What makes something "Art"?

[MysticSang'ha]

Interesting is Sufi virtuoso Hazrat Inyat Khan's statement on the only true divine Artform.

"Why is music called the divine art, while all other arts are not so called? We may certainly see God in all arts and in all sciences, but in music alone we see God free from all forms and thoughts. In every other art there is idolatry. Every thought, every word has its form. Sound alone is free from form. Every word of poetry forms a picture in our mind. Sound alone does not make any object appear before us."

That said; the designing of already known ideas is what I would call "craft", not Art. Like I stated, Art is the creation of something that would not be here if not for the Creator of the Art.

e.g. beautiful paintings of nature are aesthetically wonderful, but I see it as a Craft not an Art, thoughtful poetry can describe surroundings in an exquisite manner, but it is also Craft, true Art can open the unconsciousness and enable something to be felt or understood that never existed before . . . it is beyond the limitations of the objective universe.

Auditory bias seen here.

I agree that music can be transcendent, but to consider the graphic and plastic arts as not having the same capability has me thinking that one ought to take a painting class to see if what can be created can break through consciousness barriers too. From a visual stimulus.

Also, I will admit my own bias in dance to suggest that the Movement and Performance Arts are the epitome of achieving that sought-after Zen state of being in the moment of Now. However, I am not as bold to suggest that music and sculpture are less than capable of finding that state or similar states of mind.

Agreed.

Intentionality on behalf of the mover for aesthetic appreciation on behalf of the viewer/listener/whatever/which could be limited to the original mover.

Designation.

(eg Fountain, by Duchamp).

I like those descriptors. :yes:

I would even go further that it is the bridge between the symbol and the object that is symbolized. How that bridge is created is the medium for what are the arts.

See here (a favorite scene of mine in film):

[youtube]pGWU4QhJ4L8[/youtube]
So much beauty in the world - YouTube

 

[Thrice Great]

Auditory bias seen here.

I agree that music can be transcendent, but to consider the graphic and plastic arts as not having the same capability has me thinking that one ought to take a painting class to see if what can be created can break through consciousness barriers too. From a visual stimulus.

Also, I will admit my own bias in dance to suggest that the Movement and Performance Arts are the epitome of achieving that sought-after Zen state of being in the moment of Now. However, I am not as bold to suggest that music and sculpture are less than capable of finding that state or similar states of mind.

I have to agree with you here, even the masterful violinist pouring out a Paganini Caprice is Craft and not Art in this respect. I would differ from Khan's understanding in that ALL art-forms have the ability to create ART.

 

[YmirGF]

What is art? What, if anything, might appear to be art, but is not?

I gave up asking that question once I had endured the trauma of looking at the works of Jackson Pollock and to a lesser extent the work of Andy Warhol. After them, what isn't art?

 

[xkatz]

I gave up asking that question once I had endured the trauma of looking at the works of Jackson Pollock and to a lesser extent the work of Andy Warhol. After them, what isn't art?

Abstract "art"≠Real art

Pollock is right up my grandma's alley, even though I have a hard time seeing any sort of beauty or creative thought process in such works.

 

[crossfire]

You can have art without crafting. I would consider a goldfish swimming peacefully in a blender (not turned on, but plugged in) on display as an example of a powerful work of art that doesn't take much crafting skill at all.

 

[crossfire]

I once hung a mirror over over the back of my toilet, took a dry erase marker, and drew a face-sized oval on it at man height, and wrote in big letters "This space is reserved for hairy faces," with a pun written in smaller letters below that I would change every once in a while. It certainly cut down on the guys missing the toilet, and I didn't even have to write "so don't pee on my floor" in the smaller letters. Would you call this art? It certainly worked.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Broadly speaking, anything can be subjectively experienced as art by anyone who experiences it as such. However, I find this to be as vapid and devoid of substance as the idea of defining "everything" as god. I find that, as in most things regarding recognizing ability, people who are artists, or a deep interest and education in art, have a better ability to recognize and distinguish art than people who are not artistic. After all, it is a craft and practice, whatever the medium, and people who know more about a craft, are able to recognize when it is done well.

 

[Thrice Great]

Broadly speaking, anything can be subjectively experienced as art by anyone who experiences it as such. However, I find this to be as vapid and devoid of substance as the idea of defining "everything" as god. I find that, as in most things regarding recognizing ability, people who are artists, or a deep interest and education in art, have a better ability to recognize and distinguish art than people who are not artistic. After all, it is a craft and practice, whatever the medium, and people who know more about a craft, are able to recognize when it is done well.

I would disagree with you in the respect that Art is not necessarily a Craft.

Being able to play Flight of the Bumblee at 320 bpm is the development of Craft and not an Art. Composing Flight of the Bumblebee would be closer to an Art.

Painting a realistic picture of fruit in a bowl is a Craft, painting Persistence of Memory is an Art. Craft speaks to the hand where Art speaks to the mind.

 

[dust1n]

I like those descriptors. :yes:

I would even go further that it is the bridge between the symbol and the object that is symbolized. How that bridge is created is the medium for what are the arts.

See here (a favorite scene of mine in film):

Could you go a little further; I'm not sure if I understand.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I would disagree with you in the respect that Art is not necessarily a Craft.

Being able to play Flight of the Bumblee at 320 bpm is the development of Craft and not an Art. Composing Flight of the Bumblebee would be closer to an Art.

Painting a realistic picture of fruit in a bowl is a Craft, painting Persistence of Memory is an Art. Craft speaks to the hand where Art speaks to the mind.

The craft, knowledge, and practice of your art is necessary to either compose a piece of music, or paint a picture, at a high level of artistic and technical expression. Craft certainly isn't the whole picture. However, I was speaking to the point that it is a necessary component of well-executed art. This is particularly germane, since many people who have no artistic craft whatsoever, think that they are great artists nonetheless since they are "creative" people who magically transcend the limits of the elements of what is good art.

 

[crossfire]

The craft, knowledge, and practice of your art is necessary to either compose a piece of music, or paint a picture, at a high level of artistic and technical expression. Craft certainly isn't the whole picture. However, I was speaking to the point that it is a necessary component of well-executed art. This is particularly germane, since many people who have no artistic craft whatsoever, think that they are great artists nonetheless since they are "creative" people who magically transcend the limits of the elements of what is good art.

Ahh, so for you, art is both objective and subjective--creating a personal subjective experience via skillful objective means?

 

[sandandfoam]

What is art?

I think art is an expression of meaning that rests on a combination of technical skill and imagination.

What, if anything, might appear to be art, but is not?

A lot of contemporary music. It's not art it's product.

 

[Caladan]

What is art? What, if anything, might appear to be art, but is not?

What may be considered art can be entirely subjective and up to personal preferences.
Personally I tend to think of art as aesthetic creations which carry an inherit value, which could be cultural or thought provoking, but can also inspire people in other intimate ways.
To me art needs to be sublime and subtle generally speaking. I need to look at it, and feel compelled to stop and look at it again, letting my eyes or other senses examine it to the point of appreciation or catharsis.

I don't mean to offend anyone, but to illustrate my POV, I don't consider graffiti and many forms of rap music to be art, but rather forms of social statements or entertainment. What I would consider art is Classical sculpturers or renaissance artists.

In addition I would consider Art (with capital A) to be a talent, craft and life long experience in a certain field to the point of mastery.

 

[Thrice Great]

The craft, knowledge, and practice of your art is necessary to either compose a piece of music, or paint a picture, at a high level of artistic and technical expression. Craft certainly isn't the whole picture. However, I was speaking to the point that it is a necessary component of well-executed art. This is particularly germane, since many people who have no artistic craft whatsoever, think that they are great artists nonetheless since they are "creative" people who magically transcend the limits of the elements of what is good art.

Well put, I concur!

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Could you go a little further; I'm not sure if I understand.

Partly from my developing manifesto. Didn't realize I was developing an actual Mystic Manifesto until I realized some of my patterns of thinking regarding Sex and the Arts.

There is a bridge between the signifier and the signified, and it is in that realm where the Arts dance either leaning toward the subject symbolizing or leaning toward the object symbolized. I once saw it as a simplistic expression of the perspective granted (Art Imitates Life), but felt that was too highly individualistic and lent little to being given its own broadened experience. I think that broadened experience is felt by the audience/viewer who identify roughly identically with the experience, and offers a cultural or community perspective that goes beyond the individual and borders on a collective.

I feel that the best arts are those who dance right in between. Uncle Toms Cabin, Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On?", The Green Table dance piece by Kurt Jooss, etc....in my view are more recent works of art that present us with a work that invites a collective and an individual to reach in and almost wish to claim it as a subjective and personal experience and almost equally passionately as a creative documentarian offering.

For me, it's part philosophy, part political movement.

 

[dust1n]

Partly from my developing manifesto. Didn't realize I was developing an actual Mystic Manifesto until I realized some of my patterns of thinking regarding Sex and the Arts.

I spent three days trying to make sense of this post, and I finally got enough to be able to formulate questions so I might understand it. Thus is aesthetics.

There is a bridge between the signifier and the signified, and it is in that realm where the Arts dance either leaning toward the subject symbolizing or leaning toward the object symbolized. I once saw it as a simplistic expression of the perspective granted (Art Imitates Life), but felt that was too highly individualistic and lent little to being given its own broadened experience. I think that broadened experience is felt by the audience/viewer who identify roughly identically with the experience, and offers a cultural or community perspective that goes beyond the individual and borders on a collective.

When you are speaking of a bridge between the signifier and the signified, are we speaking of what might be commonly referred to as the "muse," or, the relationship of the symbol and the artist and the impression of said symbol upon the artist before the artist produces/replicates said symbol?

I feel that the best arts are those who dance right in between. Uncle Toms Cabin, Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On?", The Green Table dance piece by Kurt Jooss, etc....in my view are more recent works of art that present us with a work that invites a collective and an individual to reach in and almost wish to claim it as a subjective and personal experience and almost equally passionately as a creative documentarian offering.

For me, it's part philosophy, part political movement.

I agree with you here, as I've finally made sense of it. There is something undeniably powerful about an object of aesthetic impression well utilized in an art form that allows multiple people to grasp the object and along with it, something much bigger.

Reminds a little of Danto (thank goodness someone else has Wiki'd so that my terrible paraphrasing won't misrepresent his work):

The End of Art

The basic meaning of the term "art" has changed several times over the centuries, and has continued to evolve during the 20th century as well. Danto describes the history of Art in his own contemporary version of Hegel's dialectical history of art. "Danto is not claiming that no-one is making art anymore; nor is he claiming that no good art is being made any more. But he thinks that a certain history of western art has come to an end, in about the way that Hegel suggested it would."[5] The "end of art" refers to the beginning of our modern era of art in which art no longer adheres to the constraints of imitation theory but serves a new purpose. Art began with an "era of imitation, followed by an era of ideology, followed by our post-historical era in which, with qualification, anything goes... In our narrative, at first only mimesis [imitation] was art, then several things were art but each tried to extinguish its competitors, and then, finally, it became apparent that there were no stylistic or philosophical constraints. There is no special way works of art have to be. And that is the present and, I should say, the final moment in the master narrative. It is the end of the story"[6]


Arthur Danto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I spent three days trying to make sense of this post, and I finally got enough to be able to formulate questions so I might understand it. Thus is aesthetics.

And so it goes. I appreciate that you studied my post for three days in an attempt to understand it. I'm rather humbled, tbh.

When you are speaking of a bridge between the signifier and the signified, are we speaking of what might be commonly referred to as the "muse," or, the relationship of the symbol and the artist and the impression of said symbol upon the artist before the artist produces/replicates said symbol?

That's one. I once had a blog I contributed to a few years ago where I introduced the concept of the muse not only in a relationship between sex and art, but between artist and object, AND between subject and object, AND between artist and subject. The bridge, I think, is transcendent of one single relationship, but present itself in various relationships - several as examples that I just mentioned. Sex was my point of initiation of understanding the power of creative force on this blog specifically. As I expanded my observations to include the arts, I understood the concept of the "muse" as more than a single source of inspiration to create. The blog became too limited in its scope at that point, which is probably why I lost interest in writing after some time.

A great work of art, I think, offers many bridges for an audience to relate to the object symbolized, to relate to the artist that created or performed the work, and REALLY great works offer bridges for an audience to relate to each other. But the common denominator in all of this is the presence of those bridges themselves, however many they number in a single work.

I agree with you here, as I've finally made sense of it. There is something undeniably powerful about an object of aesthetic impression well utilized in an art form that allows multiple people to grasp the object and along with it, something much bigger.

Reminds a little of Danto (thank goodness someone else has Wiki'd so that my terrible paraphrasing won't misrepresent his work):

The End of Art

The basic meaning of the term "art" has changed several times over the centuries, and has continued to evolve during the 20th century as well. Danto describes the history of Art in his own contemporary version of Hegel's dialectical history of art. "Danto is not claiming that no-one is making art anymore; nor is he claiming that no good art is being made any more. But he thinks that a certain history of western art has come to an end, in about the way that Hegel suggested it would."[5] The "end of art" refers to the beginning of our modern era of art in which art no longer adheres to the constraints of imitation theory but serves a new purpose. Art began with an "era of imitation, followed by an era of ideology, followed by our post-historical era in which, with qualification, anything goes... In our narrative, at first only mimesis [imitation] was art, then several things were art but each tried to extinguish its competitors, and then, finally, it became apparent that there were no stylistic or philosophical constraints. There is no special way works of art have to be. And that is the present and, I should say, the final moment in the master narrative. It is the end of the story"[6]


Arthur Danto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps, but I'm not sure I quite agree with Danto. Personally, were I to suggest that the story of art has an ending, I might interpret it as having no where else to adapt or evolve at a certain point. I do agree that art has changed throughout culture and history to reflect itself very differently as time has passed and as we travel across cultures. But as long as these opportunties for relating exist between the symbol itself and the one (or many) symbolizing and communicating, art will continue to find its way to evolve to fit within its cultural paradigms.....and offer a glimpse into past paradigms or open the door into new paradigms.

In closing, don't feel too bad if you are still trying to make sense of what I'm saying. I've had a lot of time to think about this, so perhaps I'm onto something remarkable. On the other hand, I might be difficult to understand because I'm certifiably insane.

 

[dust1n]

That's one. I once had a blog I contributed to a few years ago where I introduced the concept of the muse not only in a relationship between sex and art, but between artist and object, AND between subject and object, AND between artist and subject. The bridge, I think, is transcendent of one single relationship, but present itself in various relationships - several as examples that I just mentioned. Sex was my point of initiation of understanding the power of creative force on this blog specifically. As I expanded my observations to include the arts, I understood the concept of the "muse" as more than a single source of inspiration to create. The blog became too limited in its scope at that point, which is probably why I lost interest in writing after some time.

I'll respond to the rest later, but I needed to clarify something about the terms used.

Artist is rather obvious...

Is the object the original item of inspiration or recreation and the subject the piece of art (or someone who views the piece of art)?

 

[Me Myself]

I deem art to be a perspective.

 

[marvek32]

Interaction is implicit to any neurological encounter, for all neurological encounters express details. I wouldn't say it must make an effort to connect anything besides an visual, because it is in of itself a way of communication already. Not sure if I'm creating feeling...