as long as there is an audience: i.e. someone to experience it.
AND
Everything is NOT art when it has no audience.
both statements are true

>>10013289

If there was, is, and never will be an audience, then there is no art.

Art requires viewers.

pro-tip: what a peasant like you considers art or not is irrelevant
INSTITUTIONS and CRITICS (no you aren't a critic) that get to decide it
a better question: is there such a thing as good Art? if so, how do we define it?

>>10013535
>INSTITUTIONS and CRITICS (no you aren't a critic) that get to decide it

Which ones?

I bet you wouldn't want to listen to the Art professors of Pyongyang University

>>10013548
whichever ones have any kind of say in the artworld (as defined by Danto)
if I sign a blank piece of A4 paper and a MoMA curator decides to exhibit it, then it's an art work

all other theories of art besides the institutional one are extremely problematic and paradoxal

>>10013480
yes?

>>10002283
Both ideas exist simultaneously and are equally as true.

>>10013599
read a book (any book) on epistemology, you doublenigger

>>10002283
>>Everything is Art
top nihilism right there

>he doesn't know that the world is an aesthetic phenomenon

Everything is aesthetic, artists are just the ones who have the ability to see it. Why else would someone paint a bowl of fruit or something mundane?

>>10012780

shut the fuck up you leftist mutt

>>10013938
>Why else would someone paint a bowl of fruit or something mundane?

Because its a stepping stone in the process towards getting better at art so they can draw true art later.

>>10002393
Post structuralism says fuck you

Are shitposts art?

>>10014279
>Post structuralism
you mean that one movement nobody takes seriously? wew

>>10002381
>(in his reality)
You've opened many more questions than you've answered

>>10002283
art is an abstract concept that really depends on the individual's perception of it. So' I'd argue that it's both

File: Ducknana.jpg (14KB, 480x336px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 480x336px

>>10002283
If everything is art, nothing is art. The cleaning lady was right.

>>10014345
breakfast

>>10002393
(in his reality)

>>10002387

What an art it really is for humanity to be able to deal such massive amounts of death upon each other

>>10014699
Does that make WWII the greatest work of art?

>>10002387
Not everything is art,

But war is art before literally anything else, even before literature, painting, music, etc

>>10015114
War is beautiful because thanks to gas masks, terror-inducing megaphones, flame-throwers, and small tanks man’s dominion over the subject machine is proven. War is beautiful because it ushers in the dreamt-of metallization of the human body. War is beautiful because it enriches a meadow in bloom by adding the fiery orchids of machine-guns. War is beautiful because it combines rifle-fire, barrages of bullets, lulls in the firing, and the scents and smells of putrescence into a symphony. War is beautiful because it creates fresh architectures such as those of the large tank, geometrical flying formations, spirals of smoke rising from burning villages, and much else besides

File: Gasbba goo.png (186KB, 671x645px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 671x645px

>>10002283
They are both equally unlikely.
Pic related it OBVIOUSLY art and the dust on the side walk is OBVIOUSLY not art.

>>10015270
>the dust on the side walk is OBVIOUSLY not art.

It looks like art to me?

I think those two statements essentially wind up saying the same thing. Binaries essentially always close in on themselves in some sort of circular movement.

>>10002283
Everything is nature.

>>10015158
But Marinetti not all that is beautiful is art

>>10016637

By being beautiful, it becomes Art.

There is nothing you can can beautiful that you cannot also call Art.

Every work is art.

Thats the legal consensus anyway.

Nothing is art. Everything is product.

>>10002283
Both are correct
>Everything is art
Therefore 'nothing' is encapsulated in the everything group.
'Nothingness' is also the creative force behind all creation

>>10015308
There is only balance in duality
>>10017798

>>10017612

No one fucking asked you, Warhol

>>10014275
>true art

Nice spook there lad

>>10002283
Nothing is ideal and everything is garbage

>>10017430
Craft is not art.

>>10018566

Says who? You? Get the fuck outta here, boi