Me n Art: The Science of Art

[coberst]

Me n Art: The Science of Art

I am a retired engineer with much formal education. Also I have five children and seven grandchildren. Thus, I speak with some extensive first-hand experience with the educational system in the United States.

Until a few months ago, when I began studying the science of art, my only educational contact with art was a few late Friday afternoon classes in third and fourth grade, which dealt with using crayons to color drawings of turkeys, pumpkins, and pine trees during the holidays. Beyond this early formal contact with “art” I had only that which adhered to my mind via social osmosis.

Only after reading parts of a few books on art basics have I discovered just how deficient was my early education. From all that I can ascertain the present conditions of elementary and high school education have little improved. My evidence indicates that our (USA) educational system has perhaps deteriorated from its very low level that I personally experienced.

I have discovered that to study art is to study human nature. I have known for some time that our educational system has little regard for such matters because such matters add little to our ability to produce and to consume. Financial shenanigans are not the only means that CA (Corporate America) has used to take advantage of a naive population with little or no CT (Critical Thinking) knowledge or skills.

A recent BBC series “reveals art to be not the product of culture, but the producer and shaper of culture…how art changed the world, our ideas, and even our humanity itself…like science and technology, [it] has altered our environment and our identity…We are art.”
http://www.kk.org/truefilms/archives/2006/12/how_art_made_th.php

“Vision is an active grasp…A human face, just like the whole body, is grasped as an over all pattern of essential components…if we decide to concentrate on a particular person’s eye, that eye, too is perceived as a whole pattern…When the thing observed lacks this integrity, i.e., when it is seen as an agglomeration of pieces, the details lose their meaning, and the whole becomes unrecognizable…The young child sees “doggishness” before he is able to distinguish one dog from another.”

“The shape of an object we see does not, however, depend only on its retinal projection at a given moment. Strictly speaking, the image is determined by the totality of visual experiences we have had with that object, or with that kind of object, during our lifetime.”

Non BBC quotes are from “Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye” by Rudolf Arnheim.

[Vrecknidj]

I have discovered that to study art is to study human nature.I'm curious about some specifics. What do you mean?

I am wondering about a few things.

1) If I study art, then I am studying human nature, because art is a subset of human nature.
2) If I study art, then I am studying human nature, because art is coextensive with human nature.
3) Something else.

Regarding the portion of your post that effectively assails the modern US public education system, I utterly agree. This is a significant reason behind my choice (and my wife's choice) to homeschool our kids. (To make things more interesting, I also happen to be a teacher, so, the choice wasn't made in the same kind of vacuum in which it is often made.)

Dave

[Artifice Orisit]

I am wondering about a few things.

1) If I study art, then I am studying human nature, because art is a subset of human nature.
2) If I study art, then I am studying human nature, because art is coextensive with human nature.
3) Something else.


1-2 In the same way palaeontologists study fossilised footprints to understand dinosaur behaviour. It works sure, just not very well.

3. ?

To me art is anything specifically designed to create an emotional/psychological response from the viewer. Unfortunately most modern "art" contains simplistic messages, screamed out in a obvious way (e.g. pop art) or is simply an expensive form of decoration (e.g. abstract art, "pretty" landscapes, cubism).
Gone are the days when people would spend years painting a portrait or scene with such symbolic complexity that the viewer could stand for hours, analysing it.

*sigh*

[Vrecknidj]

So art reveals human nature.

Sure, I agree with that.

Some of the rest of your piece I'll have to continue to dwell on.

:)

Dave

[coberst]

I have been studying SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) and the science of art in the last two years and both inform me about how creatures create concepts. They inform me about what scientific study considers to be the way that we think. The more that we comprehend about the foundation of our cognition the better we can "know the self".

[kellimaier]

I have for years asked our local science center to have a prgram on the science of art...they look at me like I'm a freak.

"art to be not the product of culture, but the producer and shaper of culture…how art changed the world, our ideas, and even our humanity itself…like science and technology, [it] has altered our environment and our identity…We are art.”

I have to say that is a novel idea for me...and I am a visual artist...

I like it....for now.

The other things...the last bit...very interesting...perception creates.

[Ermine]

I'm an artist and I've always been more fascinated and skilled with the ideological side of art. I view art as an idea blueprint. The emotion is certainly there but it isn't my focus due to my general lack of emotional fuel. Anyway, this is really fascinating.

[EloquentBohemian]

To me art is anything specifically designed to create an emotional/psychological response from the viewer.
Any commercial on television is specifically designed to create an emotional/psychological response from the viewer in terms of: to identify personally with the product being advertised, to feel a personal need for this product over similar products and to forego purchasing anything else before this product.
Then, are commercials Art?

Unfortunately most modern "art" contains simplistic messages, screamed out in a obvious way (e.g. pop art) or is simply an expensive form of decoration (e.g. abstract art, "pretty" landscapes, cubism).What would be the differences between Picasso's Massacre In Korea and Goya's The Third of May 1808? Both convey the horrors of war in relatively the same composition. Is Picasso's "more simplistic" or "screamed out in a obvious way" because of style or because it has African-influenced and Cubist elements within it?
The abstraction of Art began in revolt, so to speak, against the rigid Classicalism prominent in Art in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Whistler's Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket was painted in 1872 possibly after being influence by the emerging Impressionists of that time. Compared to his most famous painting, Arrangement in Grey and Black: The Artist's Mother painted in 1871, which one conveys more emotion and is more stirring? Which one is more daring and questions the very precepts of Art?

Gone are the days when people would spend years painting a portrait or scene with such symbolic complexity that the viewer could stand for hours, analysing it.Observe the complexity of Guernica, not only the visual elements and violent lines and jagged planes, but the contrast of these to the dark, muted greys, blacks and sickly pale off-whites. Such symbolism is rarely equalled before or since this painting. The whole of Picasso's abhorrence of war and death permeates this work.

More "pretty landscapes" were painted by artists supported by the aristocracy between the 1600's and the 1900's because that is what the aristocracy demanded. The Church demanded depictions of biblical scenes as their own propaganda and if the artist deviated in any way, he would find little to no work.

Most portraits painted prior to the 1900's were not studies in the essence of the sitter, they were painted to glorify or make the patron look better. In many portraits, detrimental elments of the subject were eliminated or disguised because the patron certainly would not pay for that which made him or her look ordinary or put him in a bad light, and the artists knew this. Not much symbolism was injected into painting unless it was religious, until the 1800's when artists began to consider themselves Artists, not craftsmmen employed by the bourgeois and aristocracy. Two things assisted this: photography and the wealthy industrialist/merchant class which wanted that which the only the aristocracy had.
During the 1700's and early 1800's, painters such as Watteau, Boucher and Fragonard painted idyllic and sexually suggestive scenes because this is what their patrons desired. Not much deep symbolism here.

I could go on ad nauseum, but I guess what I am trying to convey is that there is much depth from many artists in mulitple different ways. I find as much depth, inspiration, symbolism and beauty in works such as the 14 paintings by Mark Rothko in the Rothko Chapel and Voice of Fire by Barnett Newman as I do in Carravagio's Conversion of Saint Paul on the Road to Damascus or Bernini's Ecstasy of St Theresa. In fact, Voice of Fire by Barnett Newman is housed in the National Gallery here in Ottawa and I make what would be seen as a "religious pilgrimage" to view it at least twice a year.

There is much bad and mediocre art, and always will be, but to state that "the days when people would spend years painting a portrait or scene with such symbolic complexity that the viewer could stand for hours, analysing it" are gone would be to dismiss much of the work of depth, both emotional and psychological, by artists dedicated to their craft and to voicing the complexities of human nature.

[Kuu]

That BBC series is nice, we had to watch it for our history of art course. But the overly dramatic music annoyed me to no end...

I've always had an affinity for art, and have for a long time known about this parallel relationship about it being shaped by, and it shaping society. Art is about concepts, and many times throughout history it has been the artists who were the pioneers into new ways of thinking and doing things, and not just mere spectators or illustrators of things that were status quo. This is of course quite recognized for the field of literature, but the other arts have been almost systematically ignored.

I could not study architecture if I was not convinced that, just like language shapes our minds, so does architecture shape our actions and our routines of daily living, our very conceptions of existence, individuality, community, home, work, study, gender, morality... And so does painting and music. It is beyond the mere emotional response: it is subconscious conditioning and re-conditioning; distinct ways in which we perceive, and thus understand, the world.

And I agree entirely with EloquentBohemian's post. Just because you are not aware of its existance, Cognisant, is not enough to say it doesn't exist. Besides, you need to be aware of the history of art in the 20th century to truly understand modern art.

Personally, I would indeed consider some commercials to be art. They're a subset of cinematography.

[EloquentBohemian]

Art is about concepts, and many times throughout history it has been the artists who were the pioneers into new ways of thinking and doing things, and not just mere spectators or illustrators of things that were status quo.
Agreed, Art is about concepts, and translating one's individual experience into a tangible form which can be communicated.
I personally consider Conceptual Art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_art) to be the purest form of Art. In its most strict form, only the concept matters. The artist describes the work in text, but the actual physical construction could be performed by anyone.
This quote by Sol LeWitt sums it nicely:

"In conceptual art the idea or concept is the most important aspect of the work. When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair. The idea becomes a machine that makes the art." – Sol LeWitt, "Paragraphs on Conceptual Art", Artforum, June 1967

Personally, I would indeed consider some commercials to be art. They're a subset of cinematography.An aspect which I use to determine Art is intent. I ask: "What was the intent for creating this work?". The intent of a commercial is not to advance human understanding or convey an experience in concrete terms, but to sell a product. The audio-visuals are subordinate to the product they were created to serve. Without the product, the commercial would not be.
So, this is not Art.
A work of Art stands on its own, in a way, has a life of its own. It is a complete entity relying on nothing outside itself for its meaning or existence. Even the artist who created the work has little bearing on how the work is perceived or accepted. The artists influence ended when the work left the studio and entered the public domain.

[Artifice Orisit]

I've been corrected, and I'm mature enough to admit it; thank you EloquentBohemian that was very interesting.

Although outside the Brisbane art gallery there is a sculpture, really just chunks of metal welded together in a random fashion, that’s what I was speaking out against. Maybe the artist had something in mind when it was created, but all I can see is a blue angular obstruction. The graffiti just down the road was beautiful, a complex depiction of inner city life; but of course it was painted over, an "eyesore" apparently. Somebody explain that to me, I really appreciate all that colour in the morning (and yes I know graffiti is wrong, and no I could never have painted something like that).

[Kuu]

And yet I think most conceptual art is utter bullshit. If nobody ever understands your concept unless they have to read a pamphlet or need an hour long explanation, why don't you just write a book? The point of visual/audio/spatial media is to convey messages that can not be adequately conveyed in writing... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_specificity) Art should not be obvious, it should make people think, yes... but not fry their brains out trying to extract meaning from obscure intellectualoid gibberish. ( Is that what you were talking about, Cog? )

Really, I hold 97% of conceptual art to be pretentious, self-aggrandizing, attention-seeking, superficial crap made by talentless poseurs. But oh how it sells... (EDIT: really think about this.. people buy million dollar "objects", but the actual "artwork" is not physical, but an idea that is already theirs, in their head! Absurd! Thus conceptual art has become fraud. 9 million pounds for a shark in formaldehyde? Come on)

An aspect which I use to determine Art is intent. I ask: "What was the intent for creating this work?". The intent of a commercial is not to advance human understanding or convey an experience in concrete terms, but to sell a product. The audio-visuals are subordinate to the product they were created to serve. Without the product, the commercial would not be.
So, this is not Art.
A work of Art stands on its own, in a way, has a life of its own. It is a complete entity relying on nothing outside itself for its meaning or existence. Even the artist who created the work has little bearing on how the work is perceived or accepted. The artists influence ended when the work left the studio and entered the public domain.

Commercials have intent, it is to give the viewer a new perception of an action/product/service. Hyping a product might not be the most noble of acts, but art needs not be made to advance human understanding...

And I disagree with your general requirement that art stands on its own. If you really want to get into postmodern theory, then accordingly: nothing can ever stand on its own, because everything is part of an infinite network of perceptions, interpretations and symbols; and concrete, inherent meaning does not exist... thus your prerequisite makes art impossible.

[EloquentBohemian]

I've been corrected, and I'm mature enough to admit it; thank you EloquentBohemian that was very interesting.

Although outside the Brisbane art gallery there is a sculpture, really just chunks of metal welded together in a random fashion, that’s what I was speaking out against. Maybe the artist had something in mind when it was created, but all I can see is a blue angular obstruction. The graffiti just down the road was beautiful, a complex depiction of inner city life; but of course it was painted over, an "eyesore" apparently. Somebody explain that to me, I really appreciate all that colour in the morning (and yes I know graffiti is wrong, and no I could never have painted something like that).
I didn't mean this as a "correction", merely as my p.o.v. and your p.o.v. is just as valid because I do not see life through your eyes nor do I share your thoughts or personal history.
I'm not saying all Art produced in the last century or so is good or even Art, but it should be viewed within its own context and the intentions of the artists. I appreciate, and even "love", different works from different artists for different reasons. Not everything that Picasso or Goya or any artist produces is a masterpiece or speaks truly and succinctly for Mankind. There is much "art" throough the ages which I wouldn't decorate my cat's litterbox with, but most of that is personal taste.
My first question, after absorbing (my word for just being in the presence of the work without judgement) a new work of Art is "Why, or what induced, the artist to create this?".

Could you send a link to an image of this piece outside of the Brisbane art gallery or its name and name of the artist? I would like to see it.

[Artifice Orisit]

Imagine four solid blue metal plates, then glue them together.

Anyway your Pov is better researched and explained than mine, indicating you have more experience with the subject than me, hence I'm adopting everything you logically justified (which was most of it). It would be difficult not to, I'd have to delude myself.

[EloquentBohemian]

And yet I think most conceptual art is utter bullshit. If nobody ever understands your concept unless they have to read a pamphlet or need an hour long explanation, why don't you just write a book? The point of visual/audio/spatial media is to convey messages that can not be adequately conveyed in writing... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_specificity) Art should not be obvious, it should make people think, yes... but not fry their brains out trying to extract meaning from obscure intellectualoid gibberish. ( Is that what you were talking about, Cog? )

Really, I hold 97% of conceptual art to be pretentious, self-aggrandizing, attention-seeking, superficial crap made by talentless poseurs. But oh how it sells... (EDIT: really think about this.. people buy million dollar "objects", but the actual "artwork" is not physical, but an idea that is already theirs, in their head! Absurd! Thus conceptual art has become fraud. 9 million pounds for a shark in formaldehyde? Come on)

Which is why I quoted from Sol LeWitt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_LeWitt) instead of the Young British Artists or excepted anything from the Turner Prize site. True Conceptual Art began in the early 60's with artists such as Sol and championed by the prominent art critic Clement Greenberg. This was usurped by Joseph Kosuth and the English Art and Language group and later by the above-mentioned YBA in the late '80s and early '90s. What is termed "conceptual art" today is far from what it was intended at its inception and initial growth.
Have you read this excerpt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_art#History) from Wikipedia?
To truly know what Conceptual Art was intended top be and its philosophical foundation, you should read Paragraphs on Conceptual Art (http://www.ddooss.org/articulos/idiomas/Sol_Lewitt.htm) by Sol LeWitt.
In a nutshell, the concept - i.e. the working sketches, the notes and the resulting instructions - are Conceptual Art. In other words, the concept, the idea, regardless of resulting medium utilized to produce the concrete piece.. Whatever concrete object results from this is not Conceptual Art, it is a craftperson's interpretation of the Concept. Anyone could construct the object from the instructions and guidelines, but the initial inspiration and concept rests solely with the artist.
Conceptual Art, more than any art I have known or studied, questioned the very foundations of what is considered art because it eliminated the object of art. Conceptual Art can be found in music also.

Commercials have intent, it is to give the viewer a new perception of an action/product/service. Hyping a product might not be the most noble of acts, but art needs not be made to advance human understanding...

And I disagree with your general requirement that art stands on its own. If you really want to get into postmodern theory, then accordingly: nothing can ever stand on its own, because everything is part of an infinite network of perceptions, interpretations and symbols; and concrete, inherent meaning does not exist... thus your prerequisite makes art impossible.I said nothing about it being seperated from Existence. A work of art would be placed in a gallery or purchasers home, be viewed, etc.; but a work of art stands on its own as a unique entity just as you stand on your own as a unique entity.
Intent for the artist is inspiration, some intangible urge to express and communicate to others or to merely give tangible form to some experience from within the artist.
Intent for the makers of commercials is first, the company wishing to promote its particular product so they can sell as much as possible to make as much money as possible, secondly, the advertising marketers needing to make this product, be it a car, a banking service or women's menstrual pads, as attractive to the buying public as possible.
This is merely consumerism, not art.

If an artist creates work merely to sell it, no matter how attractive, then he is a manufacturer, or an artisan at best.
An artist creates because of what I stated above. Sure artists would like to sell their work, but that is not what motivates them to create.
Van Gogh sold only one painting, and that was to his brother. He never sold anything else, but that did not stop him from creating. He created because he had to.

[EloquentBohemian]

So... I posted a reply to Tekton over two hours ago and it said that it wouldn't be posted until a Moderator approved it.
How come?

[Kuu]

You probably posted too many links, so it gets caught up in the spam filter waiting for approval. Its terribly annoying, but a necessary evil.

[EloquentBohemian]

Ah! Makes sense and an excellent appplication.

[EloquentBohemian]

Imagine four solid blue metal plates, then glue them together.
I think this is the one you mean: Relatum 2002 (http://qag.qld.gov.au/collection/contemporary_asian_art/lee_ufan).
I would consider you fortunate to be able to see this work so often. (...yup, jealous:D)
I know this artist, Lee U-fan, for the Japanese art movement he was involved in around 1970, Mono-Ha, was closely related in philosophy to Minimalism in the West, one of my favourite periods. Basically, the artists of this movement strove to place or reassemble objects which were natural, found or constructed to be presented just as they are; not representing anything else. Their juxtaposition is also an element they wished to express.

In Relatum 2002, one of the first things which strikes me is the contrast between the two rough natural-worn stones and the rigid mathematically rectangular plates of steel painted blue. The stones are nature-made, natural and became as we see them now over a long period of time and by many natural elements. They have many planes and their colours are muted and natural.
The plates on the other hand, are designed this way by the hands of men. They are rigid and in tension because plates of steel would not naturally be placed on end. Where each stone is complete within itself and at rest, the steel plates need each other for support. Again, rest and tension. The stones are isolated from each other by this unnatural imposing wall of steel.
How does this relate to the human condition?

This is just some of what I see in this piece and is my individual interpretation. There are many more elements I see the more I look at it. You may see other things and have other emotional responses to it, of which one you have already expressed.:D And that emotional expression is valid. We all make value judgements from our own experience and internal qualifications.

As an post-script, this particular piece comes from an artist whose background is Oriental: South Korean and Japanese, and the Buddhist and Taoist outlook and philosophy is still something of a mystery to us Westerners. To truly begin to understand and appreciate this piece and others like it, one would have to begin to understand Oriental culture and Buddhist and Taoist philosophy. If you have such insight, view this in that light.

Anyway your Pov is better researched and explained than mine, indicating you have more experience with the subject than me, hence I'm adopting everything you logically justified (which was most of it). It would be difficult not to, I'd have to delude myself.Thanks for the compliment, but gauge what I have said against your feelings, because the initial response to a piece of art is the most important for it reveals not only the essence of the piece, but something about yourself.

[Artifice Orisit]

That isn't the sculpture I was talking about, that thing is beutiful by comparison.

Big blue rectangular metal, like tank armour plating; or the side of a re-pinted ship.

[EloquentBohemian]

Hmmm... well, if you ever find a link or the name of the piece or the artist, please let me know.

[Kuu]

Which is why I quoted from Sol LeWitt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_LeWitt) instead of the Young British Artists or excepted anything from the Turner Prize site. True Conceptual Art began in the early 60's with artists such as Sol and championed by the prominent art critic Clement Greenberg. This was usurped by Joseph Kosuth and the English Art and Language group and later by the above-mentioned YBA in the late '80s and early '90s. What is termed "conceptual art" today is far from what it was intended at its inception and initial growth.

Yes, I see that. But Sol LeWitt is not alive anymore, and we are no longer in the 70s. Perhaps I should have been clearer by saying contemporary "conceputal art", precisely like the works of the YBAs which i made reference to. That is "conceptual art" today, and that is what I was talking about.

Anyone could construct the object from the instructions and guidelines, but the initial inspiration and concept rests solely with the artist.

Yes. And not only does it come out within him, but most of the times it stays with him... and to me that is pointless.

All this talk about intent. How do you know whether there was intent or not? Only the author can truly know. If I say my shoe is art, is it? Is it conceptual art, claiming my shoe is art to subvert the definition of art? Does it matters what you think or anyone else thinks or interprets, if my intent was to make it art? Does anyone who is not an art critic even give a damn?


If an artist creates work merely to sell it, no matter how attractive, then he is a manufacturer, or an artisan at best.


And were the great sculptors, painters and architects of the past, let's say, the Renaissance, not working under commission all the time? Were they not passionate about it, was it not their life? Were they "artisans at best"?

I think you can make commercials with passion, regardless of how much you get paid for them.


Can industrial design produce art?


but then again...

Even the artist who created the work has little bearing on how the work is perceived or accepted. The artists influence ended when the work left the studio and entered the public domain.

Then what is relevant, intent or public appropriation?


a work of art stands on its own as a unique entity just as you stand on your own as a unique entity.

Please explain how this can be possible. (And BTW, I don't think I stand by my own as a unique entity).



All in all, I utterly despise the word "Art", because of the total ambiguity of the term. I avoid it as much as I can, like the plague. My logical mind cannot stand such semantic muddening. I'd rather invent new terms for stuff, rather than continue to devalue or redefine older terms...

[EloquentBohemian]

Yes, I see that. But Sol LeWitt is not alive anymore, and we are no longer in the 70s. Perhaps I should have been clearer by saying contemporary "conceputal art", precisely like the works of the YBAs which i made reference to. That is "conceptual art" today, and that is what I was talking about.
Much of what is said in here I spoke of in the post which the spam filter has not seen fit to return as of yet.
I agree with you here in that contemporary Conceptual art is not true Conceptual art. The term was appropriated by the Young British Artists and to me, most of it is sensationalized rubbish.
But that is personal aesthetics and not to be confused as to whether it is art or not.

Yes. And not only does it come out within him, but most of the times it stays with him... and to me that is pointless.With the original Conceptual artists, the notes, instructions, personal thoughts and sometimes photos were the end result of their conception. The actual object was of secondary incident and need not be constructed; but through the accumalated conclusion, anyone could produce the object.

All this talk about intent. How do you know whether there was intent or not? Only the author can truly know. If I say my shoe is art, is it? Is it conceptual art, claiming my shoe is art to subvert the definition of art?Marcel Duchamp and his "ready-mades". This is where much of the questioning of "what is art" began. What you describe is precisely what Duchamp did. This threw the "art world" into confusion and spurred more artists to experiment even further, stretching the bounds of art.

Does it matters what you think or anyone else thinks or interprets, if my intent was to make it art? Does anyone who is not an art critic even give a damn?Actually, we should, as we should decide what Science or Philosophy is, but I will admit that in something so conceptually abstract as Art, it is difficult to come to concrete conclusions, as art is fluid and inspirational.
But some general guidelines would be appropriate and perhaps an artist would have to explain or justify why this should be art just as a scientist has to explain and justify why the conclusions drawn from his investigations justify being termed Science.
Guidelines should not be carved in stone, but should be flexible enough to accomodate the new. Galileo's conclusions were not termed science until much later, but they are a staple of science now.

And were the great sculptors, painters and architects of the past, let's say, the Renaissance, not working under commission all the time? Were they not passionate about it, was it not their life? Were they "artisans at best"?The Renaissance lasted from around 1300 to 1600, including Mannerism.
I will agree that they were passionate about what they did, but the concept of what we call "artist" now did not exist until much later when the wealthy upper middle class and merchants would purchase art for their own tastes and not necessarily the accepted art. Even Rembrandt had to survive on portraits and scenes from the Bible. His life was full of finacial hardship.
Painters and others we term as artists were craftsmen and usually part of craft Guilds. They painted or sculpted from commision and individuality was at a minimum. Da Vinci, Titian, Berninni, et al were subject to their patrons.

Let me state right here that I am not saying that they are not Artists, I consider them so, but in their own time, they were merely guildsmen and of a class lower than the aristocracy and merchants. I believe them to be passionate and dedicated to their work and art would not be where it is without them, but contrary to now, they had little opportunity nor inclination to experiment and push the aesthetics of art much beyond the acceptable boundaries of their benefactors. This only changed as the Industrial Age grew. Even artists we now revere such as Van Gogh, Gauguin, the Impressionist (which are still very popular), sold little of their work during their own time and were not considered artists because they did not conform to the norm of the times.

I think you can make commercials with passion, regardless of how much you get paid for them.I won't dispute that. All I am saying is that whatever one may term art or artistic within the commercial is subordinate to the product, therefore the artists involved have not produced art, they have produced a very aesthetic commodity aimed at pimping some product for some company.

Can industrial design produce art?
but then again...No, for the similar reasons as above. A chair is designed with another purpose in mind than to create art.

Then what is relevant, intent or public appropriation? Both. The intent of the artist to express an experience and communicate this creates the art.
And the appropriation of the art by the public domain or individuals expands the realm of art.

Please explain how this can be possible. (And BTW, I don't think I stand by my own as a unique entity).You are unique, which does not mean seperated from everything else, it means distinct. There is nothing in existence which is you. Only you are you. The same with an object of art. There is no other object like it.

Take two identical boxes of cereal off a grocery store shelf. They are identical, yes?
But each one is unique in that they occupy different areas of space/time. They are each composed of different molecules/atoms/etc. Though they may be identical, they are stil unique and distinct from each other; which, by the way, is part of what Andy Warhol was trying to get at with his Brillo boxes, Campbell soup cans and silkscreen portraits of Marylin Monroe, Elvis, etc. This is partly what the Minimalist artists who would create multiple blocks and line them up were trying to demonstrate also.

All in all, I utterly despise the word "Art", because of the total ambiguity of the term. I avoid it as much as I can, like the plague. My logical mind cannot stand such semantic muddening. I'd rather invent new terms for stuff, rather than continue to devalue or redefine older terms...How is the term Art any more ambiguous than the term Science? Or Religion?
What defines Science?
What defines Religion?
Is Phrenology any less a science than Quantum Mechanics?
Are the practices of Australian Aborigines or Santeria or Wicca any less religions than Christianity or Islam or Buddhism?
Is Pop Art, Minimalism or Impressionism any less an art than objects from Classical Greece, Italian Renaissance, or Baroque?