Define an artist. — Brett
You have to produce something that you say has value — Pop
Anybody can do it, any object will do. — Pop
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. — Brett
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
I agree, art is what is produced by things with 'spirits', 'consciousness', things which are alive and this includes the entire biosphere. — Punshhh
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.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?
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.If your position is that it can’t be understood, then that’s fine, but it means you have nothing to offer.
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?
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.