[TaoHorror]

Art - what is it, what makes "good" art, is there such a thing as "bad" art ( and simply "not" art ) and does Bakker's works qualify as "Art". While I don't think there is "bad" art, but simply something is or isn't art. That said, after reading Abercrombie, I like stealing his term "High Art" to differentiate between good and great art ( if you haven't read The First Law, I'm not using High Art accurately to those books - just like the phrase and am using it for my own purposes here ).

I would say Art is anything that connects with humanity in a poetic way - which is to say connecting at the human sphere/level. As the reality of my humanity, what it is that makes me "human" touching others' humanity either as shared or unique.

[Francis Buck]

As one who considers themselves an artist (not that it matters at all for the debate at hand): My go-to opinion on this matter, broadly speaking, is that if the creator of a given work considers it to be a piece of art, then I'm not going to tell them they're wrong. By the same token, I'm also not obliged to consider "good art", as it were.

That being said, I also mostly agree with your idea of what makes art, well, art lol. Or at least GOOD art. In the end, to me, art is just expression combined with the craftsmanship of the artist in their respective medium. 

[H]

Two definions I can recall from my old days in school:

Art: something created that serves no functional purpose (essentially) other than being art.

Art: whatever an artist creates.

While both definitions still have a good deal of "issues" I do believe that each one does get to something of the heart of the matter.

In the first case, let us pretend that I carved out a very, very nice chair.  Have I created art?  Well, no, I don't really think so, since what I have done is create a functional object, to be used for a purpose.  But if I cordon off the area, enshroud the chair in glass, making sure no one could ever use the chair as a chair, well, now things are different.  I have created a thing, but that thing is not functional, so it's purpose begins to transcend craft and functionality.  Or to get to the point even more so, what if I take that chair and mount it upside down, again, I have violated it's function, therefor, we are beyond the realm of this being a functional chair.  Now, it is art.  Maybe not good art (whatever that would mean) but still, this piece serves no other function any longer, all it can be is art.

We set ourselves up though to be asked, "so then is everything non-functional?" art.  Well, no, of course not.  Which is certainly is why the first "definition" I gave has holes in it.  But asking one's self if a piece has any other function, besides artistic expression, can put one on the track to answering the question of "is this art?" more succinctly.

The second is even more murky.  How does one create art?  By being an artist.  How does one become an artist?  By creating art.

But even so, it does also point one toward what would be art.  If an artist creates it and so labels it "art" then presto, it is not art.  There is some backflow here to the the first definition, because if an artist creates something with no other function other than to be art, then there isn't too many other option for "what it is."

Of course there is more to it all and I am sure I am doing a poor job elucidating even these points. I am not too keen on labeling things "good" or "bad" art though, for many of the same reasons why I'm not to quick to want to label almost anything as just a dichotomy between "good" and "bad."  It's simply just too subjective.  While I might gauge, say, hard edge abstraction as "not good," I don't see any way to really elevate this beyond my own subjective preference.  While I might be able to spin some yarn to "intellectualize" my preference, I'd tend to think this is more the "horse after the cart," post-hoc rationalization than anything else.

Probably should cut this small rant off here, not sure I am even being lucid...

[TLEILAXU]

Art is cruel.

[TaoHorror]

So we have:

• What an artist creates or says is art
• Objects with no functional purpose ( are museum pieces art? )
• Cruelty ( the flip side of the same coin as kindness? )
• Something created that connects to others in a human way

I think the discussion illuminates how art is a pure human expression ( to state the obvious ) and therefore as dicey to pin down as human psychology/morality is; you can't say exactly what it is, but you know it when you see it ( think I recall someone saying the same thing about pornography and how that differs from art ). Good/great art are more human than photographs, which logistically should be impossible; we have amazing abstract renditions of "people" who don't look like humans at all, yet are more human than what you can capture in a photograph ( making photography quite the challenging exercise to produce/capture art using a camera ).

At risk of being labeled a star-fucker, I think Bakker's works rise to the level of "art". It's more than just entertainment/cool and the rich conversations/debates in TSA illustrates more than simple confusion, but what do parts actually mean beyond the plot. Are "great" books art and does PON qualify? I think so.

[H]

Well, I would clarify a bit, so say, "no fuctional purpose outside simply being" and perhaps change that to "being art" but I feel like I might be on a slippery slope of self-referentualism there.

Of course though, I think you might hit something like bed-rock in getting at art as, boiled down, human expression through some medium.

[Wilshire]

A question with as many answers as there are people to answer it.

I've had this discussion a few times, and have come to the following conclusion: everything is art, because art seems to be whatever the creator intended, and whatever the interpreter sees.

To demonstrate this, and to throw a wrench into the mix: I find mathematics visually appealing. A well plotted graph (2d, 3d, or whatever N dimensions can be visually represented) or even a neatly solved algorithm/equation, is as visually appealing to me as more traditional art, and far more so than most 'modern art'. But you'll be hard pressed, I think, to find an engineer calling himself an artist as he solves orbital dynamic equations, or a statistician representing data as graphs.

Everything is art. Only snoody in-group critics who feel like they have some kind of real authority to suggest what is or isn't "high art" (or whatever prefix) bother to make that distinction and try to compel others to think the way they do.
 


I will be interested to see how this topic unfolds.

Of course though, I think you might hit something like bed-rock in getting at art as, boiled down, human expression through some medium.

Right. So everything human does is art, except there are definitely people who find art in nature, so simplify that a bit more: Everything is art .

[H]

To demonstrate this, and to throw a wrench into the mix: I find mathematics visually appealing. A well plotted graph (2d, 3d, or whatever N dimensions can be visually represented) or even a neatly solved algorithm/equation, is as visually appealing to me as more traditional art, and far more so than most 'modern art'. But you'll be hard pressed, I think, to find an engineer calling himself an artist as he solves orbital dynamic equations, or a statistician representing data as graphs.

Well, here we have yet another distinction, because for you, "visual appeal" of said equation conveys meaning.  In other words, you have placed expression upon said things beyond what was mathematically (functionally) presented.  I think the engineer would regard the equation as almost purely functional, because that is what they used it for.  You, as an observer, see art, because you are not viewing (or using it) functionally.

Right. So everything human does is art, except there are definitely people who find art in nature, so simplify that a bit more: Everything is art .

Nah, too far.  If everything is art, then nothing is.  No, I can surely point to things and declare "art" or "not."  So, there must be some distinction, even if it is wholly subjective.

[Wilshire]

Hmmm, in response to H:

I specifically mentioned that example because you/someone initially caveated with 'an artist' as required to create art - and I disagree, obviously. That said, I fear that discussing in more detail the disagreement might derail the thread

So, since this might be straying off topic a bit, I spoiler tagged it.

(click to show/hide)

Lol, but of course the conversation turn to subjective realities. I/you/we/everyone gets to determine for ourselves what is or isn't art, because there is no way to measure it. Unlike, say, the distance light travels 1/299,792,458 seconds (ie how we have defined what a meter is). But then we go further down the rabbit whole and have to ask "but who defined it as such". Down and down we go until we determine the everything is subjective

So yes, I'd say that everything can be art, subcategorizing it beyond that is largely meaningless.

But, because we all like labels, we (society) grant groups of people imaginary authority (art critics? whatever offical art-police's name is) to define it for us, so that we can all share in the collective subjective reality and pretend like its objective.

As I don't imagine we have any of those officials here, or if we did I don't imagine we would accept their false authority, we could make our own authority group on the subject however we prefer, and then go on to define art as we like - for those of us here. Though, since the topic was phrased slightly differently ("what do you think is art?"), I doubt such an outcome.

However, it will be interesting to see what others think, but I'm sticking to 'everything' .

[H]

Hmmm, in response to H:

I specifically mentioned that example because you/someone initially caveated with 'an artist' as required to create art - and I disagree, obviously. That said, I fear that discussing in more detail the disagreement might derail the thread

Hmm, well, I didn't mean to imply that an art required an artist.  In fact, creating art makes one an artist, so there is certainly a chicken or an egg circumstance going on here.

So, since this might be straying off topic a bit, I spoiler tagged it.

(click to show/hide)

Lol, but of course the conversation turn to subjective realities. I/you/we/everyone gets to determine for ourselves what is or isn't art, because there is no way to measure it. Unlike, say, the distance light travels 1/299,792,458 seconds (ie how we have defined what a meter is). But then we go further down the rabbit whole and have to ask "but who defined it as such". Down and down we go until we determine the everything is subjective

So yes, I'd say that everything can be art, subcategorizing it beyond that is largely meaningless.

But, because we all like labels, we (society) grant groups of people imaginary authority (art critics? whatever offical art-police's name is) to define it for us, so that we can all share in the collective subjective reality and pretend like its objective.

As I don't imagine we have any of those officials here, or if we did I don't imagine we would accept their false authority, we could make our own authority group on the subject however we prefer, and then go on to define art as we like - for those of us here. Though, since the topic was phrased slightly differently ("what do you think is art?"), I doubt such an outcome.

However, it will be interesting to see what others think, but I'm sticking to 'everything' .

Well, we like labels because the world we "collectively" live in is largely linguistically defined (and possibly determined).  Ergo, if we can't speak of it (and by speak of it, I mean describe it, mostly), does it really even exist?

Although, naturally, I'll buy in at "everything can be art."  But will certainly bow out of that at the point at which "everything is art."  Why?  Because while any given thing could be art to any given person, the important piece to me, is not "is this art?"  But rather how you answer the question "why is this art?"

[TaoHorror]

Speaking of "art" ... time we had a coloring book for PON. We could engage Bakker's interest with a coloring contest. Either Som or Q ( or both or someone else if they' won't do it ) could come up with a fill in the color picture of The No-God and we can print it out, color it in and post it as a contest to see who did the best job of "summoning" TNG.

Somnambulist! Q! Where are you? Make it happen, fellas!