Define "art".

>>9307448
Making a great deal

>>9307448
Bart without any bs

That whch is created to inspire beauty and/or pity

>>9307448
its like a shart, but nobody shushes you while you do it

The most of the same of a same time a bout time to bout to to be to do to see to the to of to same to a be time do bout see you the most of the same of a same time a bout time to bout to to be to do to see to the to of

>>9307448
Conscious human creation that produces an emotional response

(no, just random daily events happening is not art)

>>9307448
A noun.

abstracted entertainment.

>>9307523
>Art is created
>Beauty and/or pity is present in all art

Next

>>9307831
>Art is conscious
>All art produces an emotional response

Next

>>9307448
Defiled art.

>>9307853
>>Art is conscious
No, but the creation part is conscious.

>>9307853
>>All art produces an emotional response
It is. I'm operating on the definition of "emotional" as anything that does not fall within the logical realm. For example, a picture of merely a triangle is not art. Physics equations aren't art either. They're purely logical.

Anything Wagner did.

>>9307865
>Art is consciously created

Nah

> For example, a picture of merely a triangle is not art.

Pffff

>They're purely logical.

What a stupid way to 'operate'

>>9307841
Underrated post.

>>9307877
Since you don't have any point I guess this discussion is over.

If mathematics and science is art, the very things that make up the universe, then it makes no sense to differentiate conscious creation with the already created, and thus "art" is a meaningless term.

>>9307888
thanks anon. i like your numbers.

"Culture is all the things we do that we don't have to." - Brian Eno

>>9307889
The discussion never began because you didn't qualify your definition with any examples. How is geometric abstraction not art?

>If mathematics and science is art

Never suggested.

>the very things that make up the universe

Knowledge does not make up the universe.

What precedence is there for how you are defining things? With no philosophical precedence or reference to any actual art I have no idea how you came to your conclusions.

File: brian eno.gif (1MB, 386x281px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 386x281px

>>9307908
I like it.

Art can't bear a definition, apparently.

>>9307918
But is it art?

File: smoptr.png (68KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 420x420px

>>9307901

Performance

>>9307911
>The discussion never began because you didn't qualify your definition with any examples.

Ok, since I said "conscious human creation that invokes an emotional response", all of human culture, including talking, gesturing, working, eating, music, painting, sculpture, theater, cinema, literature. Anything that is created by the human will consciously and that has an emotional effect on you is art.

The modern corporate culture that creates a feeling of dread and dissatisfaction is art, because it consciously manifested itself via the actions of millions.

Mathematics and science is not art, even though it produces an emotional response, because they are purely logical endeavors. They reflect existence purely, not subjectively.

>>9307948
>They reflect existence purely, not subjectively.
this is purely untrue

>>9307948
So if modernist art tried to evoke a logical response, as some of it did, it wouldn't be art? Then what is it? For example, geometric abstraction.

>conscious creation

So surrealist automatism isn't art? Performance isn't art? Conceptualism isn't art? How do you contend with the argument that all these are actually art?

>Mathematics and science is not art, even though it produces an emotional response, because they are purely logical endeavors

Why the distinction?

>They reflect existence purely, not subjectively.

Nah

>>9307448
thin air

File: carcano_chan.jpg (2MB, 2121x3771px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2121x3771px

>>9307448
art1
ärt/
noun
noun: art; plural noun: arts; plural noun: the arts

1.
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
"the art of the Renaissance"
synonyms: fine art, artwork
"he studied art"
works produced by human creative skill and imagination.
"his collection of modern art"
synonyms: fine art, artwork
"he studied art"
creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture.
"she's good at art"
2.
the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.
"the visual arts"

>>9307995
That's a meme definition, to be honest.

File: 800px-Malevich.black-square[1].jpg (49KB, 800x792px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 800x792px

>>9307948
Additionally, we can use mathematical and scientific concepts as tools in our art, i.e. the same way we use objects in nature as tools, but that doesn't mean those tools themselves are art.

>>9307951
>this is purely untrue

ok

>>9307971
>So if modernist art tried to evoke a logical response,

What is a "logical response"?

>For example, geometric abstraction.

If we're taking pic related as the simplest example, it was consciously created, it uses a mathematical form (square), and a color, to evoke an emotional response. Therefore it is art.

>So surrealist automatism

The artist is still consciously using his physical body to put his unconscious feelings into a physical form. Therefore art.

> Performance isn't art?

It is. Conscious. And produces emotional response.

> Conceptualism isn't art?

it is. It definitely is conscious, and it uses ideas as tools to produce an emotional response.

>Why the distinction?

Because if there is no distinction, then there is no reason for the word "art" to exist in the first place. If you call nature art, then what is art is not "nature" but your own conscious decision to consider the elements of nature as artistic. Therefore the nature itself is not art, but your subjective opinion.

Seeing as art is inherently subjective, purely logical endeavors CANNOT be considered art.

In other words, the PRACTICE of science and its sociological EFFECTS could conceivably and conceptually be considered as art, BUT THE SCIENCE ITSELF cannot.

File: stirnerstanza.jpg (157KB, 992x880px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 992x880px

>>9308002
while you are technically correct in that a definition is literally a meme, you are also mentally deficient. sorry i had to be the one to break it to you kid.

>>9308019
Why you no like technically correctness?

>>9308012
>Therefore the nature itself is not art, but your subjective opinion.

should be: "but your subjective opinion is the art, i.e. the conscious production"

In other words, we have to distinguish between the objective and the subjective for there to be any meaningful definition of art in the first place.

>>9308028
He doesn't understand art.

>>9308012
>What is a "logical response"?

To build up a rational world, rational individuals, to act in rational space.

>Mathematics and science is not art, even though it produces an emotional response
>it uses a mathematical form (square), and a color, to evoke an emotional response.

Contradiction.

>The artist is still consciously using his physical body to put his unconscious feelings into a physical form.

So where is the art? Not the thing that is created, but the conscious action? Or say someone records what another surrealist is saying -- that conscious recording is the art?

>It is. Conscious. And produces emotional response.
>it is. It definitely is conscious

But the 'art' is not created.

>Because if there is no distinction, then there is no reason for the word "art" to exist in the first place

No, why the distinction between art/logic? Why draw the line between these two unrelated concepts?

>conscious decision to consider

Not a creation, nor does it produce an emotional response.

And again, how do you contend with other ideas of what constitutes art?

>Seeing as art is inherently subjective, purely logical endeavors CANNOT be considered art.

Still an unqualified dichotomy.

>In other words, the PRACTICE of science

Science, meaning 'knowledge', can refer to any conscious system used to make sense of the natural world. So for example in religious contexts, evoking the form of Jesus or whatever in a mosaic is a pure representation of reality itself. In your system it is 'subjective'.

>>9307448
Attempted communication of non-verbal sentiments, by any means including verbal language; and the corresponding attempted interpretation of said communication.

>>9308088
>To build up a rational world, rational individuals, to act in rational space.

The decision to want others to "think logically" would be the resulting artform. But not the logical representations themselves.

>>9308088
>Contradiction.

I'm saying that the subjective RESULT is the art, but not the logical constituents. Those are merely the tools one uses.

>>9308088
>So where is the art? Not the thing that is created, but the conscious action?

The art is in the conscious decision to perform, the resulting subjective artform (because even though the thoughts behind the art were subconscious, they are the result of an uncountable number of conscious events in one's life. Even a manman can produce art. Or rather, only a madman can, depending on how you look at it).

>>9308088
>Or say someone records what another surrealist is saying -- that conscious recording is the art?

Yes. And the decision to record (conceptual), and the resulting subjective interpretation by the listener.

>>9308088
>But the 'art' is not created.

I would argue that it is. It's created by virtue of the human element.

>>9308088
>No, why the distinction between art/logic? Why draw the line between these two unrelated concepts?

Because humanity is inherently subjective. We look at everything subjectively. It is our perceptions that are the creators of the art, and the ultimate consumers and purveyors. The world as viewed through the prism of humanity is art, but not the world itself. There is no conceivable way to separate the subjective from the objective.

>Not a creation, nor does it produce an emotional response.

The thought itself is the creation. Once again, since it doesn't fall within the logical realm to consider nature as art, it naturally falls within the subjective emotional realm.

>And again, how do you contend with other ideas of what constitutes art?

Case by case

>Still an unqualified dichotomy.

By that virtue, everything is an unqualified dichotomy

I use science as a synonym for 'objective' reality

>>9308144
>By that virtue, everything is an unqualified dichotomy

No, the dichotomy between light/dark for example is qualified by observation; dark is an absence of light. Your dichotomy of art/logic cannot be observed because it does not relate to the natural world and cannot be said to be an accurate representation that derives from it (pure reality). Maybe your argument is that the universe is logical, your argument is logical, therefor your argument represents truth in the universe -- in which case I'd tell you to brush up on the difference between valid and sound arguments.

>The world as viewed through the prism of humanity is art, but not the world itself.

There's no sense in using the term 'art' if all conscious decision is a creation which in turn causes an emotional response. You're describing subjectivity/objectivity, not the cross-road of subjectivity and objectivity that is traditionally identified as art.

>I use science as a synonym for 'objective' reality

Geometric shapes can't be observed in the natural world because they are not naturally occurring. In what sense are they objective?

is "What Is Art?" by Tolstoy a good essay?
what works should I read to explore "art"

>>9307448
shitposting

>>9307448
A money laundering scheme.

>>9307448
making a political point in a round about aesthetic way

>>9307448
If i can masturbate to it, it counts as art.

>>9307448
Art is whatever is considered art

>>9308858
Exactly the opposite to this. If it's a human creation and it is still interesting after you've come, it's art.

>>9308933
>women are a human creation
>you lose quite LITERALLY every single interest in them for 5-10 minutes after you ejaculate/cum/come
Women are not art confirmed.

>>9308938
Well, I'll concede the method does lead to subjective results, but I'd also contend that you're not fucking the right women.

>>9308946
>right women
>right
>women

Never met one, only lefties.

LMAOOO

Anything (experience, objects...) presented by someone to others as valuable for other reasons than his informational value or his practical value.
I like this definition beacuse it preserves art subjectivity and shows that everything that has a an interaction with the human mind that doesn't involve logic or utility has potential to be art

>>9309006
You wouldn't say purely utilitarian objects can be art? I would.

>>9309020
>purely
ur dum

Well, exactly. The futile attempt to fabricate a purely utilitarian object would itself count as an artistic endeavour. Perhaps one of the highest order.

>>9307448
the spectacle

>>9309089
>artistic endeavour
The standards being? I can't even draw an ear, no matter how hard i try. My endeavour though does not mean much.

>>9309096
That is the difference between good and bad art, and not what OP asked.

>>9309114
Yo................................but what counts as good art? What are the objective measures?

>>9309123
>wanting me to summarizing an entire field of philosophy up in one post

>>9309123
This has to be entirely subjective. For example, anon's badly drawn ear might be a masterpiece of pencil choice and pressure to another artist with a deep interest in the topic.

>>9309151
Do it.

File: tmp_6522-20170329_144704644040596.jpg (871KB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

871KB, 3264x1836px

>>9309155
R8

>>9307448
Self expression.

>>9309201
no

>>9309204
Prove me wrong

>>9309210
I am God.

>>9309196
It's certainly not without merit, anon, and is definitely art.

>>9309216
I wish i could draw cute anime girls though.

>>9309215
god is self

>>9309228
God is himself truth and love; you
are shocked by the assumption that God could be like us poor
worms in furthering an alien cause as his own. ' Should God take
up the cause of truth if he were not himself truth?' He cares only
for his cause, but, because he is all in all, therefore all is his
cause ! But we, we are not all in all, and our cause is altogether
little and contemptible; therefore we must 'serve a higher cause'. -
Now it is clear, God cares only for what is his, busies himself only with himself, thinks only of himself, and has only himself
before his eyes; woe to all that is not well-pleasing to him !

>>9307448
Define "define".

>>9309235
I want to fight this god. He sounds like a cunt.

File: T07667_10.jpg (231KB, 1457x1536px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1457x1536px

Art is the examination of craft beyond the utilitarian.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Any subjectivity beyond that is just value judgement not tied to weather the thing is art or not.
Pic related, art.

>>9307448
The word becomes too vague now.

>>9309246
Your moms cooking is too vague.

>>9309240
And the purely utilitarian is an impossibility.

Therefore all human action is art.

>>9309257
I am ok with that. This doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of art is bad.

>>9309252
Your mom doesn't cook because she's always so full of cum she's never hungry.

>>9309262
Agreed.

>>9309265
This honestly gave me a boner. Tell me more. I want to know how much of a slut my mom is.

>>9309257
>And the purely utilitarian is an impossibility.
Sure, but art relates to craft specifically, so there must be some concious effort that goes beyond the biological and the mundane. Me brushing my teeth or a woman giving birth are not inherently art, but those situations can be put in an artistic context by painting them or capturing them with a camera.
An action like walking down the street isn't artistic in itself, but it becomes performance art when you gather an audience to watch you do it in a concious way.

>>9309257
mfw when the philistine, 'I don't know much about art but I know what I like' becomes the only sensible position to adopt.

>>9309277
I don't think so. Is the Mona Lisa still art in a darkened room? Can you walk down a street without deciding on your clothes, your pace, your gait? Do you brush your teeth to try to guarantee a certain visage as well as to maintain the ability to chew? Do you not produce beauty by giving birth?

Art is a term derived from the Western art tradition (of object creation) that is now either an object or non-object, legitimised as art by its art context, which draws from both the history of art (i.e. of that context, the institutions of production, collection, display), and art theory (treatises about art production and teleology), especially as the latter relates and defines the former, and in turn are legitimised by its 'closeness to nature' however that is defined (i.e. not necessarily mimesis, and often evoking history). Good and bad art relates to the success of theory's realisation, whether intended or not.

>>9307448
Sensorial expression?

>>9307448
A is for anything
R is for rigorous
T is for thoughtprovoking

>>9309599
Why is rigor required for art?

>>9309293
Oh, short answer, yes with an if. Long answer, no with a but.

File: 62995153.jpg (16KB, 300x212px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 300x212px

>>9307448
poiesis

Art is simply a physical representation of ones own personal expression.

File: shitposting time.gif (2MB, 300x169px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x169px

artists aren't creating art. they're just doing what they love. people create art as an identity issue with thinking how great it is to be an artist. it's bullshit.

the greatest "art"? it's life, baby. and it's a gamble everyday you participate.

Envisioning unperceivable things in a perceivable way. Performing the ritual of "creating" things, although art is never created, it is only perceived as being created. Art is empathizing with God, looking at the greatest and lesser things.

>>9309235
The Ego and Its Own? e.e

formalists get out reeeeeee

>>9307853
Everything that exists is created though.

You cant.
But people will always recognize some things as being a work of art.

>>9310603
Everything that exists, exists. Creation from nothing is absurdity.

>>9308365
Its a bit old innit.

>>9309257
Just separate the design, the form, from the function.

>>9308344
>Your dichotomy of art/logic
You're simplifying my entire argument to some simplified dichotomy. That's not how it works. I'm not merely saying that everything that is not logical is art.

>>9308344
>There's no sense in using the term 'art' if all conscious decision is a creation which in turn causes an emotional response.
For it to be considered as art you have to FRAME it in some way. I already said that random events occurring to you on a regular basis are not art. You have to FRAME it as art.

For example, a thought can be art when one frames it as a conceptual idea that can be experienced by other people.

Culture can be art when one analyzes the culture of a group of people through a philosophical or sociological treatise.

BUT CULTURE IN ITSELF CANNOT BE ART. I'm specifically drawing a distinction between THE THING IN ITSELF (the objective world) and THE CREATED ARTFORM TO BE EXPERIENCED

>>9308344
>Geometric shapes can't be observed in the natural world because they are not naturally occurring. In what sense are they objective?

Geometric shapes are manifestations of logic. Not all logic is naturally occurring, but all of it is objective. We use geometric shapes in our artforms but that doesn't mean that on their own the shapes are art themselves.

>>9307853
>Art is created
Art is imitating nature. True beauty is in nature.
>Beauty and/or pity is present in all art
There's bad art.

God what a bunch of freshman kids you are /lit/

File: tolstoy what is art_112240194171.gif (54KB, 250x394px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 250x394px

It's a long discussion. I don't think it can be done on a imageboard full of shitposters.

Start here, anon.

File: tumblr_lyv5uelRnW1r9l7xl-1343.jpg (68KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 320x320px

>>9311402
Also, so you can have a notion, Kant, Hegel, Plato, Fichte, Müller, Weisse, Schopenhauer, Kirchmann, Jungmann, Batteux and Home have a different definition of what is art.

>>9307448
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZbP3MR3T00&feature=youtu.be

>>9311235
>You have to FRAME it as art.

Not according to you. You say that considering nature as art doesn't make nature art, but the decision to see it as art is the art itself. The framing is done of nature, but the frame becomes the art.

Also not everything intended to be art is art.

>can be experienced by other people.

Now you're adding even more qualifications to your definition.

>THE THING IN ITSELF (the objective world) and THE CREATED ARTFORM TO BE EXPERIENCED

So if I take an object from nature and put it in a gallery, framed in this way and 'created' by my decision to make it art, it is not art? The decision is apparently the artwork but not the object in the gallery?

Is Big Mouth Billy Bass the singing fish toy art?

You have a closer definition to art when you talk about framing rather than all the other stuff about logical forms and emotional response.

>We use geometric shapes in our artforms but that doesn't mean that on their own the shapes are art themselves.

You don't seem to have a very rigorous definition as examples of what is and isn't art keeps changing.

>The modern corporate culture that creates a feeling of dread and dissatisfaction is art, because it consciously manifested itself via the actions of millions.
It's not framed as art.
>For example, a picture of merely a triangle is not art.
Contradicts your later argument.
>Physics equations aren't art either.
Produced in a qualifying frame to generate an emotional (by which you mean any response whatsoever made by a human) response, yes they are, according to you.

>>9307454
>>>9307448 (OP)
>Making a great deal
Fpbp maga

a way to get laid

>>9311498
>but the decision to see it as art is the art itself.
The decision is the framing.

>>9311498
>Now you're adding even more qualifications to your definition.

I said CAN, not MUST

An individual's thoughts can be considered art by himself if he himself considers it as art, but to me considered art by other people, it must be communicated (framed) to them in some way

>So if I take an object from nature and put it in a gallery, framed in this way and 'created' by my decision to make it art, it is not art? The decision is apparently the artwork but not the object in the gallery?

Yes, the art is what is perceived, but not the object of the perception itself. That object is merely a part of the material (objective) world.

>>9311498
>Is Big Mouth Billy Bass the singing fish toy art?

In its existence as a part of the world, no. But in its perceived artistic value, yes.

>>9311498
>You have a closer definition to art when you talk about framing rather than all the other stuff about logical forms and emotional response.

I suppose so. Words are not ideal.

>>9311498
>>You don't seem to have a very rigorous definition as examples of what is and isn't art keeps changing.

Fine, let me modify my original definition.

Art is "a conscious human decision to perceive something as culturally significant"

File: 1484104921614.png (35KB, 321x323px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 321x323px

>>9307448
The dark arts

https://youtu.be/k1qACd0wHd0

File: 1486073077227.gif (114KB, 225x528px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 225x528px

>>9311647
>art is the science of manipulating symbols, words or images to achieve changes in conciousness

art = intentionally aesthetic objects and experiences

>>9311630
>The decision is the framing.
You said before that the decision is the art.

>Yes, the art is what is perceived, but not the object of the perception itself.
The conscious decision to perceive something as art doesn't make it art (since this act is not itself framed as art, it is the act of framing), just as something produced to be art isn't necessarily art either (saying "This post is art" and making people disagree with me doesn't qualify it as art). There are qualifiers external to the producer and the viewer, i.e. the context, which in its own way is 'objective' since it is a logical definer where works can be plugged into its conditions of display and automatically be considered art, which is also where frames come into the picture (figuratively).

Art is objective too, anyway, if your definition falls into the realm of logic rather than subjectivity. So the art is separate from our perception of the art, i.e. it's not an internal occurrence.

>"a conscious human decision to perceive something as culturally significant"

Apart from conscious decisions lacking the 'framing' to make them art, how does this account for art production, i.e. commissioned paintings, that are created? The act of painting is not just perceiving something.

>>9307448
my diary desu.

>>9311676
Aesthetic meaning the quality of art? So anything is art if it is intended to be art?

>>9311655
>art is the science of manipulating symbols, words or images to achieve changes in conciousness

Hmmm really changes your consciousness

>>9311258
Sometimes nature isn't beautiful, it just is.

>>9310420
What is 'expression'? What about the patron's wishes?

>>9310483
Pretty good.

I'd augment this by saying it's the application of a qualified artistic system to borrow and rearrange aspects of the material world to suggest an origin or higher purpose of those materials in their relation to humanity, in accordance with the understanding of the world by the institution that qualifies the artistic system.

File: 1486073861860.gif (84KB, 233x533px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 233x533px

>>9311707
DO NOT MOCK ME JESTER YOU CANT COMPREHEND THE POWERS YOU DISTURB

>>9311692
>You said before that the decision is the art.
Something can be multiple things at once.

>>9311692
>The conscious decision to perceive something as art doesn't make it art (since this act is not itself framed as art, it is the act of framing)

The concept of "art" in the first place was created by someone considering something to be art. I don't agree that there exists an "art" external to the conscious decision-making. That would imply that "art" is objective reality.

>>9311692
>(saying "This post is art" and making people disagree with me doesn't qualify it as art).
Then what does, according to you? I have still yet to hear your definition of art.

>>9311692
>There are qualifiers external to the producer and the viewer, i.e. the context, which in its own way is 'objective' since it is a logical definer where works can be plugged into its conditions of display
That may be the case, but once again, without a producer and a viewer, the "art", the "perception" cannot exist. We are the framers of existence, not the other way around.

>>9311692
>Apart from conscious decisions lacking the 'framing' to make them art,
But the decisions themselves are the "framers". Once you see something within a certain context, you are automatically framing it.

>>9311692
>, how does this account for art production, i.e. commissioned paintings, that are created? The act of painting is not just perceiving something.

The act of painting may itself be framed as art, or it may not. It depends on the individual framer.

>>9311842
>Something can be multiple things at once.
Yes but you're saying that in the decision to frame nature as art, it is the act of framing that is the art (the decision). The problem is that this act of framing isn't framed as art itself, so it does not fulfill your conditions of art. So in this case, the decision can't be the frame and art at the same time, since it lacks that artistic frame. And if you do frame that decision as art, that decision to frame the decision lacks the frame, and it goes on.

>The concept of "art" in the first place was created by someone considering something to be art.

Was it? When?

> I don't agree that there exists an "art" external to the conscious decision-making.

I'm referring to objects produced from that decision-making. They exist outside of our perceptions. The qualifiers of what art is and isn't is objective.

>I have still yet to hear your definition of art.
The one thing you can say about art is there isn't one thing you can say about art. In the past couple hundred years, the more you say about art, the more it tries to evade the things that are said of it. I could try to tease out an inclusive idea of (all) art but I don't really have the time or the citations on hand to do so. It's partly why I'm replying to people trying to define art, so I myself can get a better idea of it.

>without a producer and a viewer, the "art", the "perception" cannot exist.
Same as a square.
>We are the framers of existence
This is a modernist idea.

>But the decisions themselves are the "framers".
I'm referring to your earlier point that the decisions are the art. My first response in this post covers that point.

>It depends on the individual framer.
That isn't my point. Painting isn't just perception, is what I'm saying.

>>9312110
>Yes but you're saying that in the decision to frame nature as art, it is the act of framing that is the art (the decision). The problem is that this act of framing isn't framed as art itself, so it does not fulfill your conditions of art. So in this case, the decision can't be the frame and art at the same time, since it lacks that artistic frame. And if you do frame that decision as art, that decision to frame the decision lacks the frame, and it goes on.

I should clarify then: the decision is the frame and without it the art cannot exist, but that does not mean that art "lies beyond" or lies external to the frame itself.

That is, the art is forever framed and cannot exist on its own, in itself.

So the definition of art would be "that which is consciously framed by one or more humans to be perceived as culturally significant"

>>9312110
>Was it? When?

I'm just saying that the word and concept of "art" only came AFTER we consciously perceived a human creation to be art. We didn't look upon a natural phenomenon and call it art; rather we looked upon a human creation and called it art.

>>9312110
>I'm referring to objects produced from that decision-making. They exist outside of our perceptions.

Yes, the objects-in-themselves exist, but they are physical or objective constructs. That does not necessarily make them art.

Look at it this way: someone looks at a painting and calls it "art", but is he really calling the painting art, or the subsequent mental abstract constructs that result from the existence of that painting? I would argue that the art is irrevocably tethered to subjective interpretation.

Without a human to perceive the object, the object itself cannot be stated to "own" any qualities except for its physical and objective makeup (mathematical and physics related constructs).

>>9312110
>Same as a square.

You're arguing that geometric shapes do not exist without human influence, but shapes are merely manifestations of logic.Logic and logical structures are a part of this objective reality, and thus they exist even if there is no human to "participate" in the logic.

http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2013/12/13/in-what-sense-do-mathematical-objects-exist/

So, when someone thinks up a square I don't think it falls within the realm of art, but using that square to fulfill some sort of ulterior cultural purpose would fall under art.

>>9312110
>That isn't my point. Painting isn't just perception, is what I'm saying.

I would say then that the physical act itself of painting is not art, because all it is is merely a physical motion. The birth of art is a process, but that doesn't mean that the process itself is the art, nor that the final result is the only "possible" art. That is to say, "participating in the artform" does not constitute the "creation of the artform". The creation of art lies in the perception of the artist or the recipient, which is a continuous process.

File: Ayn-Rand-.png (346KB, 451x451px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 451x451px

Art is the balance dichotomy between learning about existence through value judgments, and entertainment by evoking emotional responses through interactions with the art itself.

I'm surprised that art is so hard to define for people.

File: retarded.jpg (26KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 300x300px

>>9312565
>uses the word in its own definition
>"I'm surprised that art is so hard to define for people."

>>9307448
Whatever idiots are arguing about when discussing the definition of art. I also have the stipulation that it must either produce within me an emotion, or an erection.

>>9307448
pic related

>>9307448

Its not a what but a when.
Physically and conceptualy anything that can be appreciated as such, in any given moment.
Maybe in the future the canon will change and an urinal will not be considered art anymore.
A better question would be what make a good work of art today?

>>9312577
>define art
>hurrrr you defined art

>>9312285
The frame is more than a decision though. The frame exists outside the art (but still the art relies on it) and outside the perceiver (decider) of the art. Whether this is a literal square frame, the gallery, the theory, the history, etc., they all exist independently of observers. Something will continue to be art even if someone else doesn't engage with it as art.

>"that which is consciously framed by one or more humans to be perceived as culturally significant"
The problem with this (aside from framing exists outside consciousness) is that art can be (and often is) produced to be culturally significant, or is a reproduction of something culturally significant.

How does one consider something as culturally significant? Does it rely on any justification, or is it arbitrary?

Another issue is that if we look at geometry again, if a square (or the idea of a square) is perceived as culturally significant, it is -that which is consciously framed-, i.e. the square itself becomes the art. I can't take the idea that logical abstractions aren't art at face value.

>someone looks at a painting and calls it "art", but is he really calling the painting art, or the subsequent mental abstract constructs that result from the existence of that painting?

For most of art history yes it is the objects themselves that are considered art, or rather 'art works'. The subjective interpretation relies on the physical object and its handling of that which is 'artistic'; without the specific arrangements made by the work there can be no specific interpretation. I can't put to words something that I have not yet experienced.

> the object itself cannot be stated to "own" any qualities except for its physical and objective makeup (mathematical and physics related constructs).

Except if the art object is put in a box and delivered to another museum or gallery it will still produce the same effect. Art can't exist independently of human perception, but the artist imbues it with certain qualities according to what he knows of how to make 'art', which is present in the physical and objective makeup. It's that makeup that can tell us who the object is by, when it was made, what it is made of, how it was made, etc., and is why art historians and critics pay attention to art in the first place, and constitutes the history of art from which we arrive at our contemporary definition of what art is. Materiality of art work can't be ignored, but at the same time art isn't always material, but it does exist separately of the observer even if the 'art effect' is an internal occurrence, and never separate from its frame.

>>9312285
Also another thing I should bring up, is there only one 'art' response? That is, regardless of what is framed as art, there is only one way to experience it, which is that 'it is art'? Is the divine, sublime, sadness, elation, intellectualism, awe, all reduced to one base reaction to what we consider art?

>>9312709
>A better question would be what make a good work of art today?
What a worthless question.

>>9309215
What?
I think this definition is pretty much spot on.

spoonfeed me pls

File: 315956.jpg (197KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1920x1080px

>>9307448
What is appreciated for beauty in a general sense and has a human influence in its creation