Define Art

[darko.]

Does it exist, what is it, what does it imply about humanity, and more specificallly, the human experience? Does it only hold significance for humanity? CAN it only hold significance for humanity? Don't give me that look. You knew this was coming.

I just woke up so I'll give my thoughts later

Please don't give any descriptions of good, bad, original, thought provoking etc blah blah. Just write what you believe it is.

Before you post, *think long and hard about it, analyzing every conclusion you come to and what they can mean, and whether they make sense or not (whether you're being logical[consistent]).

*Really, you should do that all the time but it doesnt make for funny internets.

[Jocasta]

Art is in the eye and heart and mind of the artist; anything else is just analysis.

(And I'm not arguing about this, it's my honest belief).

[Moshe..]

The question ‘what is art’ sounds quite boring. You can make it slightly interesting I suppose. Accept that the distinction between art/not-art is observer-dependent (it is not an observer-independent feature of the world like gravity, or at least whatever caused us to develop our concept of gravity). Secondly, it is not a necessary observer-dependent feature of the world (we can do without it, unlike distinctions of depth/flatness or light/dark or 1/2/3, which are necessary features of, or even preconditions for, our perception of the world). It is a category, then, that we choose. THis is why it is slightly interesting. Why do we choose? The categories that people (or groups of people) choose to place objects or events under (such as art/not-art) will show you how they're thinking. If you compare different people (groups of people), then the way in which they make this category will exhibit the differences in quite a clear way. THe question helps us work out the reasons for their choice, and it's the reasons, and only the reasons, which are interesting. It is an epistemologically useful question, it has no ontological sense. Tutankhamun didn't consider his mask to be art. For tutankhamun the mask is a tool. It serves the purpose of protecting his head from the glare of osiris in the next life, much the same way we would consider the outer heat insulation which protects our space shuttles on re-entry. The question of art doesn't come into it. Each morning before dawn the pueblo indians would spit on their palms and raise them to the sky. This action would cause the sun god to emerge. THe same action done now might be considered performance art or modern dance. For the pueblo, his behaviour saves the whole world every morning, for us it is a dance! The vast difference in the thought-worlds we inhabit! The cheerless clockwork fantasy of our age! Man has become superfluous! Imagine being the pueblo, who is in the centre of the universe. He lives on another planet. You see to call something art is often to demean it. As european civilisation ‘develops’ we continuously relegate aspects of our lives which were formerly considered essential to the sidelines, to after dinner entertainment : “it’s only art”. Ok that’s one nice point anyway.

Does it only hold significance for humanity? CAN it only hold significance for humanity?

What are you talking about here - aliens?

Please don't give any descriptions of good, bad, original, thought provoking etc blah blah. Just write what you believe it is.

Darling these are the interesting questions. What do you mean by 'thought-provoking'? Why do you value originality? What is the connection between the two?

What is beauty? What is the relationship between truth and beauty? I like the last question!

[Captain Beefheart]

Art is just a reflection of various elements of society and an individual's way of self expression.

Obviously there's an impact. Art, particularly music and literature, fueled some of the most telling social changes in history. Obviously, economics, war, politics, etc. played a large part as well. I think you can pretty much line up all the changes in art with changes in society that happened to influence them. But one can talk about parts without delving into the whole, just as we speak of wholes without parts. Certainly, a wide view would require conversation regarding as many facets as possible, but that's pragmatically unlikely.

I love art of all kinds, but not because I'm under the delusion that it's going to change the world in any big meaningful way. But instead because it helps me understand better the people and world around me. As well as myself.

[Moshe..]

And oh if want to read something a lot lot less boring than me, schopenhauer wrote philosophy about art. Schopenhauer philosophy of art doesn't totally make sense but it is still a really really nice afternoon in the library. I won't say anything. This is my tip, super easy to read

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Schopenhauer...4985374&sr=8-1