Welcome to Gaia! ::

Yeah, I suppose I deserve that for giving you the benefit of the doubt that you asking a question was anything more than another setup for trollery.

You can cram it sideways with fish hooks from this point on.




Oh come on, you're not even trying.

I've been "confronting" the issue all along, you're just not satisfied with the results. I note you clipped out the part where I ask you to offer some specific factor you think is required.



So?

The whole point of attempting to define an objective standard for what is art isn't to satisfy your own personal preference for what you think art should be, it's to define a standard for what art is. That doesn't mean you get to draw an arbitrary line of personal preference, say "this stuff on this side isn't art", and then wiggle your definition around to land on that line. So if you think the definition I propose fails just because something you don't think is art does get defined as art, you just haven't been paying attention.



You know what? You have a point, I'll admit it. I had already been giving further thought to the cases of beer and cocaine, I will admit that defining those in terms of a need was really stretching it.

(See, I admit to error, it's not that hard.)

(However, this:

Is your wild re-interpretation of what I actually have been saying, as with the possible exception of "satisfaction" I have not claimed any of those others as "needs".)

But wait - that's not the only criteria I use. A human has to create the art.

Humans manufacture cocaine, to be sure, but the purpose of cocaine is to be consumed, to induce chemical effects in the mind and body. A pile of raw cocaine can be considered a tool to achieve that end result, much like a paintbrush is not art, but a tool with which to create it. Alone, it does not gratify.

But that end result, the intoxication: can that be said to truly be created in the way art is? It is a naturally occurring biological reaction - a human cannot do much to control the reaction, save by increasing or decreasing the dosage. They induce the reaction but do not create it, much like no one creates the process of digesting food.

So despite the flaw in my original reasoning re: cocaine, re-examination still leads me to conclude that cocaine is not by itself art, nor is its usually-intended end result art.

You wouldn't accept something as art because it's child pornography or crush videos?

It is one way to view it, if you think that videos in general are a form of art, does a video loses it's quality as art because of what it's intended for?

I think that art is art, how and what the artist uses or makes it from doesn't disqualify it - they're like "tools", subjected to whoever uses them.
(To avoid some pesky quotations, this is my opinion on it, and I'd like to hear yours)

Art has so many form and level, art does not chained itself to certain or specific things. I believe anything that involves with the human skills, thinking/intellect and Intention(edit) in creating something[artifact] are arts, or not just creating tangible objects we also have the skills in writing, singing, martial arts, dance or anything that requires body movements. The simplest definition of art that I learned is "Art describes the works of man" so basically it can be anything so long as men human are involved.

Well that is just what I know and believe in. I am in no position to tell what is and what is not art, but I can distinguish high quality and sophisticated art from crude and junk arts.

The funny thing is we're both saying the same thing, just in different ways.

I don't disagree with what you're saying in the slightest, it's just how you say it. This whole discussion boils down to semantics.

I hate to say things like this (I always end up quoted out of context), but why can't there be art that could be, by some definitions, also child pornography? Even without a definition of art as wide as that which Stop Him proposes - even with a narrow definition of art - you can still justify it.

As Stop Him pointed out earlier, if there is an attention paid to the artistry of it - say an image with beautiful composition, colours, etc, and there is an intent to it other than to titillate some sick pervert's desires, could not it be art by almost any definition of art that doesn't require morality? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I'm sure there are denizens of the more wretched hives of scum and villainy on the internet who could certainly pleasure themselves to some pieces of art I can think of.

You mentioned earlier writing about whether or not art requires morality - certainly, if we can divorce morality from art, then immoral things can be art if they contain the other factors necessary to be. I don't see how it inherently belittles a definition of art to say that it could also contain something morally reprehensible and also somewhat offensive if we aren't going to require morality or sexual cleanness in our definition of art.

My favourite painting, absolute favourite piece of art I've ever laid eyes upon, features a man being beheaded in the street. I would argue forever with anyone who cared to that it is art, no matter which way you slice it.

If the fundamental message is the same, using stronger language or harsher terms isn't going to change that. wink

A lot of dictionary entries are that way, but that's because they're trying to cover all the bases.

I think you're using the art community definition of art, Stop Him is using the Scott McCloud definition... I just like using the dictionary definition. Maybe I'm a Philistine.

In a way, don't most of these arguments boil down to who gets to pick and choose the definitions of words? Since English is a living language (As opposed to something like Latin or Etruscan, or whatever...), definitions change, evolve and stretch out.

I totally understand where you're coming from, but isn't it a losing battle?

Isn't it, in a way, sort of like arguing that people shouldn't use the word 'quick' to mean 'fast'?

Maybe you should just capitalize your word. Like Art. I think that's a pretty cool distinction, and it makes you sound SUPER OFFICIAL. I would never even begin to claim that anything I draw falls under your definition of art, or the art community definition of art... or that it should be allowed within 100 feet of an art school, much less a museum...

... but the dictionary says that it's art. (shrug) I mean, theoretically if I wanted to make other people happy, I could be very careful to refer to my pictures as pictures and drawing, but common usage and the dictionary has turned it into art, and I don't really think that's my fault. I still get mad at people for using 'antisocial' wrong all the time, but I realize it's a losing battle. :<