American Idol: Art?
Is art objectively identifiable? A shared experience?
Take something not so obvious: Reality TV.
Is American Idol art? And if inclined, on what hypothesis of art are you basing your conclusion.
At the risk of seeming to brag, I watched American Idol (AI) this year. All of it.
In future centuries, art historians may praise AI as an example of fine art from the turn of this century.
But, yes, today, we must be open minded, not only to think so, but perhaps to even consider thinking so.
Before my attempt at a hypothesis of art, accept the simple premise that our Bodies are real beings, aware-ing real sensations, including real inner feelings.
If not palatable metaphysically, then in the spirit of aesthetics, and to enhance the experience of the so-called hypothesis to follow, I now ask you to start with the admittedly controversial premise that The Mind is other than the Body just described.
Mind is not Real. (There is no dualism because) Mind is "happening," but it, what structures the happening, isnt real. There is only the aware-ing body. And as for Mind, it is a "light show" fleeting and empty of any of the "in itself" "will" "substance" or "being there" that we classically look for. Mind's processes affect reality but is ultimately no "thing" (in itself), there one second, and gone the next.
Using Bodies for infrastructure, energy and feedback, Mind operates a dynamic and autonomous process of construction-then-projection manifesting in loosely Narrative forms as they flow into the incessantly becoming world, competing to occupy the surface.
Mind does so, flowing freely into, and notwithstanding, the seemingly impenetrable boundaries of so-called individual bodies.
Besides infrastructure, the relationship this fleeting empty process has with the Body (reality) are complex. Most relevant here, is that Mind's processes trigger the body to feel and to act in habitually conditioned ways.
The Narratives doing the triggering of feelings/actions have become so rich and complex, our organic aware-ing has forgotten "itself" (that is, Nature, reality: feelings, sensations, movement and drives), mesmerized instead by the light show (emotions, perceptions, seemingly willful action, meaning/desire) triggered by the projections as Narratives.
Now Mind is the thing we identify as (I/me), are most familiar with, and take to be real. The fleeting empty representations constructing a moving story, has displaced with made up Narratives and the Subject, our real consciousness' attunement to reality, I.e., to being doing (presumably, like every other creature).
Mind is not reality.
Mind is, at best, reality, once removed.
Art is "lower" in the "hierarchy of truth".
Art is Mind, once removed; reality, twice removed.
And yet, like Mind, art triggers reality to feel/act.
Go figure. Premises or not. Art triggers the Body to feel/act.
Art is an expression of Universal Mind, a re-construction-then-re-projection of the Narratives of larger loci-in-History.
Art is an expression of an individual mind and its unique micro-loci-in-History. We see someones yet-to-surface Narrative re-constructed-then-re-projected.
I submit, specifically, here, that you can see these expressions, Universal/Individual in any form of art, no matter how so-called plastic, rudimentary or crude. But that's not why AI is art.
I am impressed with AI as art, outside of the veil of a commercial enterprise or competition.
I'll give brief observations about its aesthetic qualities, but the ultimate argument for its "value" as art, consists in one highlighted sentence below.
AI is not, as some may prejudge, too one-dimensional. Unlike many other forms of art, it breaks the fourth wall without a comedic pretense, and presents its Fiction subtly enough to make us "believe," despite our better judgment, that it is just fourth wall all the way down.
Whereas finding layers in other forms of art require the viewer to speculate. AI directly represents the layers of projected experience, from raw reality (very rare) to mind/becoming (also rare); and finally, to the fictionalized version of both, a "becoming" of becoming.
Yet it is still stylish (within its medium and genre) and surreptitious enough to engage the viewer in a juggling of these layers, as well as digging deeper for hidden constructions. The 'fashion' in which it does this, is what allows the open-minded spectator to transcend AI's vulgarly exploitative commercial exterior, look around, and breathe a deep sigh of relief.
I know little about TV production etc. But the "producers" have masterfully weaved beautiful voices and living personalities, with Fictional representations of both the vocals and the personalities.
The finished product is presented with all the hierarchical layers of truth, fiction and fictional fiction directly, and indirectly; in segments, and all at once.
Most pleasing to the art lover, is the accessibility of latent bits of reality (in the form of real bodies) teasing viewers to fish them out between gaps generously afforded through cracks disguised as poor editing; or, as Derrida might have, to infer glimpses of the so called real being and its so-called real Narratives between the staged production, in the silence, omissions, errors, and erasures.
But none of that is why AI is art.
What is art in the context of this process of construction-then-projection?
Since we have prohibited it from being any absolute or immutable truth or thing in itself, then for the framework of this hypothesis, art must serve a function. Like anything projected, art must serve the organism, for better or worse.
I think we commonly say, art inspires us to do something, or it makes us feel emotions.
For me that can be shaved down to the organic reality. Art triggers real feelings for our Bodies, as I mentioned above.
This triggering of feelings from art (unlike other forms of projection) happens so directly and often powerfully, that it allows for real consciousness, independent of mind, to attune to the feeling before such feelings reproduce a new set of constructions to override them.
In other words, through art, you really get to feel something before it gets displaced again by emotions and other constructed-then-projected meaning evolved to trigger action or choice.
Sometimes, you hear your first projections as the whisper, "I don't get why I'm crying?". These "just real feelings" are often expressed in tears or laughter, but rage, fear, drive, human bonding. A trigger far removed from reality, yet able to have created a direct path thereto.
Art triggers real feeling, along with a momentary glimpse into the real being feeling. Like Zazen purportedly does; or deep single-focused prayer or contemplation.
For me, unashamedly, AI has triggered not one, but from time to time, all of those direct paths to real feeling (tears, laughter, rage, fear, drive, human bonding). And that is why it is high quality art. Art Extraordinaire.
I'm not sure why I'm expecting resistance. It must be the "cheap" Narrative regarding Reality TV that we all cling to.
But ignore everything I just said, if you prefer. Forget the premises, even the hypothesis, since it's constructed and projected anyway.
I want to know what you think period, if at all.
Here's the simple question repeated.
Is American Idol art? And if inclined, on what hypothesis of art are you basing your conclusion.
Take something not so obvious: Reality TV.
Is American Idol art? And if inclined, on what hypothesis of art are you basing your conclusion.
At the risk of seeming to brag, I watched American Idol (AI) this year. All of it.
In future centuries, art historians may praise AI as an example of fine art from the turn of this century.
But, yes, today, we must be open minded, not only to think so, but perhaps to even consider thinking so.
Before my attempt at a hypothesis of art, accept the simple premise that our Bodies are real beings, aware-ing real sensations, including real inner feelings.
If not palatable metaphysically, then in the spirit of aesthetics, and to enhance the experience of the so-called hypothesis to follow, I now ask you to start with the admittedly controversial premise that The Mind is other than the Body just described.
Mind is not Real. (There is no dualism because) Mind is "happening," but it, what structures the happening, isnt real. There is only the aware-ing body. And as for Mind, it is a "light show" fleeting and empty of any of the "in itself" "will" "substance" or "being there" that we classically look for. Mind's processes affect reality but is ultimately no "thing" (in itself), there one second, and gone the next.
Using Bodies for infrastructure, energy and feedback, Mind operates a dynamic and autonomous process of construction-then-projection manifesting in loosely Narrative forms as they flow into the incessantly becoming world, competing to occupy the surface.
Mind does so, flowing freely into, and notwithstanding, the seemingly impenetrable boundaries of so-called individual bodies.
Besides infrastructure, the relationship this fleeting empty process has with the Body (reality) are complex. Most relevant here, is that Mind's processes trigger the body to feel and to act in habitually conditioned ways.
The Narratives doing the triggering of feelings/actions have become so rich and complex, our organic aware-ing has forgotten "itself" (that is, Nature, reality: feelings, sensations, movement and drives), mesmerized instead by the light show (emotions, perceptions, seemingly willful action, meaning/desire) triggered by the projections as Narratives.
Now Mind is the thing we identify as (I/me), are most familiar with, and take to be real. The fleeting empty representations constructing a moving story, has displaced with made up Narratives and the Subject, our real consciousness' attunement to reality, I.e., to being doing (presumably, like every other creature).
Mind is not reality.
Mind is, at best, reality, once removed.
Art is "lower" in the "hierarchy of truth".
Art is Mind, once removed; reality, twice removed.
And yet, like Mind, art triggers reality to feel/act.
Go figure. Premises or not. Art triggers the Body to feel/act.
Art is an expression of Universal Mind, a re-construction-then-re-projection of the Narratives of larger loci-in-History.
Art is an expression of an individual mind and its unique micro-loci-in-History. We see someones yet-to-surface Narrative re-constructed-then-re-projected.
I submit, specifically, here, that you can see these expressions, Universal/Individual in any form of art, no matter how so-called plastic, rudimentary or crude. But that's not why AI is art.
I am impressed with AI as art, outside of the veil of a commercial enterprise or competition.
I'll give brief observations about its aesthetic qualities, but the ultimate argument for its "value" as art, consists in one highlighted sentence below.
AI is not, as some may prejudge, too one-dimensional. Unlike many other forms of art, it breaks the fourth wall without a comedic pretense, and presents its Fiction subtly enough to make us "believe," despite our better judgment, that it is just fourth wall all the way down.
Whereas finding layers in other forms of art require the viewer to speculate. AI directly represents the layers of projected experience, from raw reality (very rare) to mind/becoming (also rare); and finally, to the fictionalized version of both, a "becoming" of becoming.
Yet it is still stylish (within its medium and genre) and surreptitious enough to engage the viewer in a juggling of these layers, as well as digging deeper for hidden constructions. The 'fashion' in which it does this, is what allows the open-minded spectator to transcend AI's vulgarly exploitative commercial exterior, look around, and breathe a deep sigh of relief.
I know little about TV production etc. But the "producers" have masterfully weaved beautiful voices and living personalities, with Fictional representations of both the vocals and the personalities.
The finished product is presented with all the hierarchical layers of truth, fiction and fictional fiction directly, and indirectly; in segments, and all at once.
Most pleasing to the art lover, is the accessibility of latent bits of reality (in the form of real bodies) teasing viewers to fish them out between gaps generously afforded through cracks disguised as poor editing; or, as Derrida might have, to infer glimpses of the so called real being and its so-called real Narratives between the staged production, in the silence, omissions, errors, and erasures.
But none of that is why AI is art.
What is art in the context of this process of construction-then-projection?
Since we have prohibited it from being any absolute or immutable truth or thing in itself, then for the framework of this hypothesis, art must serve a function. Like anything projected, art must serve the organism, for better or worse.
I think we commonly say, art inspires us to do something, or it makes us feel emotions.
For me that can be shaved down to the organic reality. Art triggers real feelings for our Bodies, as I mentioned above.
This triggering of feelings from art (unlike other forms of projection) happens so directly and often powerfully, that it allows for real consciousness, independent of mind, to attune to the feeling before such feelings reproduce a new set of constructions to override them.
In other words, through art, you really get to feel something before it gets displaced again by emotions and other constructed-then-projected meaning evolved to trigger action or choice.
Sometimes, you hear your first projections as the whisper, "I don't get why I'm crying?". These "just real feelings" are often expressed in tears or laughter, but rage, fear, drive, human bonding. A trigger far removed from reality, yet able to have created a direct path thereto.
Art triggers real feeling, along with a momentary glimpse into the real being feeling. Like Zazen purportedly does; or deep single-focused prayer or contemplation.
For me, unashamedly, AI has triggered not one, but from time to time, all of those direct paths to real feeling (tears, laughter, rage, fear, drive, human bonding). And that is why it is high quality art. Art Extraordinaire.
I'm not sure why I'm expecting resistance. It must be the "cheap" Narrative regarding Reality TV that we all cling to.
But ignore everything I just said, if you prefer. Forget the premises, even the hypothesis, since it's constructed and projected anyway.
I want to know what you think period, if at all.
Here's the simple question repeated.
Is American Idol art? And if inclined, on what hypothesis of art are you basing your conclusion.
Comments (152)
True enough.
Quoting Tom Storm
...or "inferior" art. Maybe it will be in its "kitschiness" that future generations will find an appeal.
Kitsch can make us feel in not readily identifiable ways too.
:up:
I have only seen clips on YouTube but my problem with Idol is its sentimentality, its poor taste, its obvious choices, its elevation of certain house styles in performance, the popular over the creative, its endless tweaking of the familiar. To me it seems overly preoccupied with mainstream marketing and rarely takes creative risks. Artists like Tom Waits or Leonard Cohen would never make it because they would be too interesting and unorthodox.
So true! Try Bob Dylan. You make an excellent point.
Of course it is. But nobody seems satisfied with an objective definition
No, a reality show doesn't fit the definition of art. It has none of the artistic components: acting, writing, directing, cinematography. In this one and dance contests, the contestants' performances may be considered art, good or bad art, but not the format itself.
Sorry, I didn't get much beyond the OP question. It didn't seem relevant.
No worries. Thank you for your perspective. Strictly speaking, American Idol certainly doesn't match the definition you quoted.
Quoting ENOAH
I am not sure what to make of your post, but I will at least take a quick swing at your title. I haven't watched a lot of dance and I'm mostly ignorant about its technical aspects, but I did watch several episodes back in the first couple of seasons. More than once during the shows I found myself unexpectedly moved to the point that I had tears in my eyes. The human body in motion can be beautiful and exhilarating.
Does that make it art?
Might not strike you the same way. I am amazed that art, which is a representation of representation, can so profoundly affect the body to feel, without having to have recourse to any immediate constructions. The directness, and the potency of art's affect on reality (I.e., us) moves me.
And as for American Idol, of course I know it barely qualifies as art. Yet, I must unashamedly confess, at moments, it profoundly moved me, before any of my words could move in and construct meaning.
You must accept my premises to really appreciate it in the way I'm trying to describe. However, I respect that it is difficult to accept.
It's not. It's a representation of reality in some altered form.
Quoting ENOAH
Not the body. Our reaction to art, or any external sensory input, is through the receptors (mainly eyes and ears) to the brain, and whatever emotional response the brain then produces may or may or may produce some physical reaction.
Quoting ENOAH
What does that mean?
Quoting ENOAH
It's not just art has that effect; it can be nature, speech, action in the environment. That's because the neural functions are very fast. We're not aware of how much information is received, sorted, processed, stored and transmitted by our brain in a single second.
Quoting ENOAH
The show format or a specific performance? They're separate entities. Each performance by a contestant is artistic, even though the show itself is not.
Quoting ENOAH
I don't understand your premise. I don't understand all that palaver about mind being unreal, etc.
That's what I'm saying. Are we tacking on quasi-elitist conditions?
I ask this for clarification, not argumentively, do you think addressing feelings as their neurological processes are the only correct way? Do you think that the representations generated by our brains are no less real than the neurons which generate them?
We've had a few "What is art?" discussions over the years. We came up with two criteria that answer the question for me. 1) It is art if it is presented with the intention that it be judged on an aesthetic basis. I got this from @Praxis. Hey, Praxis, I'm going to keep giving you credit for this unless you tell me to stop. And 2) It is art if it meets the criteria described by R.G. Collingwood in his "The Principles of Art." He proposes that, when we call something art (in this case a painting)...
Nice criteria. So it is art if the creator intended it to be; and, if it elicits a level emotion tantamount to that experienced by its creator. American Idol on the face of it is not art.
But not necessarily because it is entertainment. Take something like SNL. The writers of the skits arguably intend to present their work as comedic art; the art elicits a similar level of laughter in the viewers as it would have the writers.
You cannot say the same for AI.
After reading your well-thought out OP I must, at the risk of sounding like a dullard, remind that American Idol is an opinion-based talent competition at its core. It's format is artful, yes. i remember watching segments of it while young, I can't recall if "performance" was a factor in the acts, confusing it with America's Got Talent or similar programming where vocal talent was but one of many factors in the act, not a prerequisite at all. As in, I can't recall if one was expected or encouraged to dance, perform gymnastically, etc. in unison with their singing or if singing was in fact the sole point of contention. Singing is indeed an art form, if not in the way art is a discipline, similar to cooking or even something non-traditional like debate or insult-slinging. If it was strictly singing I'd personally consider it to be more of a talent competition than a performance art or exhibition act like ballet would be considered. Art generally requires creativity, something that would not be present absent of human involvement. Though this is challenged by modern art (see "The Lights Going on and Off". "Banana Duct-taped To Wall", or Martin Creed's "Work No. 301: A sheet of paper crumpled into a ball" for example). You can be the world's most talented and favored singer, but this doesn't require creativity as you could simply be reciting the work of another simply "matching the notes" with your voice, which admittedly is not something most can do and requires talent, but nonetheless can be compared to pushing a button when a prompter says to. I'd say?
You're correct in saying the "reality TV" stigma runs strong, for me at least. The "realness", behind-the-scenes drama, and human emotion of the show (something I believe is there for purposes of ratings and "interpersonal connection" and desire to watch it again more so than anything else) does seem to give it a pretense of being more than a simple talent measuring contest. But these factors are also present in other reality shows. Is "Jersey Shore" "art" as well for having all these factors minus the presence of any actual "art form"? One would likely say no. Bearing in mind many of the acts (I believe) were in fact written by the performers themselves, and perhaps even improv'd at times (though I can't recall) there's certainly an artistic quality to the final product. Perhaps it's my personal understanding of "art", in a non-discipline context where it is not defined as a measurable skill, but rather the traditional idea of art being a physical representation, be it on paper or on a stage where performers make a human pyramid, etc.
Just to look at things a different way, if we consider singing more of a talent rather than an artistic discipline, would a pie-eating contest be considered art? Likely not. More of a "live event". You could add all the things also present: drama, emotion, human connection, progression of character, overcoming of personal obstacles, etc. but would this not make it more of a documentary?
Though singing is commonly grouped in under "the arts". Combined with physical performance that certainly makes it a performing art such as opera or a play. By itself though, I remain uncertain. I guess in my head when I think of art I think of art as not just something "I myself am unable to do" and/or "any observable physical human expression (be it a painting or modeling of clay or man on a stage in a stationary dramatic pose for 11 1/2 minutes)" but, actually, that's exactly what I think of it as. Part of me wants to consider AI a hybrid artistic competition and documentary, similar to how if instead of singing it was painting. The subject matter would be art, but the TV show would remain exactly that, a TV show.
It's a good question. That's my take on the subject at least. :confused:
I define expression through the lens of intention. It's either "content" or "art".
"Content" is primarily expression that has an overweight into commercial interests. If the creator primarily produces something for the intent of profit or monetary transactions, it is "content" and not "art".
"Art" is expression with an overweight towards the intention of creation itself. It's about the silent communication between the artist and the receiver (audience or viewer/listener). Primarily it is when the intention is not primarily profit or monetary transaction.
There can be a lot of profit in working with art, and not a lot in terms of content, but the intention is key. Was it created for any form of profit or gain beyond the intention of creation itself?
Things get a bit muddy when an artist is commissioned to make something for the purpose of content. Let's say Banksy gets commissioned to do design for a large brand. It's still the same type of expression like with his art, but in all forms of definitions it becomes "content" because the purpose of the piece is linked to profit and monetary transaction rather than the purpose of art itself.
But let's say a game studio is making a game and they've signed with a big publisher who becomes the owner of that studio, and who's pushing them to make something that can sell better. Here, the focus for the investor is to sell more and profit, but the game studio aren't a bunch of commissioned artists as it is the game studio who initiated the will to create and the investors are just means to that purpose. They might have to comply with changes to the game in order to meet the will of the investors, but it's still the creation of the game itself that's at the forefront of intentions, and thus it is defined as "art".
However, within the same situation, if the publisher owns rights to a franchise that is primarily made for profit and is iterated on year after year for this purpose and the game studio does not have any personal interest in it more than as a "job", then that becomes "content" as both the studio's and investor's intentions are profit over creation.
But we can also have a mix in which an artist is commissioned for the purpose of aesthetic appreciation itself, meaning, it's not a design for the purpose of profit per se, but being part of the aesthetics of something that is involved with forms of profit. Like a commissioned artist who makes an artwork that hangs within the halls of a designed architecture, or the architecture itself being commissioned work by an individual or organization who want a building on their land. In this case, it's still art since even through there's profit involved, the intention is for the aesthetic appreciation prioritized over profit, even if the aesthetics are part of what generates profit.
----
It may seem weird to define art through this lens, but it makes a clear line drawn in which we can define "art" better through a definition that values "creation" over profit. In essence, if an artist is asked "why" they made something, and their answer primarily revolves around the expression itself and the communication to the receiver (audience and viewer/listener), with any possible profit only being a "byproduct", then it can be defined as art.
So, on the question if "Idol" is art, we have to look at the mechanics of that show. Is it content or art?
The channel makes this show for the purpose of profit, they didn't decide to make it for their love of music and dance, it's a bought global franchise that's nationalized within the interest of record company's to find new artists to profit from. From this intention alone we see that the interest is profit and the initiation of the show is through the lens of profit, not creation.
On top of that, the "commissioned" artists who are there for the contest aren't there for the purpose of creating something for an audience, they're there to battle against others for the purpose of winning the contest, and they do so by trying to impress judges on the basis of primarily the technical qualities necessary to be able to work as artists for record labels.
Thus, both the investors, production company and the contestants ALL have profit as their main purpose and because of that, Idol is pure content, no art.
These artists may well become artists after the show in which they focus on their expression and art primarily, but that's outside the scope of the show, so there's nothing with the show itself that defines it as art.
----------
I also think that this way of defining art is a good guide for people who want to be artists. If you want to create but all you do is create for the purpose of profit, what value are you really producing for the audience? If the focus is to get their money, you are probably, maybe even subconsciously, fine-tuning the creation to maximize profit, not maximize the existential value of what the artwork is giving the audience.
This is also why I think people can sense if something was made with heart or not. The instinct people have for spotting "good" and "bad" art, is rather the ability to sense "content" vs "art". As even in the art world, people can sense if an artist made something just to gain a profit of recognition rather than being honest in creation. When people speak of derivative and bland art, it may very well be centered around an artist who weren't honestly creating the artwork with the heart in the right place, but rather tried to summarize what they thought is effective to paint themselves as artists as an identity rather than purpose.
That argument seems problematic. Were Hitler and Goebbels doing art? Are propaganda and advertising art? The more emotionally manipulative the better? Rhetoric is an art, but is it art? The ancient arts of discourse included rhetoric, but also grammar and logic, and we don't consider them art. Are we maybe confusing the art of putting a good show together with actual art--which is supposed to reveal insight and truth or have something of the sublime about it? I listened to a performance of Ibsen's play "Ghosts" recently and I was very moved, but also felt somehow improved as a person. I have watched very little reality TV since the original "Big Brother" and I enjoyed it, but never considered it more than entertainment and I never felt improved through watching it.
I appreciate that, even in order to be entertaining, any media has to be involving emotionally and there is an art to achieving that. That idea may be leveraged to dismiss criticisms of TV and popular entertainment as elitist (and they can be ill thought out) but if we pursue the distinction between the art of doing something other than art properly and art proper, we don't fall foul of elitism in my view and merely recognize a valid distinction.
Yes, I do. I know of no plausible alternate source for feelings.
Quoting ENOAH
Representations are not 'real' in the same sense as the things being represented or the entity making the representation; however, the media in which art is physically expressed are real. The internal visualization is real to the imaginer, but does not exist in the world.
"Real" is a tricky little word.
For purposes of classification, the arts are usually divided into fine art (representations that have no practical function, but are created only for aesthetic/psychological value) performing arts (the creation of artfully presented ephemeral experiences) crafts (skillfully created functional items) design (creative re-imagining of mundane practical items) and lately something called 'artisanal' which applies to non-factory products like beer and bread.
What you have there is an assortment of performances within the framework of a commercial production.
Some thoughts. 1) I realized that when you were talking about "American Idol" I was thinking about "So You Think You Can Dance." I think what I wrote about one is applicable to both. 2) I'm not sure if this is clear from my previous post. The criteria I described are intended to stand on their own separately. They are alternative standards. I don't propose a work would have to meet both standards in order to be considered art. 3) Thinking more about it, I don't think it makes sense to think of "American Idol" or "So You Think You Can Dance" themselves as art, but it may make sense to think of individual performances that way.
I don't really like this definition particularly because of the word "identical". I'm not being pedantic, even if the above sentence were adjusted to instead say "similar to", I think it misses the mark.
When I'm looking at a painting, I don't have any pretense that how I'm experiencing it is identical to, or in any way similar to, how the painter does. I'm having a relatively unique experience, made unique by my own relationship to the subject matter and the colours and my cultural history and etc.
I don't even think the artists intentions have to be considered to be that important at all, really.
When we've discussed what art is in the past, we never got anywhere close to a consensus understanding, so it's not surprising you don't like this perspective. I get your point. Collingwood is a pretty judgmental hard ass who likes to take definitive positions. In the book, he stated authoritatively that Kipling's "Just So Stories" is art while Milne's "Winnie the Pooh" is not.
I came to this question with a personal understanding that art doesn't mean anything beyond our experience of it. Collingwood convinced me that we also need to consider the relationship between the artist and the audience. So, no, Collingwood and I don't agree that the artists intentions don't have to be considered. Collingwood is long dead, so I can state that without fear of contradiction from him.
I think you are likely in the conventional majority.
But thank you for seeing my struggle.
As for singing being a talent as opposed to creative, I beg to differ. The creative interpretations by these presumably novices, is one of the things which moved me physically.
Perhaps that needs to be a criterion; if tge intention is solely commercial, let's agree it is not art.
This would be a superimposed deterrent, I think, designed to keep art "clean."
But in my heart, I might find a McDonalds commercial artistic. What then?
Understood your response. Does "content" like AI produce that "Sublime.?"
Maybe you are right, if the feelings are manipulated out of me by architects of manipulation, it is not art. Like Nazi propaganda ought not to be viewed as art.
Strong argument, yes.
I agree no need to "correct" AI/Dance, same show.
Quoting T Clark
Ok, then in my estimation, AI meets the criterion which asks if it elicits strong feeling, no?
Quoting T Clark
It may be I'm confusing the trees for the forest.
I think we have to admit that it might. Suppose I read a story presuming it to be written by a human and experience something similar to what I experienced with "Ghosts", I would classify it as art. I don't know how I'd justify retroactively nullifying my judgement on finding out it was written by an AI. What if I mistakenly thought it was written by an AI and then discovered it was indeed written by a human, would it become art again? Can something jump in and out of being art depending on a belief regarding its origin? Or are we saying its origin is a necessary condition of it being art? But then how do we tie that down? Can a human not create something "accidentally" or unconsciously and it be art? Does there have to be an intention there? Without knowing what we are saying specifically, it tends to reduce to having to be something that is a product of a living human body. Which doesn't seem to mean much. I think the important relationship is between the subject and the work itself.
I think it's more a case of degenerating myself, but I've never watched an entire season of American Idol, I must admit.
It can be...if one is not careful to step over the obstacles to get to the cracks letting in some light.
Fact is, I can readily admit I am simply trying to justify a degenerative habit. Whew. Thank God its over.
Denegrating? I can think of no justification for putting even ten seconds of that in my head. So, I admit to some bias. I am generally media-phobic though, so it's that and almost everything else.
You have unwittingly touched back onto my original quandary. By AI I meant the show. But true, if AI produced a beautiful poem, is it not art? If it affects me to heightened states of that unknowable feeling that great art can elicit, is it prohibited because of its creator?
Your appreciation as the receiver (audience/viewer/listener) is in my view not enough for the criteria of calling it "art". People can have an aesthetic appreciation of something in nature, like a tree or rock formation, but that appreciation and experience is not considered an appreciation of "art", as nature isn't art by the definitions society and humanity operate by.
You can have an aesthetic appreciation of content just as much as art, but that doesn't mean that the content becomes art. Fundamentally, content is appreciated more minutes per day than art through the sheer quantity of content that is surrounding us in our modern life.
Just because art can be a business doesn't mean the core values of art is driven by profit. And it doesn't mean that profit-driven content can't be appreciated by the receiver either. It just means that if we don't define art in this way, we run into the problem of "everything can be art", which just renders the term "art" meaningless to even define.
If such lose definitions are used, then a tree or a rock, the corporate logo, a song written to fight personal depression, the commercial for a car brand, and the black paintings of Goya that were discovered after his death, would all be considered art. But most people wouldn't lump them together, even if they can't define why. With my definition, the categories become obvious, and the definition of art becomes clearer as a defining term.
Art is closely linked to our existential questions and philosophy, so if profit and earning money has too much of a focus when creating, it fundamentally becomes a version of "selling your soul".
But is it really important that everyone agrees on what art is? I mean we disagree on what things qualify under what categories all the time, why should art be an exception?
Maybe it's okay that one person says "this McDonald's ad is art to me" and another one says "not to me". That doesn't necessarily mean the word has NO meaning, that just means these two people have different criteria, right?
As an aside, what's your criteria?
Ah, I see what you mean. Well, there's another aspect of art I hadn't touched on which is consistent with it being produced by Artificial Intelligence and not so much by American Idol as a whole--so, though I would not rule out a contestant in American Idol producing art, such as a beautiful poem as you mentioned, the overall context is also relevant. That aspect is the idea that art should transcend the social sphere and offer an external perspective on it so it may be challenged rather than be firmly embedded in it so that it reinforces it. American Idol is successful because it's popular and popular because it reflects what most people want and what most people want (in terms of symbolic content) is what they are trained to want culturally. It's something that people watch to feel relaxed and happy in their place rather than to imagine an alternative. So, the source is part of the experience there, whereas in the case of Artifical Intelligence, the source is backgrounded as irrelevant and / or unknown.
I agree
Right. Am Idol's source is enough to prohibit a conclusion that it is art as aesthetically understood.
So, nothing too remarkable about declaring American Idol, or any other television program, Art.
Call it "art" if you want. It is, after all, it's a production involving music, movement, a stage, cameras, an audience, and so on.
If it is art, then it can be criticized as art. Is American Idol "good art"?
Why is it not important if we can? Aesthetic appreciation is not the same as "art" and having well defined terms are good for preventing language to get in the way of discussing meaning.
Lose terminology just leads to those kinds of meaningless hollow shells of debates. In which it's not a discussion about the core and subject that is supposed to be discussed, but instead about how each person defines what something is. And without any anchor to what a term is defined as it leads to a circling argument of no meaning as the two sides are just disagreeing on a criteria for something that has none. It becomes utter meaningless to have such discussions (yet most discussions online are just exactly this).
So yes, it is important, because it lowers the amount of meaningless illusions of valuable exchange of ideas. Two people disagreeing on the criteria of if a Macdonalds ad being art or not is utter meaningless compared to even the minor meaning of them agreeing it is content and discussing the aesthetical appreciation of said ad.
Why settle for unnecessary societal norms of language that just adds more barriers in communication when it's possible to form a clear definition that removes them?
No, he wasn't saying that at all. Otherwise, he would be declaring urinals everywhere to be art if "someone" thought so. He was saying that the form of an artwork is less important than its context. A urinal is not aesthetically pleasing, but in the right context it can be used to make a statement about what art can be. There's a self-referential element to it. So, you can indeed make art out of TV shows and artists do, but (in general) the shows themselves in their regular context are no more art than your toilet or mine.
Take cartoons: I follow Matt in the 'Daly Telegraph' even though that's not my politics because I think his stuff consistently rises to the level of popular art.
Intention is surely involved in evaluation. I feel the makers of programs like American Idol have more cynical aims, but they too want to be talked about at the water-cooler and to make money.
The irreality of reality tv is interesting to me, where people begin to behave in accordance with rules they think are 'dramatic', derived from fiction, while portraying a version of themselves - the drama often deliberately whipped up behind the scenes, or before the cameras roll. This to me is mostly spectacle, entertainment that does not aspire to art, even though an individual artist might appear there.
I disagree. Duchamp's intention was focused on being a message, a communication through expression. Regardless of what that message is, it wasn't made for profit as a primary intention. American Idol is profit first and focused on profit, so it's content, not art. People can appreciate the show for its aesthetical value, but so can they with a beautiful tree in the forest, both the show and the tree weren't formed through the intention of a person wanting to communicate something as the first primary intention; the tree grew as a natural object, the show was created for the profit of the channel, record label and the intention of the contestants to win over others. If they later, after they've won, made art for the sake of creation as artists, then that would be art.
I refer to my argument earlier in the thread for a deeper dive.
Excellent point. Objectively, likely not. But that doesn't prohibit one from "seeing" it as "good."
Yes, once could apply that objective vs subjective to many human projections.
Perhaps one might easily argue that in the case of math, or perhaps eve architecture, there is an objective which "ought" to override the subjective. Should the same apply to art?
I don't think any of us are going to come to a firm conclusion of where the exact dividing line between art and non-art is, but I will say there is not much out there that I am absolutely confident in calling art. Maybe some people think Jim Carrey does art or pop art. I say no, despite his obvious comedic skill, but Andy Kaufman (RIP), yes. Both comedians, but Jim Carrey just makes you laugh. Kaufman does much more.
You have understood the "appeal" to me; and yet, perhaps you are correct, and notwithstanding the unique mix of drama and reality, it is still just a spectacle
I don't know about the "ought" part, but we can apply objective criteria to art if we wish. A program like American Idol involves way too much hype. I'll leave it alone.
Art is produced in large quantities, if one counts everyone who can be said to be "doing art" and a lot of it isn't very good. The performances are not skilled enough, sufficiently prepared and practiced. The works of art are often extremely imitative, derivative, or just plain ripped off in works of 'art' that are "art-like".
All that is why we have critics, curators, museums, performance halls with narrow entrances (so to speak), and so on, sifting out the gold from the crap.
No, right on. As I said, I must've been barely an adolescent at the time I happened on a few episodes. Can definitely see it as falling under the loose category of "art" on that alone. :up:
Still, the various replies touching on the "intent" of the show being, at its core, a search for talent with the aim of financial motive, that just so happens to offer itself as an engaging and watchable art in and of itself (again, likely simply as to monetize literally every step of the process) seems relevant.
Quoting BC
Ah, I was hoping someone would mention Duchamp!
For anyone interested, especially the OP, as it seems rather relevant:
[hide="Reveal"]
The whole thing is worth a watch IMO but FF to 5:00 for an excerpt on Duchamp and his role or "take" on art.
So then why not skip the meaningless debate on if it's art regardless, and go right to discussing the aesthetical appreciation of said ad? You don't HAVE to debate with someone about if you semantically disagree with them when they call it art. You know what I mean? You can skip the pointless debate and go right to the meaningful conversation regardless of if you both call it art or not - choosing to focus on the word is up to you. Don't do it if you don't want to
Well, that at least provides an explanation.
I rarely see this. Fuzzy defined terminology constantly gets in the way of depth in discussions. Just because I'm able to cut through it doesn't mean the masses seem able to. And the consequences of it spirals upwards into societal norms rather than just being a single discussion between two people. The accumulation of unnecessary discussions keeps people away from more important depth. It's the same as with political debates as people start to debate the meaning ideological terms because they don't have clear definitions of them, so they get stuck in just wasting time on that rather than get to the core of political issues that needs to be resolved.
I'm not really sure what you're defending here? What's your argument? That it's better to have lose definitions of terms rather than more defined ones? Why is that even a thing to promote?
Most discussions of aesthetic philosophy generally just get stuck in this "how to define what is art" debate, which I find meaningless as the examples are just arbitrary interpretations out of the lack of clear definitions of the term "art". It leads to nonsense circular arguments in which people just spell out their personal opinions rather than philosophical concept. That's why I'm more interested in setting clear definitions and through them it's much easier to answer questions like the OP is asking. Otherwise what's the point of even asking if there's no logical and rational argument for an answer to be found?
Not better, just acceptable. And if you're reason for thinking it's unacceptable is that you get trapped in semantic conversations, I'm just pointing out that that's you're choice - you don't have to argue with anybody if ads are art, you can talk about the other stuff you said was more important anyway.
You could literally do it now. That guy that said a McDonald's ad was art... you could literally have the discussion you said was more important, right now, with him. The wishy washy definition of the word "art" isn't the thing stopping you from doing that.
So for you art has to be something 'special'?
Quoting Baden
I find nothing of merit in either of these performers but I would call them both artists. Whether I enjoy something not - whether it is good or not - I don't think matters all that much when it comes to the label 'art'.
Seems to me a lot of people mistake the word art for the word 'sacred' and need for anything proposed for this category to have mystical, perhaps even transcendent, aesthetic properties. Can you help me make sense of this?
It can be criticized as a television program. Television programs have their own separate criteria to consider them good or bad. In that category, American Idol is actually pretty good - or was, back when I watched it.
But most of the content is not of the show itself, and none of the artistic content is. The performances are brought by the contestants. Some performances were outstanding; some were mediocre, some were (to my mind) very bad.
Among reality shows, it was probably the best, simply due to the quality of performance art by individual contestant. I have not watched very many reality shows, since most of the ones I sampled were boring, juvenile, mean or in bad taste - sometimes all of those. Art - as distinguished from artifice - is rarely involved in either the production or the content.
Yes, "designed to mock the world of art, and the snobberies that go with it."
I don't think he was declaring all urinals to be art. I don't think his particular urinal is art, and I don't believe that calling something "art" makes it art. All that was his meshuggeneh. Urinals, toilets, sinks, bidets, tubs, and plumbing can be quite interesting, even aesthetically pleasing (ask the Kohler Corporation)
but they are objects whose commercial value and practical utility are the foremost considerations for designer, producer, and consumer. They are not Art, "art", or art.
When one considers bathroom and kitchen fixtures, one wants to know if it will fit, will it hold up under normal or heavy use, does it match the wall, flooring, and other fixtures, how much does it cost, and similar questions. Shoppers don't ask, "What does this toilet mean?" "What is the message of the sink".
Target didn't design its red plastic shopping carts to be art or beautiful. The intention was to underline the Target Brand with the particular shade of red; the logo; the sturdiness of the cart, etc.
A discussion at any company headquarters about logos, stationary, signage, in-store fixtures, advertising, and so on might sound "artistic". "What does our logo MEAN to the public? Is this particular shade of green fashion forward enough or will it be perceived as anachronistic? Does this store sign REALLY distinguish our fine fried food from their greasy crap? Probably a lot of high-sounding imponderables are being tossed around. It's business; it's not art.
Collingwood makes a strong distinction between arousing a feeling and expressing one. I generally agree with him, although, as I mentioned, his formulation is rigid. Here's more from "The Principles of Art."
So, since I assume no AI actually experiences anything, AI art does not meet this standard.
It doesn't really matter if it's important or not, it will never happen, which I guess is your point.
I remember your "Can this art work even be defaced?" discussion from a couple of years ago fondly. That was one of the first times I tried to figure out my understanding of art systematically.
But...in my haste to clarify that I recognize the manipulative, the kitschy, the commercial drive etc behind Idol, I may be capitulation too easily.
Take the Sex Pistols, that 1970s British Punk Band. Just because they may have been the creation of Malcolm MacLaren(sp), designed to manipulate audiences, sell a product riding on the tail of the Ramones, relative to someone like Pink Floyd, cheap or kitschy, does not mean their album "Never Mind the Bullocks," shouldn't classify as art.
Or perhaps people think pop music period is not art. But I would say I have drawn more aesthetic value (and certainly more "feelings") from blues, jazz, rock, r & b, rap, than I have from sculptures and paintings in my life time.
Well, that definitely wasn't my point of contention or "indirect message" at all. Just an interesting documentary I thought you'd enjoy and perhaps others a bit less informed or impassioned on the subject writ-large might benefit from, and along with the DuChamp segment offering a point of discussion and insight as to the changing definition or accepted bounds of "what is art", etc.
Didn't mean nothing by it. :sweat:
It's not the show that would experience emotions but the artist, perhaps the producers or writers, but as I noted before, I don't think the show is art by Collingwood's criterion.
Collingwood includes music among the arts, but I doubt he would include the genre's you identify or those included on American Idol. He doesn't really like recorded or broadcast music at all because of the distance it puts between the artist and their audience. He was certainly something of a killjoy. On the other hand, I think those types of music can be artistic by his standard.
Maybe you misunderstood me. I was quoting the doc with respect to Duchamp's urinal. I get why people might be annoyed, yet isn't his message, that snobbery is overtaking art appreciation (I would assert, at the organic level); isn't that message art? It is to me.
And if a urinal can be art...
Of course. I was lazily noting that since it is a "production", the producers and writers may just be performing tasks no differently than an accountant or nurse does in a days work. Hence, the "show"
makes Idol not qualify as art, emotions wise.
Collingwood died in the early 1940s and is still respected and discussed. As far as I know, he is just one among many philosophers who write about art. He happens to be a favorite of mine and I find his theory of art matches my intuition well. I strongly recommend his "An Essay on Metaphysics." Both books gave me words to describe what my intuition was trying to tell me.
I don't think that is necessarily so - writers, producers, directors, actors, and technical staff for a show might rise to the level of artists. I would judge that isn't true for American Idol.
I think you're probably right - it's possible this type of production might be considered art. I'm sure Collingwood wouldn't think so and I doubt you could convince me it is.
My sentiments exactly! I've heard a few skilled, talented, moving performances on that show. But I tend to mix them up with America's Got Talent - and so have lots of other countries, apparently - where I've seen some really original and creative acts.
Ok.
Quoting Vera Mont
I liked your categories which immediately preceded the above. But are you saying in the final analysis Idol doesn't fit into any category even of "the arts" but is rather, an assortment etc. ?
The way television works (and not just television) is that the real product is access to the audience's eyeballs, for which advertisers pay what they consider 5 million pairs of eyeballs worth. Programming is the bait.
"Good programs" mean large audiences (eyeballs) and profit for the platform (CBS, Netflix, whatever). Bad programs have paltry audiences and little income. Is the bait good? Well, the mice go for the cheese in the trap whether it's fine cheese from France or it's Velveeta. Now there is a difference between Great Performances on PBS (high quality cheese) and schlock on the networks and cable (Velveeta). But networks don't want to feed the masses with high quality French cheese. Let them eat caca.
the same thing applies to newspapers. When Google and other systems selling advertising grabbed the eyeballs, the newspapers starting going broke. It didn't make much difference how good the column inches of newsprint were.
Quoting Vera Mont
Isn't that true for most programs? Unless the show is entirely scripted for an untalented group of repertory performers, talented performers make it happen, or it doesn't. Whether it's AI or the Tonight Show or SNL, it's the talent that make the show, even when working with scripts. It's the writers, cover artists, and cartoonists that make THE NEW YORKER a great magazine -- not Condé Nast's offices and tons of glossy paper.
Yes!
Quoting Tom Storm
It's an artist's view of art and maybe not even every artist's view. Certainly not a standard dictionary definition. So, it's not something that can or should be forced on anyone. It proposes there is art proper and "art". For example, what most people do in a casual art class is "art" but art proper is not something that can be pinned down to a simple skill or process ("how to" paint, write or whatever). It should have something that contextualizes our symbolic sphere in an important way rather than merely participates in it. But then, you might say, like @BC, that's just to distinguish between good art and bad art, and that's not unreasonable either.
Oh right, I agree with most of that except I think a urinal in the right context can be art because again, the form itself is not what's important in my view--it's rather the relationship of the art object to the symbolic sphere. And I'm not trying to be obscurantist here. I just mean how it fits with the zeitgeist or dominant ideology. Does it help us move beyond it or give us a new or interesting perspective on it? One great thing about Ibsen's plays were that he was so ahead of his time. His work was often badly received because of that, but history vindicated him. "A Doll's House" is a great example; it portrays the "scandal" of a woman thinking for herself and following her own desires rather than submitting to her husband's and society's view of her as a mere ornament. And this is presented with great skill and human understanding. Duchamp's route to a social statement was more vulgar and direct, but it worked. He helped move art forward and legitimize alternative means of expression. All this filters down and changes us. And we need to change. This is why we need artists and this is why art is "special".
Personally, I have a hard time separating art, including mediocre art, from good entertainment. Collingwood arrogantly seemed very certain of his judgments. In "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" Robert Pirsig proposed defining art as "high quality endeavor." I found that compelling 45 or so years ago, but now I don't find it convincing. Pirsig discussed it in the context of a welder who fixed a broken part on his motorcycle. Collingwood would call that craft, not art. He has an interesting section on the difference between craft and art in "The Principles of Art."
I am deeply moved by your acknowledgement of my attachment to America's greatest cheese (product).
Pretty much. "The Arts" is a very broad classification of enterprises. Some of the products that are categorized under that heading, I don't consider art.
I think of the show somewhat like I think of the frame for a painting. Some or all of the content may be art, but the frame is just a good or bad mass-produced frame.
Quoting BC
Not really. 'Good' and 'successful' are not synonyms. Some of the best television programs I've seen either didn't make it to a second season, or were ruined by a change of direction to make them more successful.
Quoting BC
The masses must prefer Velveeta (or even caca) or they would support PBS.
Quoting BC
No. It's true of reality shows that feature performances by non-professionals. Talk shows, news magazine shows and comedy shows are in their own categories. Scripted fictional stories are another category. That one can be considered under the art form Cinema, and judged by the same criteria as Woman of the Dunes and Howard the Duck.
Quoting T Clark
That's only because modern media can produce entertaining art and artistic entertainment.
Riddle me this, for the sake of defining art. What is "special"? Unique? Surely a blank piece of paper with a black dot squarely in the center is not what comes to mind when one thinks of "art". Or is it?
What if it's a single drop of blood, sweat, or tears from a person's last moment in life as he performed a valiant act of self-sacrifice saving an entire village from a deadly threat or attack? Surely that would be considered "special" and, due to its context, make it a worthy competitor along the lines of other great works. Symbolizing the lone nature of the sacrifice, one man, surrounded by the vastness of the world and the insurmountable odds around him, something like that, no?
What is an example of something "non-special" that attempts to masquerade as art? A simple outline of a circle is not considered "art", I wouldn't think? What would have to be added to that circle to make it qualify, to graduate from a mere diagram to something that can be considered "art"?
Compare these two items by William de Kooning and Louise Nevelson. Both were in a large show of Abstract Expressionists at one of the Guggenheim museums:
They both are abstract expressionist, but De Kooning applied paint to canvas--quickly, it appears. Nevelson's assembled objects then painted them black. I wasn't there when the works were done, but it seems like Louise Nevelson applied more effort and thought to the work than did de Kooning. Perhaps De Kooning labored mightily to choose just the precise colors and brush strokes to express "Villa Borghese". Perhaps, like the elephant, he just labored mightily and brought forth a gnat.
Nevelson's Night evokes more response from me. The monochrome shapes and forms are definite, deliberate. Not so much de Kooning's summer day color scheme.
I've stood in front of a number of Pollock's works, and I found them to be reasonably compelling -- even knowing how he went about producing them (it wasn't a painfully skilled process). The thing is, one of them is enough. Several square yards of smeared paint doesn't need endless repetition, while one might enjoy many different paintings of mountains, or a particular biblical scene, or a classical topic, or a rodeo -- whatever.
Old school, huh? As an artist myself, I don't believe that there is 'proper art', just good art and bad art and even this is subject to entirely debatable criteria of value.
Quoting BC
I find both works banal but I'm happy with them both being called art. The word 'art' to me doesn't contain within it an assumption about merit.
De Koining's is medium-bodied with a bouquet reminiscent of lemongrass and hints of parsnips and rhubarb.
I think this would make Susan Boyle performance art, on the basis of her disrupting and throwing into relief the equation of pop with beauty. She sings beautifully and just looks like an old lady. That was on Britain's Got Talent, which is the same thing but Bri-ish innit.
There wasn't a further development of the symbolic related to the conceptual content of her performances, but there was a development of the symbolic enacted through the social context of them. Susan Boyle as a phenomenon was very much both.
Maybe where that throws a spanner in the works is that interventions in the symbolic need to modify the symbolic - which Boyle did - but modify them in a way related to the modifying the understanding of the the expression of content in the symbolic simpliciter - which Boyle did not, she highlighted and undermined a stereotype in a manner that created a fandom.
That's not the issue here, I'm talking about a broader perspective of how society handles knowledge and how to mitigate unnecessary lack of clarity through better handling of definitions in language.
At the same time, the "definition of art" is at the core of aesthetic philosophy, so I don't get your "who cares" attitude? If it doesn't matter, the why are you even in this discussion? You're literally in a thread that tries to define something as art or not, and for that we need to set a definition of what art is.
I already set parameters for defining art in a way that answers the OP question. So far I've not seen any reasons to why those parameters would be any worse than any "who cares" arguments.
The 'who cares?' isn't in response to the entire thread, it's in response to YOU saying YOU would like to have more fruitful conversations that aren't weighed down by the annoying problem of differing definitions of Art. My "Who cares?" response is to that - if YOU want to have those fruitful conversations, the definition of Art isn't stopping you, so why do you care so much? Just go have those fruitful conversations. You were talking as if the definition of art is stopping you from doing that - I'm letting you know, it is not.
Quoting Christoffer
You're saying the disagreement on the criteria of if it's art is meaningless compared to the discussion about aesthetical appreciation. And yet you're still sat here, post after post, talking about the criteria of if it's art and NOT talking about the aesthetical appreciation of said ad. It doesn't seem like your actions are matching your words, I think that's notable. You can stop talking about the criteria of art and start talking about aesthetical appreciation literally whenever you want.
Once again...
Quoting Christoffer
Quoting flannel jesus
Once again...
Quoting Christoffer
Quoting flannel jesus
The definition of art is part of the thread's core question if "Idol" is art. I made an entire argument for why it is not, based on clarifying how "art" can be defined and the difference between that and merely aesthetic appreciation. I'm doing aesthetic philosophy here, I'm not sure what you are doing? This entire thread just shows underscores exactly what I was arguing, that people are just arbitrarily trying to draw some defining line as to where Idol "fits into art", mostly based on personal feelings rather than some philosophical logic.
Just to point out what I'm doing in relation to the question in the OP:
I literally made an argument for what art should be defined as, how it answers the OP question and how I think it could help mitigating the unnecessary lack of clarity for these kinds of discussions. If you have a proper counter-argument to that conclusion, please go ahead. Right now you don't even seem to understand the actual problem I addressed.
Like, you enter a discussion that asks whether or not "Idol" is art, what is your answer to that question? If it's "who cares", then why? Why is that the answer? What's your argument in support of that?
I do think your definition of art is disagreeable, but I'd be roping you into a conversation you've already said is meaningless if I tried to argue that.
I think there are a couple places in philosophy where I make an exception for that - where it actually makes sense, I think, to have a more fluid definition of a word. I think EACH PERSON should attempt to concretely define the boundaries for their use of the word, but I don't thinks it's necessary for every person to conceptualize the word the same way or to have the same boundaries as another person.
Free Will is, I think, another word where each person should draw their own distinct boundaries, but two different people can draw their own ideas of the boundaries in different (often extremely different) places. Free Will and Art both have a common feature which makes their fluid-boundary-ness palatable, and that is, they have a more primal experience at the center of them, prior to any concrete definition for the source of that experience. Free Will is an *experience* first and foremost, before it's *whatever some particular philosopher defines it as*. Most thinking people have the experience of Free Will, before they ever come close to trying to define the word Free Will - that experience is more central than any single definition, and I think it makes sense to leave room for different thinkers to define the boundaries and causes and underlying reality of that experience differently.
And perhaps Art is similar - perhaps it's an experience first and foremost, before it's a solidly defined word in Webster's English Dictionary. And because it's experience-centric, it makes sense to me to allow for different people to have different boundaries for how they define that experience.
But if clarity is important, how can we have clarity when words are fluid like this? Well, easy: you clarify exacty what YOU mean when you say it, and get them to clarify exactly what they mean when they say it, and then *avoid debating if things are art* -- because that's just semantics, that's just arguing about the boundaries of a subjective experience -- and instead talk about the things you said are more important. As long as MOST words are more clearly unambiguously defined, the occasional word being a bit fluid shouldn't be a terrible barrier to clarity.
I have to make the argument for why the question asked is arbitrary in order for making the expanded argument for why such discussions are meaningless as a whole. This discussion is not a question of the aesthetic appreciation of "idol", but about whether or not to define it as art, and my argument is that society often get stuck in such meaningless discussions instead of having a clearly defined starting point of whether it is art or content as a foundational premiss for the interpretation of the created object's or performance's meaning. Without such foundation, we attribute irrelevant or non-existing meaning to content that in its core intention merely had monetary or social status interests in mind, and such, any interpretation of meaning becomes merely hollow interpretations rather than functioning on the foundation of interplay between artist and receiver in which actual artistic meaning can be found.
The conclusion of a discussion's shallow framework rendering it meaningless is determined by the argument I made, so a counter argument to that would return meaning to the original discussion.
I don't think you really understand the point I'm making here. If my conclusion is correct, then why is this discussion on-going (the discussion as in this thread, not our specific conversation)? If I'm right, why are people still debating the merits of "Idol" as art? Wouldn't my answer be the final conclusion? And since the discussion is still going, then either I'm right and the discussion in here (among all others, not me), in itself is proving how society cannot transcend this shallow level and self-delusion with the illusion of meaning centered around such shallow debates about art's definition. Or there are actually merits to the question of whether "Idol" is art or not, but that would require a counter-argument to my definition, which I've yet to hear.
If you agree with me and my argument about the definition, then answer me why almost every discussion about art is centered around a "creation" with the question "is this art?". Because it doesn't matter if I personally operate out of my definition of art if other people cannot transcend that surface level question since every attempt at having a discussion beyond it always end up with them struggling to define if something is art or not.
If my conclusion were so obvious, then why is the discussion of art's definition still going on? Not just in here, but all over society? I have to make a convincing argument for what art is until society operates on that conclusion and since that's not going on, that's the argument that needs to be settled first, or else everyone will just circle around that surface level and never ending up anywhere because without a framework of definition, the question of "what is art" becomes meaningless.
Quoting flannel jesus
Why would the term "art" not be able to be defined? I think that people attribute too much magic to that term because they're awestruck by some divine mystery about creativity. But in the end it just becomes religious and spiritual hogwash surrounding the term, with some subconscious attempt to elevate it to the divine.
And I would say that this framework has been a broken primary gear in aesthetic philosophy that makes the branch unnecessarily muddy and vague.
Why is it so important that the term "art" is vague in its definition? It just seems like people are afraid to touch any attempt to define what "art" is because they've subconsciously formed a divine framework around it. Maybe it's also more common among atheists as the lack of divine belief push them to deify other parts of their reality, and in so attribute creativity and art as divine, which leads to them protecting the term from being clearly defined.
I value better definitions in order to actually answer the questions about "what art is" once and for all in order to remove this spiritual and religious framework around creativity.
Quoting flannel jesus
Why? It just renders all discussions about free will nonsense and irrelevant. It creates a framework for a discussion that can never reach truth or conclusion since core premises are built on arbitrary foundations. It renders any discussion around the subject pointless as anyone can just return to re-define their definitions in order to render the other's argument wrong.
It rather seems like an easy way to control the narrative rather than having interest in finding out any truths on a topic. Philosophical discourse aims to build a body of knowledge through the interplay between interlocutors. If the foundational terminology is "whatever", then there's no point in any discussion in the first place. It's utter meaningless.
Quoting flannel jesus
I disagree. I think that attributes some arbitrary invented mystery to the terms. Just find the logic of the term, the core meaning, settle on it and move on to the discussion using those defined meanings as part of the premises.
Quoting flannel jesus
No it's not. Free will is literally the ability to choose something freely. That's the definition. To have the ability to, without influence and control over you, choose by yourself. All other interpretations are part of that spiritual nonsense that tries to add magic to the concept in order to transcend the difficult truth of determinism.
The more both philosophy and science have in both deduction, and evidence shown free will to be non-existent, the more wild magical interpretations of the term we've seen been invented. It's the result of cognitive dissonance, nothing more. The term is pretty clearly defined, it's just people who can't accept determinism or the fact that we're operating on deterministic cognitive processes who are playing lose with the term trying to inject new meaning into it in order to be able to say "yeah, but what exactly do you mean by no free will?" It's a way to control the discussion and narrative at a surface level, nothing more.
Quoting flannel jesus
No, it's much rather just the difference between a scientific perspective and the common language one. Just like "theory" as a term has two different meanings depending on if it's used in society or in science. Free will in society can be used as a term in legal matters based on the laws we have today, but it's not used in the same way in philosophy and science. In common everyday speak we use "free will" to navigate certain everyday concepts, but in philosophy and science, "free will" is much more strict in its definition.
But this is creeping out to the public as well, especially in the last couple of decades, as the scientific definition starts to inform how utterly ridiculous society views free will and how destructive it is to view problems in society within the concept of free will. We literally have problems with fighting crime in society due to the stupidity of how we ignore free will as a concept. The inability to understand the true nature of determinism's effect on society makes people believe in solutions that have no roots in scientific theory.
Just another clear example to demonstrate my point of the importance of clear definitions. Just like with "art", this duality in meaning between the scientific/philosophical definition of the term just produces a shallow level at which all discussions in society operates on. In terms of "art", this is at the frontlines of discussions today as defining AI as art or not is literally what everyone is discussing. So the inability to operate on clear definitions of such terms just produces utter chaos in public debate.
How is any abstract and arbitrary definitions a positive thing when we clearly see the chaos in society because of it?
Quoting flannel jesus
This is just your own opinion, it's not something we can all operate on to help create better frameworks for debates around art. "Perhaps", "Perhaps", "Perhaps" just makes things unnecessarily abstract in a time when, as I said, we literally see the public debate struggle because of this ill-defined terminology. And as laws are set to be drawn upon stuff like AI, you can't have this "personal opinion" version of a definition, it needs to be clearly defined.
Quoting flannel jesus
They're not fluid, I clearly defined them. You've yet to make an argument for why they're fluid in opposition to my conclusions. And you stated earlier that you don't disagree with my definition, so why is it fluid if I clearly defined the term and how to use it in society?
Quoting flannel jesus
But this is literally impossible as evidenced by how public discourse is being done on concepts like AI art. It's not easy, because, as I've said, people do not operate like this in discussion, just look at this thread alone. People can opt in for what definitions they make for a concept and then they start to debate, only for one interlocutor to, in the middle of the discussion, just return to their own arbitrary definition of art and then the debate becomes circular.
The proof is in the pudding and the pudding is every damn discussion about art that is going on today. People are not able to do what you are describing there, because it's impossible for people to bypass their bias rooted in ill-determined definitions and lose foundations for the premises.
You're describing some fantasy discourse that does not reflect how discussions actually look around this topic. This entire thread is centered around the very questions "is that art?", the very headline of this thread shows that your ideal discussion does not exist.
The solution is to have clear definitions of the terms. That's the actual solution. What you are arguing for is some fantasy of the optimal discussion to just appear out of nothing, out of no parameters of how to conduct discourse. The entire field of philosophy is built upon having the best framework possible around a topic in order to collectively reach truths about that topic. The more ill-defined and lose the terminology is, the less accurate or meaningful such philosophical discussions get. And seen how most discourse around AI-art is going in public, it shows just how shallow and stupid things get when people don't have a good idea of what art actually is defined as.
The core question I'm asking you is why you are opposed to better and clearer definitions? It seems like a totally unnecessary stance when the alternative is to have a common defined ground to base our premises on. I really don't understand the reasoning here? What possible benefit to collective discourse does that generate? As evidenced by public debates on both "free will" and "art", it produces and pushes polarized nonsense which lead no where but antagonizing people against each other as well as laying an ill-defined foundation for laws and regulations when applicable. I think you underestimate the consequences of ill-defined terminology.
The OP question would be meaningless. The AI debate would be meaningless. All debates about "is that art?" would be meaningless. And instead the conversations would be centered around the meaning that is being created by artists operating under the definition of art and the consequences of trying to work as an artist under the definition of content. As well as allowing guidance to artists who've gotten lost into content production losing their sense of artistic soul in their daily work. We could focus on talking about art in a way that is true to the human and individual creating it and distinguish it from the influence of monetary need or corruption through profit-driven intentions that takes over the creative process.
Such discussions bypass that shallow level of people throwing examples at each other asking "is this art?" Which seems to dominate the discourse within aesthetic philosophy, at least dominating public discourse.
How you personally form a conversation around art does not equal society operating on similar grounds. I'm observing what the discourse in public and places like this forum actually is and argue out of those facts. How you idealize a conversation outside of that is rather irrelevant, isn't it? What would be the point of that? And how would you universalize this to improve the discourse around art? Please show
I expect both skill and effort from an artist, and a little subtlety doesn't go amiss. I've never understood the appeal of de Kooning or Pollock (though his scribbles are more interesting, why keep making them?) or Rothko.
The thing I find most odd is that all these painters actually learned the craft, began with real pictures, made with skill and attention. But they were noticed only after they departed from traditional painting methods and started producing meaningless splashes and instead. That's what sold in the late 20th century.
Quoting Baden
And there's the tragedy. It's not enough to produce novelty, or shock or disgust, even to make a social statement. Anyone can do that with a placard or public display. Without artistry, what we get instead of works of art are vials of feces and piles of plastic garbage. Those exhibitions seems to me contrived for effect, inauthentic, as well as without aesthetic merit.
What sells now seems to be transitional - nods and winks to Rothko, Pollock, Picasso, Mondrian and Grandma Moses and Banksy - but also some really nice original stuff that connects artists and viewer through genuine experience. I think fine art has begun to swing back toward the figurative, representational and semi-abstract. I wish music could would go back to being musical, rather than mechanized.
In my recent reply, I mentioned Collingwood's discussion of the question of craft vs. art. I just tripped over this quote while looking for something else.
What in God's name does this have to do with Velveeta?
As for your post - I've looked up the definition of "abstract expressionism" numerous times and I still don't know what it means. I know it's more than "My kid could do that." I too like the Nevelson more than the de Kooning. It brings to mind movable type set up for printing or hieroglyphics. The de Kooning doesn't really evoke anything. As you note, the Nevelson clearly required more skill, effort, thought, and time. How do I use that to decide which is better.
I started a thread a while ago, "Skill, craft, technique in art," that attempted to deal with this issue. Competence and skill matter to me, but Collingwood says that could just as well be craft rather than art. In my previous response to Vera Mont, just above this one, I included an excerpt from his discussion of the issue.
I tried to clarify the modern distinctions early on. One could look at it as a hierarchy: design, craft, functional art, fine art, where each prior step is a prerequisite. You need sound design and skill to craft a good chair, sound craftsmanship plust creativity to produce an artistic chair, all three to elevate the chair to something more than a chair.
Interesting. I'm not sure the endless debate about what art, is or what it is not, matters. Except to people who fetishise definitions or aesthetics. Could there be a less useful subject? I'd be interested to understand from you why the term art matters so much to some people. Seems to me that some seem to want to reserve the word as a magic charm which can only be waved over certain approved phenomena.
Maybe there's use in those debates but... it's hard to see, if there is
Quoting Tom Storm
I find this kind of discussion interesting and helpful because it lets me sort out how different kinds of creations affect me in different ways, how I experience them. It's about self-awareness. If you're not interested in that kind of discussion, you don't have to participate.
Self-awareness for you, and perhaps mental masturbation for others. Just because I am questioning isn't an indication that I am not taking the discussion seriously. Don't mistake skepticism for a lack of interest. My journey towards self-awareness is trying to determine which debates are useful. :wink:
That's true of just about all the discussions on the forum for someone. I think many philosophical questions are silly - mind/brain, free will/determinism, hard problem of consciousness, anti-natalism... I participated in those arguments, sometimes vigorously, till I figured out how pointless and intellectually unfruitful they are. Lots of frustration with little or no satisfaction beyond the opportunity to vent my spleen. Now I generally avoid participating in those types of discussions unless I have something constructive to contribute. When I don't I usually regret it and often behave badly. Who needs it.
I too prefer some freedom when it comes to words. Particularly when the objects addressed are necessarily vague and broad.
I think for some--perhaps, the same who wish to tighten the definition s of words--art belongs only to the visual arts like sculptors, painters, etc. and some variations thereof.
I'm not so sure the intention of the "creator" should play so potent a role either.
I have an "idea" of what classifies as art; and, it is broad and vague, yet seems impossible to properly articulate with words. Watch me try:
art is any creation (no, not any, it has to be a certain kind, and it is not really the creation, but how the creation is "looked at", for e.g. a urinal does not qualify, yet, if looked at in a certain way,...oh, see? Intent may play a role......etc) [b]which,
when presented to one or more of the senses, triggers profound[/b] (doesn't have to be "profound" just beyond "normal", but, then, what is normal?.. ..etc) inner feeling or drive to act (and not because it has any mechanism for doing so beyond the "message" or "signifier" that it is).
It seems to me, impossible to define art. So impossible, that one could make a case for art being anything which is presented to the senses and triggers feelings beyond the mundane response to mundane things, as mundane things.
And in that case, a banal talent show can be art.
Why do we care?
We take steps to preserve art; urinals, we send to the dump;
We pay more for art;
We fund art; we don't fund game shows;
We study art and consciously allow it to influence history;
We pay attention to art...
Etc.
Quoting T Clark
I think providing push back is useful in philosophical discussions. But it depends upon whether the pushback provokes useful questions or not. For me, the most important quesion in most subjects is why does it matter? That's not an attempt to shrug something off, it's an attempt to capture the essence or nub of the matter. I hope.
Quoting ENOAH
I consider Duchamp's R Mutt urinal aka "Fountain" to be a great moment in art. But you can't really repeat this and have the same impact despite what Tracey Emin might think. So much modern art being footnotes to "Fountain".
Many of your questions are resolved by the market.
Quoting ENOAH
Not 'Fountain' - that thing is worth millions. But much art is thrown away and burnt too. Often art is only kept because it has a significant monetary value.
Quoting ENOAH
More compared to what? Not sure this is true. And if it is, it will depend on the art in quesion and that is a often matter of how the market functions. Which has nothing to do with art per say. That's commodification and capitalism.
Quoting ENOAH
We don't fund all art and the choices made are those of the market, ditto game shows. Game shows are funded. They are funded by corporations who provide the products and advertising opportunities. Not dissimilar to when Van Gough or Rembrandt go on a world tour of galleries.
Quoting ENOAH
We consciously allow non-art to influence hsitory. A hamburger joint can influence history. And as for study - we study all manner of things. I know a guy with a PHD in Julie Andrews.
Quoting ENOAH
We pay attention to porn and horse racing.
Quoting ENOAH
Quoting ENOAH
Quoting ENOAH
Quoting ENOAH
Your definition is no worse than many others. But I can sit in front of many paintings and have no feelings or reaction to it. Does this mean they aren't art? There's a lot of music which I find irrelevant and don't have a reaction to. Etc.
I don't think how we react has a clear relationship to whether something is art. You can have a profound emotional reaction to an empty bird's nest in a tree. Does this make it art?
You're right. And rather than responding to each of your points because you're right on all of them, I liked this one the most.
Really, why do we ask or care about what is art? Probably because we habitually engage in these kinds of--ultimately--pointless exercises. I believe autonomously. But I won't get into that.
The thing is, asking and following up--not just re art--may be ultimately pointless. But also great things emerge out of these seemingly pointless pursuits. The simplest way to illustrate what I mean is that these exercise provide the (for my laziness to find the apt word) "theoretical" ground work for Cultures "concrete" manifestations.
I'm not saying, necessarily we, on this forum, obviously. But all of humanity, in autonomous pursuit of meaning, manifesting as our "things". For better or worse.
Probably because humans are emotional creatures and many of our best moments are when we experience some form of aesthetic satisfaction or joy. The arts are important to most people, so it stands to reason we want to be able to define art. We probably hope to explain the magic trick.
Quoting ENOAH
Agree.
Quoting ENOAH
Then what's the point of the concept? Or the word? Or the activity?
Somehow, creative people produce objects and performances that move or inspire or enrage or enthrall other people. And those creations, however much or badly they're reproduced and imitated, become part of the culture that ennobles and enriches us, in which we feel we have a stake, of which we are proud.
I meant define it with precision. Having said that, I agree with Quoting Vera Mont And likely it should simply be that.
Any more is too much. Let the rest of the debate be about "good" and "bad" art, classifications, categories, messages and impacts.
But I doubt whether art is just this. I also imagine that art may bore us, make us complacent, erode cultural value and make us feel ashamed. At least that's my experience of a Tarantino film or a book by Brett Easton Ellis. :wink:
For clarity, I'm not saying "it's pointless to talk about what art means to various people", I'm more saying, "it's pointless to make it your mission to convince other people with different definitions that your definition is the right one", which is apparently the goal of the guy I was talking to. You see the difference?
And I don't think that mission is pointless for ALL words, but I think art is one of the words where it is.
I get his point, though. Perhaps it's my OCD but in essence, words kinda do have to mean something otherwise we don't have a discussion we have an unintelligible madhouse and non-discussion.
I understand how some might not consider, say, burping or passing gas as an art, yet another might. Similar to how a wall of used gum or business cards at a diner may or may not be considered the same.
But surely you would agree, some definitions are, as a strict matter of fact, wrong. There have to be. Unfortunately for those whom the burden of proof happens to fall on, art is one of those concepts where the lines are in fact thoroughly blurred. To take a liberal view, perhaps anything can be art, however nothing is absent of two things: human involvement be it capture or placement and an intended audience of which to view it. Would you agree with that?
I agree that there are boundaries to what "art" can mean, absolutely. If one person includes more things than another person in their idea of art, I don't think there's anything to objectively say one is wrong and the other is right, but if one person decides the word "art" is synonymous with "mitosis" then... they're just being silly
I did that earlier. This was a summary.
Sure. I've tried to be clear in my post that my definitions are what works for me, what helps me think about the subject clearly. On the other hand, if we want to talk about art, which I do, we have to all be talking about the same thing. Beyond that, I love words and I love definitions. I play a game where I'll come across a word I'm familiar with and try to come up with a definition. I'm surprised how often I have trouble.
I think that's a cool, and challenging, game. My posts to the other guy were almost me trying to suggest another game, almost the reverse of your game:
Any interesting conversation you think you can have about art, that relies on an agreed upon definition of "art" -- just try to have that conversation without using the word "art".
So while your game tries to define a contentious word clearly, my game is to avoid the contentious word altogether.
Let's say someone wants to have a conversation on the merits of "AI art" (AI meaning artificial intelligene, not American Idol) - I dare you to try to make your points without relying on the word 'art'.
So instead of saying something like "AI art shouldn't be respected as art because it doesn't take any effort and isn't a venue for human communication", say something like "AI imagery shouldn't be
You know what I mean? And if anything, I think that makes the conversation MORE clear. Moving it away from the semantic argument about "art" and replacing "art" with WHAT YOU REALLY MEAN is actually... maybe the best way to go.
If you start a thread with a game like that, I'll play. On the other hand, there are many things I wouldn't consider art that are worthy of being enjoyed, purchased, and appreciated even though they don't take any effort or involvement communication - sunsets, landscapes, people's faces... No, let's not have a discussion as to whether or not those should be considered art.
Absolutely not!
Quoting T Clark
Ok, do you think ai art counts as art? If the answer is "no", then the game is to rephrase "ai shouldn't be treated as art" with something more along the lines of "people shouldn't do
For starters, they shouldn't use AI imagery for election fraud - or any other kind. A pretty image, or cleverly composed design can be appreciated without giving it any status in culture. Like other mass-produced commercial products, they're intended for a short period of utility and then discarded.
One problem with the present intensely technological culture is that we are constantly surrounded by images and bombarded by sound. It becomes impossible to discern them individually or remember them for more than a second, let alone judge them on any merit system. It's all just one great, swirling jumble of sensory assault.
Do you have an example of someone doing that? I'm not sure I've seen that before.
I just heard about it the other day.
https://www.abc27.com/news/ai-programs-can-easily-impersonate-biden-others-to-manipulate-elections-study/
Apparently, it can be done very quickly and effectively from a small amount of input.
https://statescoop.com/deepfakes-presidential-election-ai-2024/
But, does it matter in particular that this is ai? Surely it would be just as bad if it were just Photoshop or something right?
Actually the original is lost. Duchamp made seventeen copies in the 1960's, each of which is worth a few bob.
Much harder to do and easier to detect. AI is a more efficient tool, that's all. So efficient that it can replicate the best human crafting with zero effort. The images may well be impressive; the work is not.
When you compare the carving that was done manually, with a mallet and chisel to carving that was done with a pneumatic chisel, to what can be done today with a computer guided laser, which do you admire more?
I'm not sure. I'll think about it.
Indeed. Just imagine the value of the original if found.
WHY????
I would suggest that those images naturally trigger "pleasant" feelings. And while you referenced them to illustrate that pleasant feeling do not necessarily make something art, I think what you have referenced has a direct relationship with art.
The feelings which sunsets or faces, throw in morning song birds, elicit in us organically, can be "triggered" by a Fictional represention to any or any combination of the senses. Same effect, different triggers. You can have such a scenario by coincidence (a heart attack a car accident causd a death). This is not a coincidence. Rather, the triggering of those precise feelings through a fictional representation is the "function" of art. It's why art (continues to) exists.
Art is any Fictional representation presented to human senses, the sole function of which is to trigger a notable feeling without having recourse to any other explanation/trigger.
Stronger feelings are triggered from things we would consider "authentic" "creative" "original" etc. And as for art which is highly commercial, we resent it, even try to suppress feelings, because we are confused, believing it's function is to make money and not to trigger feelings.
But it is only incidentally that some art can be lucrative. All that matters is that it is a Fictional representation that is presented to trigger feelings in its spectators.
We can be as snobby as we want in assessing whether or not American Idol triggers strong, or authentic feelings; good or bad ones; whether its art is creative, original, or ingenious. But we cannot exclude it from the art club. It is a Fictional representation (it doesn't matter we think they are real amateurs in a talent show) presented as such, to make audiences feel something (it doesn't matter it makes us feel more inclined to buy products) and, we feel many things.
Addendum: and that's why Duchamp's urinal, too is art. It existed once as a toilet. But presented as it was by Duchamp, it was a Fictional representation, its function to make us feel, and we did/do feel.
That wasn't exactly my point. @flannel jesus wrote
Quoting flannel jesus
My response was to point out that even if [whatever we call it] created by artificial intelligence isn't art, it still may be worth enjoying, purchasing, appreciating, creating.
This has been an interesting conversation, but I think we have taken it as far as I want to for now.
Why the word 'fictional'?
Quoting ENOAH
Fictional?
Not sure what you are getting at with this word. Do you mean a creative representation?
Duchamp was making a provocative statement about the nature of art and the artist. In 1917 this was a radical move. It was a stunt. A comment on art and perhaps not art of itself, depending upon one's reading.
Quoting ENOAH
I don't think this is right. To say art has a sole function is too limiting. So is the idea of it's 'triggering a notable feeling without having recourse to any other explanation.'
Art often relies upon other art or myth or religion, or stories or history for its effect or context.
At its simplest, art is something presented for aesthetic appreciation.
Quoting ENOAH
"Bravo," to Enoah for starting a conversation about the uncontainability of art.
I wanna add my two cents by talking about art as the "meta-experience" of reality intentionally expressed by the person we name as the artist. But the vowel clash of "meta-experience" is an awkward sound-out, how about "meta-practice?"
So, we practice life as experience and we meta-practice life mentally processed as art.
Now, here's my big-whoop definition:
Now the focus is on what I mean by "greatness."
Okay. You're in New York inside a skyscraper inside an elevator racing upwards to the top floor. You started on the ground floor and you're going more than a hundred stories to your destination. The elevator's crowded and there's significant time with a lotta folks sardined inside of a confined space. Small talk cuts the tension as everyone waits.
This is small talk. Is it art? Well, typically, we say something is art when the communication conveys (by intent) something deep and expansive, say, for example, Tolstoy's "War and Peace," a novel that evokes an entire 19th century society inside Russia.
It's easy to say small talk ain't art and "War and Peace" is.
There's no clear boundary differentiating art from the rest of creation. So, the edge of art is an infinite curve we can sample in unending pieces toward a sum of the entire curve we approach and never arrive at. So, we approach art, and we recede from art, but we never quite get there. The thing itself, wisely, keeps eluding us. That's why art, as some philosopher has said, "Is news that stays news."
Even if I already knew that, I'd still ask. Philosophy is an infinite curve we can sample in unending pieces.
I think the key here isn't "we can sample" but that we are compelled to, each of us, even the unanswerable questions. We are compelled to ask.
Maybe putting something to rest, for an individual, can only be consummated by going through with it.
You know what? I'm settling at that. It has the widest doors, and I'm all for open borders.
Pity it doesn't work as it conflates beauty with art. A model presents his or her body for aesthetic appreciation and while said body may be beautiful, it is not art.
Exactly.
Herewith, some words about "art", that will not quite do as a definition, but may be somewhat illuminating and/or somewhat obscuring.
One meaning of 'art' can be 'a skilful practice', and particularly one that involves judgement that cannot be entirely tied down to an algorithm, but that is very broad, and inexact. In the context of speaking of, say, "artistic merit" another criterion is important - creativity. This seems to involve novelty or originality, thus to call a piece "derivative" is to denigrate it. But mere novelty does not suffice, there must also surely be meaning and significance, which entails a communication of some sort, and since communication is shared, it it involves what has already been done, and is already known, and this is where some expertise is necessary for the judgement of artistic merit, to the extent that it becomes an art in itself.
It is part of the business of the artist to challenge and transcend the limits of the meaning of the word "art", and add something new to it, and this is why one can never capture it in a definition. This in turn gives some clue as to the limitations of formulaic tv shows that purport to be the arbiters of good taste and artistry.
:clap:
That definition has just broadened art to include, not only American Idol, but this. Recall, in the OP, I set it up, specifically "in the spirit of aesthetics, and to enhance the experience of the so-called hypothesis."
I think it's best to stick to "art cannot be defined." Not in Language, at least.
Maybe art is one of those things that has to be experienced, and then you "know" whether or not you'd call it art (based upon a vaguely described concept constructed in language).
Maybe it's not that art is a thing which makes you feel, but rather, art is a thing you cannot know; you must feel.
I trust you will hate that last definition most, but, no offense intended, that's what I'm settling with.
Just answering this!
Quoting ENOAH
You can certainly do that, if you choose. Mr. Webster was a little more definite.
Quoting ENOAH
I don't love it, hate it, or care much about it. It's right up there with "I don't know anything about art, I just I know what I like."
Everyone is free to have their own take on the subject, but nobody gets to deny that definitions exist, so long as they're using words.
On the contrary, I thought we shared a mutual frustration with the subject.
And, in any event, yes, you are correct. Definitions are an integral part of using words.
Oh, adversarial wasn't what I thought. Thing is, I don't really have a problem with either the concept or the word. I don't think the compilers at Webster did, either. It's not until the recent commercial, technological and scatological contributions to graphic production and performance that the idea of what art is and what it's supposed to do have become problematic.
When I studied Art, most people were clear on the topic, even if they disagreed on the merit of individual items, though the academics and critics were in turmoil. This was during the 1960's, when the likes of Warhol and Duchamp had already upset the traditional concept of artistic expression. It was fashionable to debate endlessly whether art was the process of creation or the result, whether anything that altered a perspective on any subject, however trivial, should be considered art, and a whole heap of precious, pretentious posing by self-styled geniuses. It was then, too, that people who made stuff, whether it was all-the-same jewellery or big grey and red blobs on canvas, began to refer to their stuff as "The Work".
Since then, an awful lot of crap has been deposited in galleries.
After Warhol, every magazine illustration and movie poster was art; every bastard offspring of the theater and every drum-heavy pop song has been included in a broad, liberal, catch-all use of the word. It's not surprising so many people devalue the word, disparage all criteria and go with their gut reaction instead. That's always been the ultimate personal standard. But publicly funded installations and exhibitions must be controlled by a cooler intellect. The council or committee members who decide which sculpture to put in a park, which painting to buy for a museum, need definitive criteria. They must fall back on established words and concepts for their deliberations.