[analytic] Misery in defining art
Eray Ozkural
I was conversing with a student of history of art. She suggested that
art is
"Whatever art critics think is art"
She argued that this must be true because that is what they taught
them at the university classes.
I argued that this could not be a definition because it merely defers
to something else that does not help us break down art into its
constituents. (And also that it's not objective and so forth)
So, before I divulge my most disrespectful philosophy of art, I
would like to ask you if you know of any worthwhile analytic
approach to defining art. How would we go about it?
Looking at dictionary.com we see a zoo of definitions. Which
definitions seem to you proper objective definitions?
art Audio pronunciation of "art" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärt)
n.
1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the
work of nature.
2.
1. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors,
forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense
of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic
or plastic medium.
2. The study of these activities.
3. The product of these activities; human works of beauty
considered as a group.
3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of
beauty; aesthetic value.
4. A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
5. A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.
6.
1. A system of principles and methods employed in the
performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
2. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles
and methods: the art of the lexicographer.
7.
1. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation:
the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
2. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties:
"Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice" (Joyce
Carol Oates).
8.
1. arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.
2. Artful contrivance; cunning.
9. Printing. Illustrative material.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin ars, art-. See ar- in
Indo-European Roots.]
Synonyms: art, 1craft, expertise, knack, know-how, technique
These nouns denote skill in doing or performing that is attained
by study, practice, or observation: the art of rhetoric; pottery that
reveals an artist's craft; political expertise; a knack for teaching;
mechanical know-how; a precise diving technique.
Source: The American Heritage(r) Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright (c) 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
art
n 1: the products of human creativity; works of art collectively; "an
art exhibition"; "a fine collection of art" [syn: fine art] 2: the
creation of beautiful or significant things; "art does not need to be
innovative to be good"; "I was never any good at art"; "he said that
architecture is the art of wasting space beautifully" [syn: artistic
creation, artistic production] 3: a superior skill that you can learn
by study and practice and observation; "the art of conversation";
"it's quite an art" [syn: artistry, prowess] 4: photographs or other
visual representations in a printed publication; "the publisher was
responsible for all the artwork in the book" [syn: artwork, graphics,
nontextual matter]
Source: WordNet (r) 2.0, (c) 2003 Princeton University
--
Eray Ozkural (exa), PhD candidate
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara KDE Project: http://www.kde.o
rg
http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo Malfunction: http://www.malfunct.com
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/S.QlOD/3MnJAA/Zx0JAA/pyIolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
---
http://analytic.ontologically.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/analytic/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/analytic/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
analytic-u...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Larry Tapper
> Hello there,
>
> I was conversing with a student of history of art. She suggested
that
> art is
> "Whatever art critics think is art"
>
> She argued that this must be true because that is what they taught
> them at the university classes.
Eray,
I had a 7th grade art teacher who began his drawing class with the
portentous announcement:
"Art...is anything man-made."
His 13-year-old students just stared blankly and fidgeted, mostly
wondering what sort of lunacy they'd have to deal with this year. But
the man had a point --- this does seem to be one way of dealing with
the question.
Along similar lines is the widely quoted line attributed to a
Balinese artist talking to an anthropologist: We have no art, we just
do everything as well as we can.
Larry
Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rkgkPB/UOnJAA/Zx0JAA/pyIolB/TM
Eray Ozkural
> --- In anal...@yahoogroups.com, Eray Ozkural <erayo@c...> wrote:
> > Hello there,
> >
> > I was conversing with a student of history of art. She suggested
> that
> > art is
> > "Whatever art critics think is art"
> >
> > She argued that this must be true because that is what they taught
> > them at the university classes.
>
> Eray,
>
> I had a 7th grade art teacher who began his drawing class with the
> portentous announcement:
>
> "Art...is anything man-made."
>
> His 13-year-old students just stared blankly and fidgeted, mostly
> wondering what sort of lunacy they'd have to deal with this year. But
> the man had a point --- this does seem to be one way of dealing with
> the question.
>
> Along similar lines is the widely quoted line attributed to a
> Balinese artist talking to an anthropologist: We have no art, we just
> do everything as well as we can.
So, what would be the criteria for discerning a work of art
from that is not? That it is "well crafted"? Then, is the
Bosphorus bridge a work of art? I guess he really wanted
to distinguish the generic notion of art from "fine art", but
I suppose that doesn't quite answer the question. It's
obvious that I'm referring to what is traditionally conceived
of as fine art: music, painting, etc.
Regards,
--
Eray Ozkural (exa), PhD candidate
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara KDE Project: http://www.kde.org
http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo Malfunction: http://www.malfunct.com
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater?
Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pkgkPB/SOnJAA/Zx0JAA/pyIolB/TM
Glyn Holton
have never discussed it with philosophers. A unifying theme that I see
in art is the purpose of engendering emotions in those who experience
it. I don't think art needs to be constructed with intent. I do think
it must be employed, displayed or otherwise distributed with intent.
If you burn your toast, that isn't art. If you burn your toast and
decide that the char marks form an interesting pattern, it is art when
you show it to your neighbor. Accordingly, it would seem that art is
anything that is used with a purpose of engendering an emotional
response. That doesn't have to be the sole purpose. A bridge can be
art despite having a utilitarian purpose. Inevitably, definitions such
as mine lead to the issue of whether propaganda is art. The answer, I
am afraid, is yes. You can't throw the bathwater out without the baby
on this one. Many of the propaganda posters produced by communists
during the 20th century were emotionally powerful. Like it or not,
they were art. More problematic is torture, which has a purpose of
engendering an emotional response. To exclude it from the definition,
we would need to speak of artificially engendering an emotional
response. Shooting a man's wife is not art. It engenders an emotional
response, but the emotional response is "real." The problem with this
refinement is that it is difficult to draw a distinction between
"real" and "artificial" emotions. For what it is worth. - Glyn
Yahoo! Groups Links
Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rkgkPB/UOnJAA/Zx0JAA/pyIolB/TM
Paul Murphy
Perhaps we should be hopelessly nominalist when it comes to art. That is, I
don’t think we can say that art is…anything. Or, I should say, we coul
d say that art is…if we were Platonists on the matter. That is, art would
have a kind of truth condition in some Platonic sphere. You see, someone c
ould always find counterexamples to particular definitions of art. Just thi
nk of some of the examples. There is Cage’s *Silence* – 3 minutes 33 (I
forget the timing) of silence. There are recordings of “found sounds”
– sounds of machinery, waterfalls, etc. In terms of counterexamples, Glyn
Holton talks about “engendering emotions”. There is a technology-based
band called ‘Autechre’. Much of there music is decidedly non-emotional
It is intellectualist in the manner that the total serialism of the 1940s
and early 50s was intellectualist. You could call it 'objectivist'.
This nominalist stance is not an attempt to try to stop the conversation. W
e can still discuss the works, events, entities that pass for art.
In terms of the posting. Burning toast and creating patterned chars on the
toast are two different things, not two different ways of looking at the sa
me thing. And why wouldn’t shooting a man’s wife pass for art? I’m su
re that someone, somewhere, would give us reasons why it could pass for art
in particular circumstances.
Paul Murphy
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger - want a free & easy way to contact your friends online?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Glyn Holton
Murder is never art. - Glyn
> -----Original Message-----
> From: anal...@yahoogroups.com [mailto:anal...@yahoogroups.com]On
> Behalf Of Paul Murphy
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 9:21 PM
> To: anal...@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [analytic] Re: Misery in defining art
>
>
>
>
>
> Perhaps we should be hopelessly nominalist when it comes to
> art. That is, I don’t think we can say that art
> is…anything. Or, I should say, we could say that art is…if
> we were Platonists on the matter. That is, art would have a
> kind of truth condition in some Platonic sphere. You see,
> someone could always find counterexamples to particular
> definitions of art. Just think of some of the examples.
> There is Cage’s *Silence* – 3 minutes 33 (I forget the
> timing) of silence. There are recordings of “found sounds”
> – sounds of machinery, waterfalls, etc. In terms of
> counterexamples, Glyn Holton talks about “engendering
> emotions”. There is a technology-based band called
> ‘Autechre’. Much of there music is decidedly non-emotional.
> It is intellectualist in the manner that the total
> serialism of the 1940s and early 50s was intellectualist.
> You could call it 'objectivist'.
>
>
>
> This nominalist stance is not an attempt to try to stop the
> conversation. We can still discuss the works, events,
> entities that pass for art.
>
>
>
> In terms of the posting. Burning toast and creating
> patterned chars on the toast are two different things, not
> two different ways of looking at the same thing. And why
> wouldn’t shooting a man’s wife pass for art? I’m sure that