Objectivity and Art

[Henry Hobo-Master]

In order for something to be called "art", are there objectives that need to be met?

If so, what are they.
If not, then how is art determined? And then explain how that isn't also some type of objective.

[catspook]

"Art" is a tricky category, because there is no one criteria that is both necessary and sufficient for something to be called "art", but since you only asked for necessary ones, I'd say yes: for something to be "art" it has to have been created by a being with some measure of consciousness. That alone, however, is not sufficient. If you're wondering about criteria I would consider sufficient (but not necessary) there are many - something created simply for aesthetic value, something created for the purpose of emotional communication, something created for the sheer joy of it, etc...

[SkywardConductor]

Art's more about the aesthetic than the meaning. The artist could have no meaning whatsoever behind it. But that wouldn't stop people who have nothing better to do than debate the cultural context and the meaning behind a squiggly stick figure drawn in a cave.

[Henry Hobo-Master]

catspook

"Art" is a tricky category, because there is no one criteria that is both necessary and sufficient for something to be called "art", but since you only asked for necessary ones, I'd say yes: for something to be "art" it has to have been created by a being with some measure of consciousness. That alone, however, is not sufficient. If you're wondering about criteria I would consider sufficient (but not necessary) there are many - something created simply for aesthetic value, something created for the purpose of emotional communication, something created for the sheer joy of it, etc...

The creator must be conscious? Would you think that there was ever a time that art didn't involve consciousness?

Your list (aesthetic value, emotional communication, etc), seems rather subjective. At this point, are you declaring that art depends on the viewer?

[Henry Hobo-Master]

LeftBehindInTheDust

Art's more about the aesthetic than the meaning.

Depends on the art. Many people think its quite the opposite, or believe that all art has some form of meaning, regardless of the aesthetic or lack-of-aesthetic value.

Quote:

The artist could have no meaning whatsoever behind it. But that wouldn't stop people who have nothing better to do than debate the cultural context and the meaning behind a squiggly stick figure drawn in a cave.

I find that "no meaning whatsoever" is a rather extreme view. There is always meaning, in just about everything. That's why these people debate over the artistic meaning behind squiggly stick figures.

[catspook]

Henry Hobo-Master

catspook

"Art" is a tricky category, because there is no one criteria that is both necessary and sufficient for something to be called "art", but since you only asked for necessary ones, I'd say yes: for something to be "art" it has to have been created by a being with some measure of consciousness. That alone, however, is not sufficient. If you're wondering about criteria I would consider sufficient (but not necessary) there are many - something created simply for aesthetic value, something created for the purpose of emotional communication, something created for the sheer joy of it, etc...

The creator must be conscious? Would you think that there was ever a time that art didn't involve consciousness?

Your list (aesthetic value, emotional communication, etc), seems rather subjective. At this point, are you declaring that art depends on the viewer?

Yes. And no - I would not consider such creations art.

To some degree yes, but my background is psychology so I'm comfortable with such things razz . And no, I'd say it depends on the creator, not the viewer.

[Henry Hobo-Master]

catspook

Henry Hobo-Master

catspook

"Art" is a tricky category, because there is no one criteria that is both necessary and sufficient for something to be called "art", but since you only asked for necessary ones, I'd say yes: for something to be "art" it has to have been created by a being with some measure of consciousness. That alone, however, is not sufficient. If you're wondering about criteria I would consider sufficient (but not necessary) there are many - something created simply for aesthetic value, something created for the purpose of emotional communication, something created for the sheer joy of it, etc...

The creator must be conscious? Would you think that there was ever a time that art didn't involve consciousness?

Your list (aesthetic value, emotional communication, etc), seems rather subjective. At this point, are you declaring that art depends on the viewer?

Yes. And no - I would not consider such creations art.

To some degree yes, but my background is psychology so I'm comfortable with such things razz . And no, I'd say it depends on the creator, not the viewer.

So if art depends on the creator, then where does the subjective list of values come into play? Do these make art into art? Or are they simply ways to vaguely classify art?

[Kingstonalloy]

I would categorize the measurement and judgement of what is deemed to be art into two or more divisions.

The first division involves some type of educational/societal body/institution/panel that scrutinizes certain things as art, like what has been used in the past. I'm sure they use some type of personalized criteria that could be seen as objective.

The second division is personal taste in how an individual will look at something and consider it art or not based upon their own observations and criteria.

However, the thing with both of those divisions is that the criteria is more or less subjective due to the fact that art is in the eye of the beholder. I don't believe that there is a universally objective way to measure art. Because something I consider to be art, you might not.

[Virtual Mannequin]

My opinion is not really based on any high knowledge of art so please excuse me if it's not air tight. But, I believe something becomes art if it makes you feel something or makes you think. I'm talking about deeper thoughts and emotions, though. Not emotions like "I'm hungry" or thoughts like "I think this is pretty"

[catspook]

Henry Hobo-Master

catspook

Henry Hobo-Master

catspook

"Art" is a tricky category, because there is no one criteria that is both necessary and sufficient for something to be called "art", but since you only asked for necessary ones, I'd say yes: for something to be "art" it has to have been created by a being with some measure of consciousness. That alone, however, is not sufficient. If you're wondering about criteria I would consider sufficient (but not necessary) there are many - something created simply for aesthetic value, something created for the purpose of emotional communication, something created for the sheer joy of it, etc...

The creator must be conscious? Would you think that there was ever a time that art didn't involve consciousness?

Your list (aesthetic value, emotional communication, etc), seems rather subjective. At this point, are you declaring that art depends on the viewer?

Yes. And no - I would not consider such creations art.

To some degree yes, but my background is psychology so I'm comfortable with such things razz . And no, I'd say it depends on the creator, not the viewer.

So if art depends on the creator, then where does the subjective list of values come into play? Do these make art into art? Or are they simply ways to vaguely classify art?

I'd say they differentiate art from all the other things humans (and other animals) can create. But I suppose you could also classify art that way if you wanted to.

[village midget]

LeftBehindInTheDust

Art's more about the aesthetic than the meaning.

No. See: Contemporary Art, Performance Art, Sound Art, Installation Art...

[village midget]

Henry Hobo-Master

In order for something to be called "art", are there objectives that need to be met?

If so, what are they.
If not, then how is art determined? And then explain how that isn't also some type of objective.

I don't think anybody has yet managed to answer the "what is art?" question, it's in the same bucket as "what is love?" and "what's the meaning of life?".

Intent is a big qualifier.
Person A makes/finds an object and exhibits it with a title to communicate an idea = art. Person B makes/finds the same object and uses it solely for some practical purpose = not art.

[CuAnnan]

Henry Hobo-Master

In order for something to be called "art", are there objectives that need to be met?

That it effect people on a neurological level in such a way that leads them to think of it as art.

[Henry Hobo-Master]

CuAnnan

Henry Hobo-Master

In order for something to be called "art", are there objectives that need to be met?

That it effect people on a neurological level in such a way that leads them to think of it as art.

I get the feeling that that isn't objective.