It is amusing how commonly this topic of ‘what constitutes art and what does not’ is debated. — Colosseum
If you have a better way to encapsulate it, or have other things to add please do. — Pop
is there a correct or incorrect way to interpret art or is it based on a causal origin by the artist?
There are five necessary and jointly sufficient conditions:
1. The activity is intentional
2. The activity is suitably technically demanding
3. The activity is suitably creative
4. The product exists in a publicly accessible medium
5. The product primarily embodies aesthetically engaging thought or emotion (or some combination of the two). — Artemis
yes the artifact would provide information about the creator and the culture -we cant predict specifically what information it would provide except to say it would give us clues to the 'consciousness' of the creator. We then would use our 'consiousness' to to build an imperfect picture of the culture they lived in. — Pop
But it also poses an epistemological dilemma: how can we ascertain what such an archeologist would say of our art? It seems that then we get back to square one, in which we have to forumalte some objective criteria for distinguishing art. — Artemis
what about a van Gogh? They're not particularly technically demanding, yet they're works of art — Bartricks
Intentional refers only to the objective that it was my intention to create art. — Artemis
Suitably technically demanding is a pretty low bar. — Artemis
And the audience of an art piece can be an audience of one: the artist. It can be more, but not less than that. — Artemis
Oh, and Van Gogh was one of those who "learned the rules to break them" types. I think that some of his work looks a little childish, but apparently his technique was educated and sophisticated. — Artemis
So it is circular - you've referred to the concept under analysis. The word 'art' needs to be removed, otherwise the definition is circular — Bartricks
Much art doesn't require much technical ability at all to create. — Bartricks
What if Rembrandt just imagines a work of art, but doesn't paint it on anything? Is the imaginary painting a work of art? Surely not. — Bartricks
Also, he was almost entirely self-taught and was never a great draughtsperson. His technique is not educated or sophisticated - it is very original and distinctive, but it is not very sophisticated and not the product of a formal education. — Bartricks
But again, on what basis do they decide this? — Artemis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.