The idea of art is the idea of art, and art itself is that which answers to the idea. — Bartricks

And what’s the idea of art, something we know by reason or instinct?

Secondly how do we know the artwork answers to it honestly, with integrity?
,

By our reason. We cannot know something by instinct, for unless or until that belief which was formed by instinct is ratified by reason is does not count as 'justified' and knowledge involves having justified true beliefs, whatever else it may involve.

And this is part of the problem, art and reason. If we do it by reason what are the markers we use in our reasoning?

If I return to my analogy of the pool of water and the stone; the pool is the concept of art into which we throw the stone. The ripples are the art.

Edit: artists may very well be operating on instinct and then we’re going to interpret art by reason. Big headache.

Interesting point though; realistic art is so much more approachable to people because they can interpret it through reason: technical skill, proportion, perspective, etc.

So everyone and everything is an artist. And everything we produce is art. Is that it?@brett

Not Quite.. You have to produce something that you say has value ( that will reveal your consciousness to the world ) to love or laugh at. Anybody can do it, any object will do.

Define an artist. — Brett

One who produces art.

I'm still fascinated by the concept of accidental art vs art. If I sketch an image that is pleasing to the eye, but I had no intention of creating art, that image is not art. However, if I sketch the same image, thinking, "this will be art", then it is. Heady stuff, indeed! :roll:

You have to produce something that you say has value — Pop

Anybody can do it, any object will do. — Pop

This presents a problem for me. Anyone can do it, any object will do, but it must have value and that value is determined by the artist. The problem then is that anything is art if I say so, if I produced it. That doesn’t get us any closer to what art is. And what about literature? Is a book art, no matter how incomprehensible it is, because the writer said it was art? And what commitment does it require, what stage of development? Is the art produced at the beginning of an artist’s life the same as midway?

If I sketch an image that is pleasing to the eye, but I had no intention of creating art, that image is not art. However, if I sketch the same image, thinking, "this will be art", then it is. — jgill

Is that a statement or question?

There is no concept of accidental art. Accidental art is a moment that happens unexpectedly and the artist is able to use all their skills to take advantage of it.

In the end that's all that's required. You produce something , put it out there and it gets loved or hated.

All the rest is immaterial.

We know what art is: art is an expression of human consciousness, and art work is information about the artists consciousness and subconsciousness

art is an expression of human consciousness, and art work is information about the artists consciousness and subconsciousness — Pop

Fighting in the streets between gangs is the same thing but it’s not art. Or is it?

A precondition is that its presented as art. Think performance

A precondition is that its presented as art. Think performance — Pop

So it’s art if I say so. That’s no definition.

art is an expression of human consciousness, and art work is information about the artists consciousness and subconsciousness

The above is the definition - this covers everything you can possibly say.

And what you end up saying is art will reveal a lot about you.

A precondition is that its presented as art. Think performance — Pop

“ That wasn’t murder judge, that was art.”

It would work. Stelark used to suspend himself from ceilings by hooks through his skin

An art work has to gain the audiences attention, then say something to them. Very hard to do

Did you see Birdman. The scene where he shoots himself for art

Is that a statement or question?

There is no concept of accidental art. Accidental art is a moment that happens unexpectedly and the artist is able to use all their skills to take advantage of it. — Brett

If you look at comments on a previous page I indeed posed this question to a member who seems to have some expertise in art. She said that if I produced a pleasing product with no intention of it being art, than, no matter how skillfully done or appealing, it is not art. However, if I were to produce the same product with an intention of creating art, it would be art.

Amazing, huh? :smirk:

I don't know what you mean here. Is it in response to the accident in art?

An art work has to gain the audiences attention, then say something to them. — Pop

If an artist who has carved out a successful space in the world makes a painting but doesn’t show it does that mean it’s not art?

you look at comments on a previous page I indeed posed this question to a member who seems to have some expertise in art. She said that if I produced a pleasing product with no intention of it being art, than, no matter how skillfully done or appealing, it is not art. However, if I were to produce the same product with an intention of creating art, it would be art. — jgill

The only person I could find who posted that was yourself.

However I think you misunderstand what I mean by the “accident” in art. It is not “accidental art,” which comes up first on google, it’s “the accident” I refer to in the sense that Francis Bacon uses it.

Bacon often credited the power of his paintings to accidents. “I want a very ordered image, but I want it to have come about by chance,” he told Sylvester in the same 1966 interview. He believed that through embracing spontaneity—and accepting “accidents” as integral aspects of the composition—he’d achieve true emotional candor. Spontaneous marks and images, for the artist, resembled the unexpected welling up of passionate, unbridled feelings.(https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-francis-bacon-artist)

Ha Ha, Its art to him but not to us, since we will never see it

Interesting, people who are not immersed in the art world, or who have not followed the developments closely over the last 40 or 50 years, dictating what art is, or what isn't art, this is a laymans definition of art and is not comprehensive enough to be regarded as philosophy of art. Really without understanding the development of art culturally, these questions cannot be answered because art in culture is an evolution and what does, or doesn't constitute art changes with the culture.

This is why I agreed with Brett initially, that art is a mirroring of culture.

Bar tricks is tying him/herself in knots.

Pop, jgill and Qwex do seem to be open minded as to what art is, can be and to what might or might not be an artist. Things which constantly change with the evolution of culture.

what might or might not be an artist. Things which constantly change with the evolution of culture. — Punshhh

Is that your position, that what defines an artist changes over time? That someone like Michelangelo is no artist because we no longer regard him as an artist?

They are part of the universal mind, 'spirits' probably use trees.

I agree, art is what is produced by things with 'spirits', 'consciousness', things which are alive and this includes the entire biosphere.

Ha Ha, Its art to him but not to us, since we will never see it — Pop

There are many things that exist that you will never see.

I agree, art is what is produced by things with 'spirits', 'consciousness', things which are alive and this includes the entire biosphere. — Punshhh

I understand this connection of spirit and consciousness to art, but it does nothing to help understand art and reduces it to mysticism. If your position is that it can’t be understood, then that’s fine, but it means you have nothing to offer.

Is that your position, that what defines an artist changes over time? That someone like Michelangelo is no artist because we no longer regard him as an artist?

Yes, but it's more complicated than that because there is a spectrum of opinion within the culture as to what constitutes art. So whether a person regards Michelangelo as an artist depends on who you ask along that spectrum, as well as where the evolution of art is at that moment within the culture.

If your position is that it can’t be understood, then that’s fine, but it means you have nothing to offer.

I have by definition offered something relevant, or meaningful to the discussion, I have pasted a work I produced only a couple of days ago. So if my intellectual contribution turns out to be meaningless, or irrelevant to the discussion, is now irrelevant. I along with Qwex have produced the most real, concrete contribution to the thread, a work of art.

No, it is because they don't have a brain and minds seem to be associated with brains, not mere cells. For example there seems to be precisely one mind - my mind - associated with this body - my body. Yet my body is composed of many, many cells. It has one brain, but lots and lots of cells. And doing things to my brain clearly affects what goes on in my mind. Thus the evidence is fairly overwhelming that minds are associated with brains. Trees and bacteria do not possess these things, and thus it is unreasonable to attribute minds to them.

And they don't produce art, do they?

I didn't attribute minds to trees and bacteria. I said they may be conscious and that they produce art.

The reason I asked you these questions about animals and plants was to determine what you mean by the word mind. You seem to be saying that mind is some kind of self awareness and includes all the nervous activity in the brain associated with the functioning of the body and intellect. That is a very broad use of the word and explains the confusion.

You are attributing mind to certain states and functions in the body which are not normally associated with the human mind. States of what I would describe as consciousness. The problem with this definition is that it sets an arbritary definition of what organisms are conscious by conflating consciousness with mind and claiming that organisms which don't have a brain, or something equating to a brain cannot be conscious, I would suggest this is rather naive. Surely a tree is conscious of its environment in some way, because it reacts is subtle and sophisticated ways to its environment as a responsive living organism, indeed in ways which are very artistic. I have a slice across the trunk of a tree highly polished hanging on my wall, in my opinion, it is equally as artistic as the Picasso on the wall next to it.