a case of degenerating myself, — Ciceronianus
degenerating — Ciceronianus
But in my heart, I might find a McDonalds commercial artistic. What then? — ENOAH
Just because art can be a business doesn't mean the core values of art is driven by profit. And it doesn't mean that profit-driven content can't be appreciated by the receiver either. It just means that if we don't define art in this way, we run into the problem of "everything can be art", which just renders the term "art" meaningless to even define. — Christoffer
Art is closely linked to our existential questions and philosophy, so if profit and earning money has too much of a focus when creating, it fundamentally becomes a version of "selling your soul". — Christoffer
But is it really important that everyone agrees on what art is? I mean we disagree on what things qualify under what categories all the time, why should art be an exception?
Maybe it's okay that one person says "this McDonald's ad is art to me" and another one says "not to me". That doesn't necessarily mean the word has NO meaning, that just means these two people have different criteria, right? — flannel jesus
Duchamp claims that something is art if someone declares that it is art.
So, nothing too remarkable about declaring American Idol, or any other television program, Art. — BC
If it is art, then it can be criticized as art. Is American Idol "good art"? — BC
There can be popular art, which is different from show business. In prehistoric times I wrote for tv series and there was a concept of a kind of public service among the makers - these things we are creating are about 'issues' and 'relationships' that next day the audience will talk about at the water-cooler. But we were in it for the money too, and the audience size and share; I don't think that as a partial motivation precludes art, which an earlier poster suggested. — mcdoodle
The irreality of reality tv is interesting to me, where people begin to behave in accordance with rules they think are 'dramatic', derived from fiction, while portraying a version of themselves - the drama often deliberately whipped up behind the scenes, or before the cameras roll. This to me is mostly spectacle, entertainment that does not aspire to art, even though an individual artist might appear there. — mcdoodle
there is an objective which "ought" to override the subjective. Should the same apply to art? — ENOAH
As for singing being a talent as opposed to creative, I beg to differ. The creative interpretations by these presumably novices, is one of the things which moved me physically. — ENOAH
Marcel Duchamp — BC
Two people disagreeing on the criteria of if a Macdonalds ad being art or not is utter meaningless compared to even the minor meaning of them agreeing it is content and discussing the aesthetical appreciation of said ad. — Christoffer
Fact is, I can readily admit I am simply trying to justify a degenerative habit. Whew. Thank God its over. — ENOAH
You can skip the pointless debate and go right to the meaningful conversation regardless of if you both call it art or not - choosing to focus on the word is up to you. Don't do it if you don't want to — flannel jesus
I'm not really sure what you're defending here? What's your argument? That it's better to have lose definitions of terms rather than more defined ones? Why is that even a thing to promote? — Christoffer
I don't think any of us are going to come to a firm conclusion of where the exact dividing line between art and non-art is, but I will say there is not much out there that I am absolutely confident in calling art. — Baden
Both comedians, but Jim Carrey just makes you laugh. Kaufman does much more. — Baden
It can be criticized as a television program. Television programs have their own separate criteria to consider them good or bad. In that category, American Idol is actually pretty good - or was, back when I watched it.If it is art, then it can be criticized as art. Is American Idol "good art"? — BC
No, he wasn't saying that at all. — Baden
AI meets the criterion which asks if it elicits strong feeling, — ENOAH
The expression of an emotion by speech may be addressed to someone; but if so it is not done with the intention of arousing a like emotion in him. If there is any effect which we wish to produce in the hearer, it is only the effect which we call making him understand how we feel. But, as we have already seen, this is just the effect which expressing our emotions has on ourselves. It makes us, as well as the people to whom we talk, understand how we feel. A person arousing emotion sets out to affect his audience in a way in which he himself is not necessarily affected. He and his audience stand in quite different relations to the act, very much as physician and patient stand in quite different relations towards a drug administered by the one and taken by the other. A person expressing emotion, on the contrary, is treating himself and his audience in the same kind of way; he is making his emotions clear to his audience, and that is what he is doing to himself. — R.G. Collingwood
But is it really important that everyone agrees on what art is? I mean we disagree on what things qualify under what categories all the time, why should art be an exception? — flannel jesus
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.