Potential for art is not art. A Rose is not art. Poems about Rose are. Sex is not art. (At least under the same context that we want use for literature, films, etc). What is created from the sexual experience may be art.
Printable View
Potential for art is not art. A Rose is not art. Poems about Rose are. Sex is not art. (At least under the same context that we want use for literature, films, etc). What is created from the sexual experience may be art.
Had that been the original statement I wouldn't have opened my mouth, but to state that the Holocaust was art, but natural functions can not be made art seemed absurd to me.
Not to play in to something like the Anthropic Principal but if we are going to get in to semantics isn't everything man does man's nature, and by the standards of the original statement: not art?
I just found it a poorly construed point, perhaps I am being a bit aggressive for a brand new poster.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art
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
5 a archaic : a skillful plan b : the quality or state of being artful
6 : decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter
Origin of ART
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin art-, ars — more at arm
First Known Use: 13th century
Synonyms: craft, handcraft, handicraft, trade
You're not being too aggressive, I agree with you wholeheartedly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mallorie
I would think a much better general definition of art would be, something which is created with the intention of having an aesthetic appeal. Without getting into how we decide what art is good or bad.
To call anything which is a human endeavor art, which it may be in the archaic meaning of the word as denoting technique or artifice, would simply be to ignore the contemporary usage of the word. Moreover, I think you are right about the anthropic principle, the distinction between the actions of humans with technology as not being natural is a silly archaic notion in its own right, which has sadly persisted in popular thought. Early cave paintings from Southern France, made from naturally found clays, are not less art than something that requires more advanced technology to make paints and dyes. Where are we drawing the line between natural acts and unnatural?
I just think PeterL was aiming to the absurd to build an argument...
And so we should let the deliberately absurd stand unchallenged? Are we to allow someone to make light of experiments on human beings and not challenge the proposition at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
I'm pretty sure you mean to say that Peter is being deliberately inflammatory (to build an argument would imply that he was attempting serious discussion), and I agree he is, but that doesn't mean we should just let the ridiculous statement sit there without rebuke.
No, I think he is building an argument and we should not be so upset because of Holocaust, even because he was not the one who proposed the question, but Stlukes. He should be challenged, but not under political-moral ground.
I don't think it has been challenged under political-moral grounds, it has been challenged as a poor definition of art for many reasons, particularly because there is a poor distinction between the natural and the unnatural and it is entirely divorced from any contemporary understanding of art. Although, the general reprehensible nature of defining a systematic attempt at wiping out large groups of people as art is likely to motivate people to refute something which is otherwise an absurd and entirely weak argument, which would otherwise likely be ignored. Nor do I think he is actually attempting to build a serious argument, his initial definition of art was challenged because it would classify things which no normal person would define as art as art. When faced with the initial challenge, rather than amend anything he stuck to his guns and rather further committed himself to a silly definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Nobody complained about he saying this is also art:
"So my uncle Chuck sitting on the couch wearing nothing but his Speedos, watching The Family Guy and eating Cheetos is Art?"
Poor definition as well, but why moderators should challenge it? Why they would challenge the mention of Holocaust taboo? That was under political moral ground, nobody went far to explain why the holocaust maybe not art... Would be fine if he said Kinbaku is art?
Oh now its my turn: Quite right Pip.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
I was not at all offended by his assertion that the Holocaust was art, I just simply found it to be a poor definition and in conflict with his statements about natural functions.
While I think there is a lot of junk art out there I also think the attempt to define art as any random thing that man has endeavored in (with our without aesthetic intent from the creator) is a slight on the title.
I believe I understand in principle the point he was making, and correct me if I am wrong:
that without deliberate thought or intent (such as biological functions or natural processes) it can not be art, art is defined by deliberate thought and intent.
But I believe his examples were poor, because neither having a piss or genocide is often done with aesthetic intent. Rather the later is as natural a function of man as the former, and both can be made to be aesthetic after a fashion.
As I pointed, nobody complained about any other definition that he gave (he really did not gave any, Stlukes made questions to him and he answered with obvious sarcasm, but then, he can defend himself if he want)...
If manifestations of our body is not art, Dance will start to have a problem, as they are basically a show off of what our body can do. I do not think you can define art by intent, by the object, neither by something simple that can be translated in two lines.
No, that's equally a bad definition of art, but the holocaust example and that one draw on the same bad definition, so it's not necessary to address all of his bad points.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
I haven't seen any edits, so I haven't noticed the moderators do anything about anything. Maybe I missed them.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
It is a poor definition of art because it encompasses everything and excluded practically nothing, a definition which defines everything defines nothing.
I think this is fairly sound, but in general a good starting place is something which is created, with technique, whether it be performance or an object, that is created with a specific aesthetic intent in mind. Certainly, our understanding of art is more nuanced than that, but it's a good starting place to move from their. It excludes most things we do not recognize as art, and includes most things we in general do. Nor are definitions static, our use of language, and our understanding of what art is, is cultural and will change between time and places.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
I actually said nothing about the holocaust until later, my initial gripe was with the notion that anything natural to man is not art. After all thought its natural to man, it is a natural function of being fully human.
I said nothing about Mr. Cheetos because it was clearly said lightly, and also because the image I was struck with while reading the depiction was, at least in my mind, quite humorous and artistic. I will blame this on my career and my appreciation of visual commentary and humor.
I think St Luke'sGuild used his Uncle Chuck and The Holocaust as a reductio ad absurdum to Peter L's statement "Everything that is made or done by humans is art." PeterL defended his opinion and claimed that The Holocaust was definitely art and of a higher kind because brains were involved. This is not merely a poor argument, though it is. It is an insult to the memory of millions and I object to it on moral grounds. If that puts me at odds with other members of the forum, then so be it. I am old enough to remember the newsreels of the camps as they were liberated and art is the the last word I would have used to describe them.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art
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
5 a archaic : a skillful plan b : the quality or state of being artful
6 : decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter
Origin of ART
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin art-, ars — more at arm
First Known Use: 13th century
Synonyms: craft, handcraft, handicraft, trade