What Is Art?

[Crow]

Davin give it a rest with the argumentation theory. It doesn't matter if it is a informal fallacy, circular reasoning, false attribution, proof by verbosity, or any of the many other studies on logic and rhetoric. Just converse, it makes things far more pleasurable especially when no one is being argumentative in the first place and just a discussion.

[Davin]

Davin give it a rest with the argumentation theory. It doesn't matter if it is a informal fallacy, circular reasoning, false attribution, proof by verbosity, or any of the many other studies on logic and rhetoric. Just converse, it makes things far more pleasurable especially when no one is being argumentative in the first place and just a discussion.

If you don't want to discuss things, then don't. No worries.

[Crow]

If you don't want to discuss things, then don't. No worries.

I'm happy to discuss things I love discussing thing, I don't do it to be correct or incorrect but when you constantly decide to talk about argumentation theory rather than the topic at hand it kills all interest.

When somebody writes something entierly out of interest and experience you throw up an a reply with that is "it's a strawman", I'm like who the fuck gives a shit respond about the subject at hand or just ignore it. Its an informal discussion not an argument or a debate.

[Davin]

If you don't want to discuss things, then don't. No worries.

I'm happy to discuss things I love discussing thing, I don't do it to be correct or incorrect but when you constantly decide to talk about argumentation theory rather than the topic at hand it kills all interest.

I was just explaining why I don't accept your claims and why it would be irrational for others to accept them. If that's not interesting to you, then don't worry about it.

When somebody writes something entierly out of interest and experience you throw up an a reply with that is "it's a strawman", I'm like who the fuck gives a shit respond about the subject at hand or just ignore it. Its an informal discussion not an argument or a debate.

The reason I mentioned your straw men, is because I don't think I nor any one else has any obligation to discuss them because they originated entirely from you. Of course your free to tilt at windmills, just like I'm free to point it out.

Don't trouble yourself by responding to me if you're going to continue off topic. I don't care if you don't like the way I do things. You can do things your way, I will do things my way.

[Crow]

If you don't want to discuss things, then don't. No worries.

I'm happy to discuss things I love discussing thing, I don't do it to be correct or incorrect but when you constantly decide to talk about argumentation theory rather than the topic at hand it kills all interest.

I was just explaining why I don't accept your claims and why it would be irrational for others to accept them. If that's not interesting to you, then don't worry about it.

When somebody writes something entierly out of interest and experience you throw up an a reply with that is "it's a strawman", I'm like who the fuck gives a shit respond about the subject at hand or just ignore it. Its an informal discussion not an argument or a debate.

The reason I mentioned your straw men, is because I don't think I nor any one else has any obligation to discuss them because they originated entirely from you. Of course your free to tilt at windmills, just like I'm free to point it out.

Don't trouble yourself by responding to me if you're going to continue off topic. I don't care if you don't like the way I do things. You can do things your way, I will do things my way.

The thing is that is how conversations works, different people give different elements to discuss and yes they come from people. That is generally how people communicate with each other, they give their opinion in any way they like, the other person will usually reply to what they find interesting in whatever way they desire. They may move or change the conversation to any ebb and flow that comes up, this is why pretty much every thread will go off topic in about five posts here (and most places). I know why you like to keep things structured but it can grate and you don't have to change that just keep it in mind that it can be very boorish when it is every response and appears not much different from an automated answer from a modbot about keeping the conversation on topic.

[Crow]

If you don't want to discuss things, then don't. No worries.

Coming back to this as I think it is interesting I have removed from the post I responded to anything that is an analysis on the method of discussion, because frankly how am I suppose to respond to that in any way shape or form that is different than what I have.

This at least is something that can be discussed. I disagree with it...  ...There is an easy to understand quote you might be familiar with, "As spatial forms become frozen through studious and academic practice, the viewer is left with a hymn to the darkness of our future."

Once you start using "shoulds" with art, you risk participating in the stagnation of it.

Even if the intention wasn't to be a piece of art?

And here is another tiny bit of actual substance that we can actually discuss.

Not really giving me much to go on is it? Yet you ask for me to address your points which are an analysis on the method of discussion. There is "And here is another tiny bit of actual substance that we can actually discuss." and this "This at least is something that can be discussed. I disagree with it..." but I cant discuss something if I don't know what it is you want to discuss about it. All I actually see to discuss are "Once you start using 'shoulds' with art, you risk participating in the stagnation of it." and "Even if the intention wasn't to be a piece of art?" which I can reply to:

Indeed you do risk stagnating art by discussing what should or shouldn't be art after all in its medium sense art has changed many times, in certain cultures it was entirely religious in subject matter and now is rare to find anything of note (i.e. something that is unusual or different than what has come before) that is religious, mostly what is religious in subject now is just used to shock and will change many times again. I view it a bit like pandoras box once the lid has been lifted on certain subject matter it will forever remain even if it is just documentation. Surrealism was a rebellion against reason and logic it was about delving into the mind without any particular purpose and questioning the reality we perceive. Minimalism was an extension to this and cubism as it pushed into abstraction and became devoid of recognition it became simpler, out went colour, out went unnecessary marks until it was at the essence of what the artist was wanting to portray. Movements afterwards (post-modernism) were a rebellion against this type of thinking and conceptualisation but try as they might the more they tried to remove themselves from what modernism was the more they borrowed from it. A lot of the examples that were in the video being called modern art (modern art is what we call modernism which is a period of about 20 years, contemporary art is what we call the art of our generation) were actually post-modernist, thus why I find it amusing.

If the intention wasn't to be art then it isn't art, in the broader sense sure why the hell not you are probably art to somebody, a single weed sprouting up through the crack in concrete flooring is to another and neither are intended to be. In uni an ex of mine was studying fine art, she had a canvas in her room that she had been working on for while, working on then painting over, every time she was painting different sections of the body intersecting. A friend came over when one was about to be painted over and he said it was the best art he had seen, she replied "this isn't art it is a study, this is my art" and showed him a photo of a bronze abstract sculpture with hundreds of tiny intersecting pieces of various widths and sizes, he said "this isn't art it is a ball of metal", the studies of anatomy were what informed her art. Going back to the earlier example bring somebody into the example that sees you as art, you might become their muse and use you as the basis for their art and express what it is about you that inspires them. Somebody might look at it and think it is a picture of a guy and thus not art. Someone else might say its a hunk of clay its not art but underneath whatever the output was there was intention to express something as art, making it art. The opinion of others doesn't really matter, after all they change all the time but at the core if it was intended to be art then it is.

[Edited to clean up a lot of stuff I left in but thought I had deleted making some of it incoherent]

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Merriam-Webster full definition of art:

1
:  skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2
a :  a branch of learning: (1) :  one of the humanities (2) plural :  liberal arts
b archaic :  learning, scholarship
3
:  an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4
a :  the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also :  works so produced
b (1) :  fine arts (2) :  one of the fine arts (3) :  a graphic art

I think the discussion relates to 4)  the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects.   The phrase "conscious use" implies some level of intent on the part of the creator of the object being considered.  So I think it's relevant to ask the creator if she/he intended the object to be art.  If so, then we can go on to consider whether there is some use of skill and creative imagination employed.  This is largely a subjective endeavor, and what I consider creative may not impress you as such.  But I think the first consideration is whether the creator intended the object to be considered "art." The next step is to consider whether the creator succeeded, and on that point there will be differences of opinion. 

[joeactor]

Does this conversation remind anyone else of two theists arguing over the definition of god?

Art is a personal experience on many levels. I'll never think that an empty frame on a blank wall is art, or that silence is music. But that's only my perception. In the end, it's between the artist who creates and the person who perceives it as art.

[xSilverPhinx]

Does this conversation remind anyone else of two theists arguing over the definition of god?

Yes, it does. 

But defining what art is is the starting point, unfortunately. I guess people would first have to agree on what art is to have a meaningful discussion.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

We could just say that "art is in the eye of the beholder" and leave it at that.

[Crow]

Does this conversation remind anyone else of two theists arguing over the definition of god?

Yes, it does. 

But defining what art is is the starting point, unfortunately. I guess people would first have to agree on what art is to have a meaningful discussion.

It would also help if people were actually into art. It is kind of telling when the examples used are ones that grab headlines for being controversial in if people are actually interested in exploring what is currently contemporary and a larger selection of art than what you normally see of the historical art movements you can't go wrong with artsy.net

[Davin]

If you don't want to discuss things, then don't. No worries.

Coming back to this[...]

While you can bother yourself in this off-topic pursuit if you want, I will not. Have fun though.

[Davin]

Does this conversation remind anyone else of two theists arguing over the definition of god?

That is very much like it feels like. While I'm fine with discussing things, and it could be interesting, I don't much like the condescension primarily supported by fallacies.

[Crow]

We could just say that "art is in the eye of the beholder" and leave it at that.

No, art isn't limited to an individuals lack of understanding.

[Icarus]

Music composition is generally regarded as a form of art. As a follow up to xSPs vid link in post 3, here is the one about musical "art".  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP0wuwJBdMI. 

The guy is on a rant.  Much of his rant makes sense and reveals that we are conditioned to favor that which is vigorously promoted for scandalously commercial reasons. It is a bit like religion, the reasoning being that if so many people subscribe to it, then it must be good.