Art is the product of crafted complexity

[AntaresVII]

This whole spiel arises out of my being pissed off by people who say what I listen to isn't "real" music. I'm sick of this bullshit elitism about art, with these pathetic snobs who think they're cultured because they cant appreciate as wide a range of artistic expression as I do. Fuckers want to hide behind all sorts of nonsensical definitions of art that don't stand up to scrutiny, so I've boiled down one that I think actually holds water:

Art is the product of crafted complexity.

Breakdown:

Intentional design: (what is meant by "crafted")
Clouds aren't art because they aren't the product of intent. They may be beautiful, but only by personifying nature to call it something like "nature's/god's art" does it make any sense to call it "art".
— But what about a picture of a cloud? Most would call a good one art, and I'd say it counts because the photographer is intentionally manipulating a tool to record a certain image, meaning the product photograph is one of intentional design. A bad photographer is one who doesn't understand how to get the image they want and so their photos are less artful because they have less intentional design.
— But what if someone takes a picture on accident and it looks really good? Art? — Getting tricky now, I think you can say that the post hoc judgement of the photo as being artful is acceptable as intentioned design, if only as a simplistic good/bad judgement as to whether they keep the photo. In essence I'll allow that art can be "discovered", with something unintentional resulting in a product which the artist chooses to use/retain, that choice being intentional design.
— So what if I accidentally take a picture in a dark room and call the resulting black square "art", eh?
Well, that would be a convenient segue into the next part of the definition:

Complexity:

• Art is artful in relation to the degree to which it is intentionally complex. Throwing paint at a canvas results in complexity, but one cant claim that anything more than the mere fact of its complexity is intentional. The pieces that build the complex whole are individually without intent, being left to chance of the unknown ballistics involved in throwing the paint. A picture in a dark room, on the other hand, results in something that is intentional but not complex. You can call a black square art but its art to a very small degree. That is to say, it's not very artful.

Now we get into the distinction between "high" and "low" art that the snobs love to pretend they can consistently define:

• Laying down a white sheet of paper and calling it "art" is fair in my book. There is immense beauty in even the most mundane things, and it is artists in particular who are able to find the world so. But I wouldn't accept the paper's entry to a museum because it's not particularly complexly crafted. It took next to no effort and produced something rather lacking in complex order. A great painting, on the other hand, will be a work of immense complexity, building an image by excruciatingly careful crafting in a way takes far more complex design than taking a good picture of the same sight.

Where exactly the line is between "high" and "low" is pretty much an issue of gradient, and the proverbial museum is going to have to make its own calls as to the lower end of acceptability.

And that about covers it.
As you can see, I take a very broad view of what can be called art, but qualify it with parameters to quantify artistic quality (which is not necessarily beauty, which is a matter of subjective appreciation).
I'll concede to the dipshits that their favored orchestral symphony is probably a greater work of art than my preferred dubstep track, but I will freeze in hell before I let them claim that it isn't art in it's own right.


Since I started with the whole music thing, and the specific claim of botherance was that [blank] isn't "real" music, not that it isn't art, I'll just give my definition of music as "art in sound" and shut up the one nerd who didn't get the implication.


Thanks for tuning in, folks, this has been the rantings of a guy who finds deathstep beautiful.
See ya' next time, over and out.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Your definition of art lacks in somethings. Someone who is not good at making art, but intentionally applies the principles of their craft creates things that are more artful than someone who is more "talented" but isn't consciously applying principles of said art.

Sure complexity is unlikely for a novice, but with your example, complexity can be given by the environment and be limited to how and where someone points a camera.

Thus things like landscape/portrait photography have ceiling when compared to something artificiality created, relative to artfulness under the definition.

Maybe what you intended, but I think art is in more dimensions than that. Candid organic things reach a dimension of art that others cannot. Rather it's likely a thing of aesthetics, but the fact that it can't be reached ought still to add artistic value in it that is equal to something artificial. I see something outside this domain. Maybe this is just idealism.

 

[BurnedOut]

Artists are cultured for a simple reason - Cultural knowledge is directly proportional to divergent thinking because it is a form of open-mindedness.

Complexity leads to more skill which leads to better intuition in that field due to strong grasping of the underlying concepts. You are much likely to enter a flow state which will leverage your creativity to the maximum extent.

People who are more creative due to genetic dispositions rapidly apply themselves to the study of their field's intracies before actually blasting the noggins of everybody with creativity.

 

[ZenRaiden]

This whole spiel arises out of my being pissed off by people who say what I listen to isn't "real" music. I'm sick of this bullshit elitism about art, with these pathetic snobs who think they're cultured because they cant appreciate as wide a range of artistic expression as I do. Fuckers want to hide behind all sorts of nonsensical definitions of art that don't stand up to scrutiny, so I've boiled down one that I think actually holds water:

I can appreciate music, but not like it.
I certainly don't enjoy music on any specific basis other than it sounds good or not, maybe the message or whatever.

Enjoying music can have more than one dimension.
Music can be annoying and distracting.
So you will not like it no matter how good it is.
It can be good for few times, then you just move on.

You can have high quality music, but not relate to it.
You can have interesting music "something different" and enjoy for its difference, but it might not be that high complexity or different.

You can have something relatable in music for whatever reason, but it might not be relatable.

Personally music is mostly commercial, trying to target groups and audiences.
Pop music is basically the key to creating melodies and tunes to reach more people thus make more money.

 

[AntaresVII]

Your definition of art lacks in somethings. Someone who is not good at making art, but intentionally applies the principles of their craft creates things that are more artful than someone who is more "talented" but isn't consciously applying principles of said art.

Not quite, I think. This is why I allow for artistic "discovery". The artist may not be entirely aware of what makes their art a complex order, but they can clearly recognize that whatever they're doing is producing one, and therefore the order is intentional, if perhaps less so than someone who does fully understand what's going on.
And if an amateur artist happens to make something really intricate by careful application of basic techniques (the beginner's success itself perhaps viable be called "accidental") then theres no reason to say that in that instant and that piece of art they are a better artist or have produced better art than someone with a lot of talent who doesn't really understand what makes what they do work, even if their art is typically found to be more beautiful.

Sure complexity is unlikely for a novice, but with your example, complexity can be given by the environment and be limited to how and where someone points a camera.

And talented artists are unlikely to produce good art if they don't actually understand what makes what they do work, at least to some intuitive degree. I think this balances out.

Thus things like landscape/portrait photography have ceiling when compared to something artificiality created, relative to artfulness under the definition.

As for photography, yes, complexity of the art is reduced by the fact that it's the art of recording natural complexity which doesn't give you credit for the record, only the recording.
Painting a good landscape takes a thousandfold more artistic ability and effort than to take a good picture of a landscape, so it's totally possible for a photograph to be more beautiful than a painting and yet clearly inferior as a work of art.

 

[AntaresVII]

Artists are cultured for a simple reason - Cultural knowledge is directly proportional to divergent thinking because it is a form of open-mindedness.

Thats what bothers me most about the eltisim in art: The artists they so revere are as a general rule their exact antithesis.

Complexity leads to more skill which leads to better intuition in that field due to strong grasping of the underlying concepts. You are much likely to enter a flow state which will leverage your creativity to the maximum extent.

It's interesting relative to my definition to note that as one becomes more practiced at crafting a complexity it becomes less of a conscious endeavor. I don't think that it's fair to say that that makes it less intentional, though, and in fact the "flow" state that we associate with the best of artistry is one of minimal interference of thought with action.
— Maybe it's not that we aren't being as intentional in such a state, but that we've managed an optimal efficiency in terms of what it is that we want to be intentionally thinking about, quantifying sets of actions that we've practiced to the point of automation so we can build an order without having to think about every constituent sub-action every time we perform a known process.

 

[birdsnestfern]

I don't have much to add, but this reflection on water of sky happened to look like Mother Natures face. So, it wasn't intentional, I never saw it until I uploaded the photo. Anyway, it turned itself into art in a way. But, art might be an interpretation of something by our own minds. Its what we see in it, and everyone sees something different.

Someone might photograph rain on the windshield at night with varying red and green lights shining thru, and then put it to music so its timed just right, and it turns out looking a lot like art, and then the effort to match different media looks even more artistic.

* photo deleted

But, bottom line is, it kind of needs an original thumbprint to be artistic.

 

[AntaresVII]

I can appreciate music, but not like it.

This. Beauty is subjective, artistic quality is not. I don't enjoy country music, but I understand why people do, and can appreciate that it is the product of legitimate artistic effort. What I find beautiful is not the limits of what is art, nor what is acceptable for others to find beautiful, which is the mindset that I think is the problem with snobbery and elitism.

Personally music is mostly commercial, trying to target groups and audiences.
Pop music is basically the key to creating melodies and tunes to reach more people thus make more money.

I'm not sure to what degree you can call that commercial, though. The majority of popular pop is produced by a handful or two of artists, and corporate music as you see in advertising is notoriously soulless. Since money is very much of interest to corporations [citation needed] one would expect them to be better at creating tracks for their advertising such as would be popular enough to spread interest in their product solely by the popularity of the music (this is clearly some marketing director's wet dream) but instead we find them seeking out collaboration with popular artists for this kind of endeavor, and those that cant afford this generating mind-numbing garbage you cant be bothered to notice let alone remember.

Thus it would seem that mass appeal is something that is, in fact, quite difficult to get right, even if pop as a genre generally isn't the pinnacle of artistic merit in music.

 

[AntaresVII]

I don't have much to add, but this reflection on water of sky happened to look like Mother Natures face. So, it wasn't intentional, I never saw it until I uploaded the photo. Anyway, it turned itself into art in a way. But, art might be an interpretation of something by our own minds. Its what we see in it, and everyone sees something different.

Wow, way to case-in-point my hypothetical example.
This is again why I think it's fair to "discover" art. I'd give the same photo more artistic merit if I was told the effect was captured on purpose, but the fact that you "found" something that isn't inherently part of the image within its form is exactly why I say it's fair to call this kind of thing "intentioned". By suggesting non-obvious order within something you've essentially created the set of instructions necessary for other people's minds to find it, which makes it to some degree your creation

If the face were super obvious, though, I think it would lapse back into the realm of "nature's art" where it may be complex and beautiful, but we aren't about to credit you for that.

 

[birdsnestfern]

Right, so now, if I draw/paint that image, it might be art because its 'created' media rather than 'captured'. Anyway, it needs to have some individual thumbprint to it. And as with synthesizer music, electronica, it sounds like art, but much of it is digital and mimicry. But, we interpret something out of it anyway. The notes can be made to elicit different feelings depending on chords, tempo, melodies and lyrics. So much of Rap music is following a specific recipe that starts looking like non-art to some but music gets interpreted in the heart to many, and not everyone wants to see it from the heart. It might be from realism and if its too real, without that twist I'm not sure it is recognized as art.

 

[ZenRaiden]

If people relate to something, it usually means more to them.
Like for example classic music can be very melodic and have a calming effect due to its harmony and what not, but I don't think I would go out of my way to listen to a opera or some wagner thing because of that.

Its just that the music centuries ago was made as Antares says for elite, who could sit there and actually did know the language it was sung in and had a good time sitting for 6 hours, because they had no pressing issue like the ordinary people who had to make a life doing hard labor for example.

I also don't think everyone enjoyed the music for 6 hours, no more than your average audience can enjoy a random sermon of some priest who pics something in the bible to rant about and possible fit a passage to fit to current politics to advertise his political alliance.

I mean the music is the same, but it would be a stretch to pretend I actually understand or relate to it same way as for people it was made for.

Same way I think rap music can be relatable, but I think its more relatable to people who actually get to live in the circumstances.

Its hardly relatable though if big chunk of it is something you don't experience.

In other terms you can actually look at country music as relatable more to people who live in or were living in country.

 

[BurnedOut]

handful or two of artists

With tonnes of people writing the melody and the lyrics. It turns the artist into a mere deliverer of style. That is labelled as originality. The veracity of making such a claim is debatable although a brief metanalaysis of pop songs and the armies of people aiding its production does point to the fact that pop music is heavily commercially motivated.

Thats what bothers me most about the eltisim in art: The artists they so revere are as a general rule their exact antithesis.

I will give you an example to demonstrate how creativity breaks convention after a certain amount of cultural assimilation. Compare Yngwie Malstreem with Joe Satriani. They both are excellent guitar players but the latter's music is much more creative than the former. Satriani beats the shit out of Malstreem when it comes to making his guitar sing. Malstreem forms the league of 80s shredders, most of whom, never saw the light of day in contemporary times

 

[Geauvoir]

EndogenousRebel is right, your definition is lacking something. Intentional design and complexity can be found in a computer or a mobile phone. Someone put these complex pieces together very intentionally. But we don't consider our mobile phones art. Birdnestfern is correct that art needs an individual thumbprint. Perhaps we don't consider phones art because they are mass-manufactured. Then do we consider the first phone ever made art?

Ehhh. Not really.

I don't think we can really define art. I write poetry quite seriously and I recently came to an epiphany: part of the poetic process has to do with understanding what poetry is. The poets and academics haven't ever settled on an exact definition of poetry. Recognizing a poem is a cultivated instinct; that's why beginners are bad at it. They can't emulate something that they don't even know the shape or definition of. As you read more and you understand what poetry is and how it exists, you become a better poet.

The same applies for art. The journey to being a better artist is continually understanding and re-understanding what art is from your perspective. We can't define art because the very definition of art is the whole journey of the artist.

I dug around in my archives and found some notes I wrote on art when I was 15. (I'm not an art student by the way. I just like poetry):

Art, comes in many forms but essentially it is creation that is cared for and which cares for others, in the sense that it revolves around a core subject.

The meaning of art is different for the creator and the connoisseur. I assign meaning as a sense of purpose or created emotion. A creator creates firstly for the sake of the ego. All artists want to be recognised for their unique traits. Although this is a shallow reason, it gives us a purpose and often becomes the first driving force after a creator discovers a curiosity or affinity for some form. Another reason is genuine appreciation and dedication to the whole intrinsic concept of art. That's a much better reason, but a much weaker driving force. It's nice to be able to do something for the sole sake of bringing something significant to the world which can excite feelings and inspire dreams and tell stories. To be able to create art solely because you want this vision of yours to come into existence is beautiful because of the artist's complete selflessness and focus. It's rarer but present to some extent in all works.

A big part of it can be attributed to self-expression. Art is a physical medium through which complex emotions and opinions can be translated. The artist takes a piece of life or belief and shapes it into something for someone else; the viewer learns to understand a story that is not his own, but one that will inevitably fit somehow into his own life. I think we see in art what we see in ourselves - in short, we see what we believe in, or want to believe in. For the creator, art is liberating. I think Eckhart Tolle put it best with "All true artists, whether they know it or not, create from a place of no-mind, from inner stillness". There is definitely intent, but the creative process is driven by instinct and inner calmness. This liberation only comes when we stop caring - whether we're original enough, whether it will be well-received, whether we're making a series of right decisions.


Inspiring, powerful, necessary art is determined beyond its technical aspects of craft and skill, though that is a first qualification. We have to ask what service it provides, whether it transcends time and changing societies. Art is a symbol of universal experience and emotion, is about connection and communication. I think that truly great works of art remind us of things that have meant something to us for so long that they have become internalized and forgotten. They evoke emotion which humanizes and inspires people to do something of their free will and desire.

 

[Rook]

art is reality shaping reality

 

[Geauvoir]

art is reality shaping reality

Oscar Wilde once said that contrary to what people think, art doesn't mirror life. Art mirrors our perception of art. In a way, you're kind of right about the word "reality".

 

[AntaresVII]

EndogenousRebel is right, your definition is lacking something. Intentional design and complexity can be found in a computer or a mobile phone. Someone put these complex pieces together very intentionally. But we don't consider our mobile phones art.

Good engineering is art. Like I said, I take a very broad view on what counts as art. As far as I can reason it out, all legitimately creative endeavors are art.

I also want more or less objective criteria for determining the quality of art, which demands I cut any subjective evaluations of it from the definition. And this because art isn't limited to what any one person or even group of people finds beautiful.

Each individual mobile phone is mass-produced, sure, but that is simply an effective copying mechanism for what is at its core a work of art to rival much of the more obviously artistic work people see displayed through its screen.

If you don't think your phone is art you lack a proper sense of wonder about it. And make no mistake, the way your phone looks is the explicitly artistic choice of someone's design. And the workings within may be foreign to your understanding, but to those who do know them they are again meticulously crafted with every bit as much creative ingenuity.

 

[Rook]

Every human observes a different art therefore any one meaning is insignificant. There are men awed by the majesty of power pylons and cargo ships, seeing in them a near_deitical megalith representing primal forces of nature and commerce. Sometimes what I see in trees and clouds is more beautiful than what I se on a screen or canvas,so who,s to judge?

 

[Geauvoir]

EndogenousRebel is right, your definition is lacking something. Intentional design and complexity can be found in a computer or a mobile phone. Someone put these complex pieces together very intentionally. But we don't consider our mobile phones art.

View attachment 6188

Good engineering is art. Like I said, I take a very broad view on what counts as art. As far as I can reason it out, all legitimately creative endeavors are art.

I also want more or less objective criteria for determining the quality of art, which demands I cut any subjective evaluations of it from the definition. And this because art isn't limited to what any one person or even group of people finds beautiful.

Each individual mobile phone is mass-produced, sure, but that is simply an effective copying mechanism for what is at its core a work of art to rival much of the more obviously artistic work people see displayed through its screen.

If you don't think your phone is art you lack a proper sense of wonder about it. And make no mistake, the way your phone looks is the explicitly artistic choice of someone's design. And the workings within may be foreign to your understanding, but to those who do know them they are again meticulously crafted with every bit as much creative ingenuity.

And yet the fact remains that most people simply don't associate their phones with art. I did consider the design of a phone but I don't know if all design can be considered art. Some designs are definitely art. Some are not. That's a bit of a grey area. (Or maybe I'm the art snob that you're referring to, lol!)

I think phones could be used in art. If an artist created an art installation of phones to talk about say, social media, that would be art. And while you personally may consider phones to be art, the large majority of humankind doesn't. So it remains a grey area.

 

[Geauvoir]

Every human observes a different art therefore any one meaning is insignificant. There are men awed by the majesty of power pylons and cargo ships, seeing in them a near_deitical megalith representing primal forces of nature and commerce. Sometimes what I see in trees and clouds is more beautiful than what I se on a screen or canvas,so who,s to judge?

I don't think finding beauty in something or being emotionally moved is enough to substantiate a definition of art. Even if it is prettier than art.

 

[Rook]

If you visualize some things the right way their complexity as a whole might form a theme grand in the mind. Shapes in the clouds create roaring gods being engulfed by gossamer dragons of silver grey smoke. Striatiaons and chipping on a rock can reveal a castle on the crags surrounded by sharply branching sienna crystal trees. A face in the bark can look like a jester from the void winking and laughing in the moth buzzing lumelight. The cry of cricket and jackal and rustle of branch in wind becomes a symphony more glorius thann any fancy man in a wig couldve ever composed.

These themes,scenes recorded by senses. Imprints on subcon, memories, alters, can be further expanded upon in any medium. Writing sculpture interprative dance ketchup stains on an elephants belly or they can simply be marvelled at.

Trainspotter culture, chad,jock,dad thing of obsessing over carsand vehichles, architecture, ppl straight up having festishes for objects including baloons and cars. Collectible toys armyhelmets rusted old iron junk.


The way the sky at night over mountains make it like the world is a cracked egg and exposed to the void, tree branches can make it seem as if reality itself is fragmenting. Watching a play,a scene forms in my mind and this I use in my own movie released after three years of production and many reshoots.


Where does art start?

 

[AntaresVII]

And yet the fact remains that most people simply don't associate their phones with art.

Most people don't think the music I listen to is art either. We're back to why I proposed this definition in the first place. — Clearly, "most people" considering something art is not an actual requirement for something to actually be art.

I did consider the design of a phone but I don't know if all design can be considered art. Some designs are definitely art. Some are not. That's a bit of a grey area. (Or maybe I'm the art snob that you're referring to, lol!)

A design, like any art, can be more or less artistic as a measure of intentional complexity. Outside of those measures, I don't see how you could possibly make a delineation to separate artistic from non-artistic designs, which is, again, why I propose this definition in the first place.
As you say, if you can't actually make a logical distinction between what you call art and not so, you would indeed just be a snob, making a pretense of objectivity out of your subjective tastes.

On that topic, so far, I don't see that you have put forward any delineation at all, unless at common perception, which is just way too obviously problematic (people think of as art that which they have been told to recognize as such, while artists forcibly reconstruct those perceptions. Also, people commonly disagree on what counts as art, which just breaks this definition outright). So, where would you draw the line?

I think phones could be used in art. If an artist created an art installation of phones to talk about say, social media, that would be art. And while you personally may consider phones to be art, the large majority of humankind doesn't. So it remains a grey area.

Again, most people considering something art or not neither makes or breaks something's artistry. If art had to be be popular before it were so called it wouldn't exist.

 

[AntaresVII]

Where does art start?

The clouds in the sky are not art. What you see in them is.
Art starts where intentional human crafting alters existing reality, or at least perception of reality.

You choose to see a cloud as a dog. You know it isn't, but you decide it looks like one, and that imagining is art. It's not the most remarkable or profound art, but art nonetheless.

 

[Rook]

A.Is make art. Dogs, elephants, chimps.

Is an anthill art?

Flowers? Only if I arrange or paint them? I'm saying there are no limits. If photography is considered an art then the rest of reality surely has merit as well, even be it that the display is of a transient nature> for in the end all shows must end.

 

[Geauvoir]

And yet the fact remains that most people simply don't associate their phones with art.

Most people don't think the music I listen to is art either. We're back to why I proposed this definition in the first place. — Clearly, "most people" considering something art is not an actual requirement for something to actually be art.

I did consider the design of a phone but I don't know if all design can be considered art. Some designs are definitely art. Some are not. That's a bit of a grey area. (Or maybe I'm the art snob that you're referring to, lol!)

A design, like any art, can be more or less artistic as a measure of intentional complexity. Outside of those measures, I don't see how you could possibly make a delineation to separate artistic from non-artistic designs, which is, again, why I propose this definition in the first place.
As you say, if you can't actually make a logical distinction between what you call art and not so, you would indeed just be a snob, making a pretense of objectivity out of your subjective tastes.

On that topic, so far, I don't see that you have put forward any delineation at all, unless at common perception, which is just way too obviously problematic (people think of as art that which they have been told to recognize as such, while artists forcibly reconstruct those perceptions. Also, people commonly disagree on what counts as art, which just breaks this definition outright). So, where would you draw the line?

I think phones could be used in art. If an artist created an art installation of phones to talk about say, social media, that would be art. And while you personally may consider phones to be art, the large majority of humankind doesn't. So it remains a grey area.

Again, most people considering something art or not neither makes or breaks something's artistry. If art had to be be popular before it were so called it wouldn't exist.

Okay, it's late and I will respond to your comment tomorrow because there's a very long argument to make. But I have one question: have you ever made art or been seriously involved in any art form?

This would definitely affect your perception of the definition of art. People and scholars who are serious about making art and who are involved in the study of art actually tend to have common agreement on what is art and what is shit and what is utility. Oh, they disagree sometimes of course. But you must understand that it goes against the principles of skilled creative activity to be delineated into clean black and white lines. It can be delineated to some extent. To break it down is to simplify and disrespect it.

I personally believe, like Oscar Wilde, that all art is quite useless. Sure, it might convey a social/emotional message sometimes but the biggest excuse for making art is that one admires it quite intensely. Art is a peacock. And none of them was an argument - just my pretext of sorts.

 

[AntaresVII]

A.Is make art. Dogs, elephants, chimps.

Art-making AI's are made by humans. So far none of them are sentient.
As for animals, sure, art, so far as it is intentional. Mostly though we care about human art as we can clearly confirm what is and isn't intentional with each other.

Is an anthill art?

Are ants aware of the larger effects of their actions? As far as I know it seems to be mostly instinct, and so far we haven't figured out how to ask them otherwise.

Flowers? Only if I arrange or paint them?

Sentience is necessary for intention. Flowers don't seem to be very self-aware, people arranging flowers definitely are.

I'm saying there are no limits. If photography is considered an art then the rest of reality surely has merit as well

Why? Photography is intentioned human crafting of a recording of reality. I don't see how that implies all of reality is intentionally crafted.

Now of course I did say, and by my definition logically imply, that art has very broad bounds. Smiling at someone as you pass them in the street is art. As someone who doesn't smile all that often and has to actively think about it, it is even more so. So on and forth for all intentioned human actions.

They key though is that what we generally think of as art is that art which consists the highest degrees of intentioned complexity. Smiling at someone as you pass someone in the street in just the right way while a camera watches (optional) is called acting, and recognized as art because it is taken to the furthest extremes of intentional control.

 

[Rook]

A.Is make art. Dogs, elephants, chimps.

Art-making AI's are made by humans. So far none of them are sentient.
As for animals, sure, art, so far as it is intentional. Mostly though we care about human art as we can clearly confirm what is and isn't intentional with each other.

Is an anthill art?

Are ants aware of the larger effects of their actions? As far as I know it seems to be mostly instinct, and so far we haven't figured out how to ask them otherwise.

Flowers? Only if I arrange or paint them?

Sentience is necessary for intention. Flowers don't seem to be very self-aware, people arranging flowers definitely are.

I'm saying there are no limits. If photography is considered an art then the rest of reality surely has merit as well

Why? Photography is intentioned human crafting of a recording of reality. I don't see how that implies all of reality is intentionally crafted.

Now of course I did say, and by my definition logically imply, that art has very broad bounds. Smiling at someone as you pass them in the street is art. As someone who doesn't smile all that often and has to actively think about it, it is even more so. So on and forth for all intentioned human actions.

They key though is that what we generally think of as art is that art which consists the highest degrees of intentioned complexity. Smiling at someone as you pass someone in the street in just the right way while a camera watches (optional) is called acting, and recognized as art because it is taken to the furthest extremes of intentional control.

yeah you're right on all the above what i'm saying is that i also consider unintentioned complexity/simplicity to be art. i'm not peddling my belief, 'tis just how i view reality.

looking at dying stars and expanding galaxies, earth formed by wind, water and root. shadows cast on a wall. reflections in a glass. all is see that's different is method tbh. surely being in the mountains i enjoy more than looking at a painting of mountains. a camera is merely a device which solidifies a scene of the universe past its happening in a flat shiny format. the fact that primates constructed the device and operate it are supererogatory.

art in no way transcends reality. it is reality. once we construct statues which' girth transcends dimensions and reaches into other universes we will have such art. dreams are art... what makes them so different from films? the fact that a human doth not direct them? but ah, they are the director, its somnolent self!

if a tree grows just so or a rock is groovy then, even if no sentient intent was behind its creation, any one out billions of humans who are ever to walk by it might think cool, some might create stories in their heads, other marvel at the texture as they run their fingers along the grooves. ranking and classing facets of a universe which if not infinite seems to be is less enjoyable a pastime than appreciating the manifold wonder that reality can yield, whether from the actions of atmosphere or moon or finches or krautrock or from viewing a painting of a frog knight burying its sword into the chest of a hundred-nosed monster composed entirely of jellyfied birds.

i'm sure, if they exist, that there are some aliens out there who consider the death of suns as the highest ratest show, whether they cause the event or not. saying that only humans enjoy art.. do birds not revel in their song? dogs in their hunt?

and ruins, those hollowed haunts of time, are so beautiful and full of character... how to convey that to another medium without losing the feeling of standing beneath the shattered visage of a forgotten god, vines creeping into cracks between its eyes?

 

[AntaresVII]

I have one question: have you ever made art or been seriously involved in any art form?

Depends on what you call art, doesn't it?
By your previous arguments I can assume you want to know if I've been involved in something most people chiefly consider art, but artists are exactly the kind of people to make people see art where they thought it wasn't.

This would definitely affect your perception of the definition of art. People and scholars who are serious about making art and who are involved in the study of art actually tend to have common agreement on what is art and what is shit and what is utility.

And lots of them are snobs who can't actually give logical reasoning to their judgements, while actual artists tend to be the most open minded as to what actually constitutes art. Also, to study "art" they had to first put limits on what they considered art, far stricter than those I am here.

Oh, they disagree sometimes of course. But you must understand that it goes against the principles of skilled creative activity to be delineated into clean black and white lines.

I don't think you realize just how broad my definition of art is. Crafted complexity is literally anything done on purpose. What makes my definition work is that what most people chiefly think of as art is that art which is of the highest intentional complexity.

It can be delineated to some extent. To break it down is to simplify and disrespect it.

No, it's not. Disrespect only comes from failing to recognize the effort taken to create complexity, or failing to actually see the complexity itself. Saying "it's just a bunch of pain on a bit of cloth" is insulting to a painting because it fails to recognize the complexity in the application and resulting form of that paint.

Breaking down what those complexities are by examining the techniques used to make the art the way it is is possibly the highest compliment you can possibly pay it, making the effort to actually perceive the complexity and effort in what you see instead of just going "wow, pretty" and moving on.

I personally believe, like Oscar Wilde, that all art is quite useless.

I assume by "useless" you mean "used solely for enjoyment of itself" which is a fair way of defining a category of art that is distinct from, say, engineering, which I suppose you could call more "pure" in that it is focused solely on creative freedom, unrestrained by practical limitations. But you can also say that having to create something, especially something beautiful, with practical limitations is equally creative. Most people consider a Ferrari a work of art, no?

Sure, it might convey a social/emotional message sometimes but the biggest excuse for making art is that one admires it quite intensely. Art is a peacock. And none of them was an argument - just my pretext of sorts.

Art doesn't have to be useful, certainly, but that doesn't mean it can't be.

 

[AntaresVII]

what i'm saying is that i also consider unintentioned complexity/simplicity to be art. i'm not peddling my belief, 'tis just how i view reality.

Fair enough. Like I said in my original post, you can certainly call it something like "nature's/god's art" and it is undoubtedly beautiful.

I suppose I'm just making a practical distinction for art that can be credited to an artist, beauty that has an identifiable source and can be reasonably critiqued as being better or worse at being artful, which you cant really do for a pretty rock besides your subjective opinion.

 

[Rook]

beauty that has an identifiable source and can be reasonably critiqued as being better or worse at being artful, which you cant really do for a pretty rock besides your subjective opinion.

which is exactly my opinion on human created works: entirely subjective.

oh sure a whole bunch of wine-swilling sophistacos might hmm and hah at this painting or that in the auction, citing da-vincian swirls and the golden arched mussel of aristotle, but you give three five-year olds one bucket of paint and a barrel full water balloons in that selfsame gallery they will have more fun in five minutes than all them fancy folk had in an hour.

nfts, urine and shit displays, a bedroom: human art i view as i view human fetishes, to each their own and i'll appreciate what i appreciate and seek what i seek cos das who i am.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I think that the best that can be hoped for is saying art requires an elevation/exhibition of what is already real. Accepting that, and then the debate would stem parsing whether or not that is redundant. If we use reality to make art why not reality itself be art? Well then of course for what reason do we use the word art.

This requires the use of a different word, like aesthetic/beauty. Whatever word we chose, it is what art illicits. But then the word art becomes useless again because these things are already in reality is it not? Aesthetic/beauty are subjective qualities artists try to instill in their work.

I suppose the error lies in the necessity to declare that something is valuable without having to justify that it is aesthetic. Language isn't owned by anyone unfortunately but I do sympathize with attempts for order. But I'm pulling questions from this that no one person can answer:

If I look at two separate things and get the same quality impression, at what point do like attributions of those things become inappropriate?

IE, feeling aesthetic appeasement when looking at a horizon in person, and feeling that when looking at a rendition of a horizon made by an artist.

Obviously there are different qualities present there, with the knowledge of agent intervention in that second context, thus there are certainly somethings that is completely different for the experiencer. But that aesthetic feeling may very much be present in both situations.

I think the next question to be answered would be: Can I look at this thread as art if I get that aesthetic appeal? Can I say that this thread is a collaborative art work because of the intention, or are my feelings irrelevant because one or no one person was intending on artistic production?

Of course if this sensory impression appearing is the only thing that limits art and no one can negate that, then a turd, a stray mark from a highlighter, can be art.

@AntaresVII Would you be happy with perhaps, anything being able to be elevated to art via a defendable articulation that meets certain standards? If I can describe why such a thing should be meaningful and contains intersecting significant reflections of reality, representing reality in a dynamic way, would that be art?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

What I wrote is overly convoluted. It's just funny how I can throw together some words that incorporate something that isn't art, whether poorly or not, and to you that would constitute as more artful than the thing itself.

The experience is what makes things worth while, so I would just assume that this is what defines things, but perhaps that is the wrong approach. Tied up in cultural attitudes and what not.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Let me take a crack at it: Art is anything which you can pin a narrative onto.

 

[Puffy]

Nevermind (:

 

[Rook]

@Puffy yeah that makes sense, definitely agree about approaching something with an open heart, feeling and sensing it more than studying and understanding it.

in some pieces beauty might be the only factor, but when listening to death metal or playing dwarf fortress, while such things can have beauty i do not think it is that alone which draws the appreciator but a whole slew of other factors depending on how one appreciates a medium. horror movies might not be beautiful in a conventional sense yet their effect on emotions and instincts make them popular.

but i guess anytime someone likes something the see their own beauty in it.

 

[Puffy]

@Puffy yeah that makes sense, definitely agree about approaching something with an open heart, feeling and sensing it more than studying and understanding it.

in some pieces beauty might be the only factor, but when listening to death metal or playing dwarf fortress, while such things can have beauty i do not think it is that alone which draws the appreciator but a whole slew of other factors depending on how one appreciates a medium. horror movies might not be beautiful in a conventional sense yet their effect on emotions and instincts make them popular.

Yeah I know what you mean. I appreciate a lot of non-heart pieces like metal and stuff as well for different reasons so I don’t intend it as a judgement. I deleted my post as I realise this is a massive topic and I’m unsure I have the energy for it at the moment.

 

[Rook]

Yeah I know what you mean. I appreciate a lot of non-heart pieces like metal and stuff as well for different reasons so I don’t intend it as a judgement. I deleted my post as I realise this is a massive topic and I’m unsure I have the energy for it at the moment.

yeah np i added a sentence to mine cos i felt i was off the mark. and i'm not too serious here so don't worry about deleting large posts n all that

 

[Puffy]

Yeah I know what you mean. I appreciate a lot of non-heart pieces like metal and stuff as well for different reasons so I don’t intend it as a judgement. I deleted my post as I realise this is a massive topic and I’m unsure I have the energy for it at the moment.

yeah np i added a sentence to mine cos i felt i was off the mark. and i'm not too serious here so don't worry about deleting large posts n all that

Yeah fair enough. I'll repost the original post below. I can tend to be a perfectionist and stay silent if I don't have time to fully flesh a thought or response out. Apologies if I don't come back to any responses in this thread for a while as I think I need a break from posting to recharge for a bit.

----

I'm aligned with Christopher Alexander's discussion of art in his work on architecture, The Nature of Order. It's over 2000 pages so I can only over-simplify it here.

In that he's essentially attempting to arrive at a definition of beauty. He believes that everyone appreciates beauty and defines objective measures by which one thing can be considered more beautiful than another. Of interest, he demonstrates how traditional art and buildings tends to conform with these patterns and how modern art is a relatively recent historical experiment in deviating from it.

Some have taken the same patterns that he documents for visual art, like architecture or painting, and have also applied it to music and written arts like poetry.

For him real beauty opens the heart. It's through an open heart that we're able to create and appreciate beautiful things. People these days tend to be stuck in their heads too much, so we're not able to feel with our hearts -- some might not even have any concept of what I mean by this -- and are attracted to mentally stimulating things. So art has become a purely intellectual exercise which is divergent from how traditional art is appreciated. Simply visit a non-industrial traditional society today like in regions of the Andes and you'll see what I mean.

I agree with Geauvoir that your definition lacks something. It lacks heart or beauty. I think art is undergoing something of a crises in the modern world. For me it's because people only know how to create conceptual art with their brains and have forgotten how to create beautiful art with their hearts.

 

[AntaresVII]

I agree with Geauvoir that your definition lacks something. It lacks heart or beauty. I think art is undergoing something of a crises in the modern world. For me it's because people only know how to create conceptual art with their brains and have forgotten how to create beautiful art with their hearts.

Here’s something I drew myself. If anything is created with “heart” I should think this is.

From an outside perspective you might not be able see why I should say so. I can imagine it might look like I just had an idea for an interesting image and calculatingly drew it out in the “conceptual” method you mention.
But that’s not the case at all.

I made this in a sheer outpouring of emotion, as an attempt to express the pent up screams of pride and agony that torment my existence.
It may well be the most sincere expression of myself I have ever managed.
This is art made not as an analytical realization of a concept, but as an almost involuntary product of the indomitable urge to externalize my psyche.
If that's not made with "the heart" I don't see what could be.

Now here's another:

I think most people would find it much easier to find "heart" in this, as the depiction is much easier to interpret emotionally.
But, while it's not unrelated to myself, it's much less personally accurate than the first drawing; as a self-expression, it is significantly less sincere.

On top of that, the first drawing is also more technically intricate: It took much more care and practiced skill to make it look the way it does than this second, which, though still not effortless, was much more chaotic and was drawn for the most part by quasi-random, lightly-controlled scribbling.

As I see it, the first drawing is an objectively better piece of art than the second, as well as one with more "heart", yet at a glance I think most people would prefer the second, and furthermore consider it to be "made with more heart".

But here's the crux of the matter: when I talk about art being a product of "complexity", I'm not just referring to use of difficult techniques. The symbolic significance and depth of sincerity of the first drawing is certainly an element of complexity, albeit one which is liable to be missed by many if not most.
The "heart" of which you speak is in no way excluded from my definition, and so the only fault you could claim on that account is that I don't exclude work which doesn't have it. I see no reason, however, to insist that an artist must have a specific attitude about their work for it to count as art.
Perhaps it is the case that art made with "heart" is generally more creatively complex than that made without, but "heart" can presumably be present in continuously variable degree, making it impossible to claim an objective reference for crossover into "art" if it were to be used as a qualifying factor.

As for the presence of "beauty", as I said from the start, beauty is entirely subjective. I find deathstep to be at times incomprehensibly beautiful, while most people at best hear it as nought but noise, if not outright unbearable. Claiming "art must be beautiful" is like declaring "food must taste good". It means nothing because taste and beauty are inherently subjective.

 

[Old Things]

Like others have said, I think something is missing. What I think is missing is expression [of emotion]. We might also add that artists should theoretically get better at honing their craft over time. Of course, there could be other things at play that keeps the artist from making truly good art like over-commercialization and profit, for example.

But overall, I think art is better when:
1) The artist is trying to make excellent art (and competence goes with this).
2) They are not hindered or controlled in what they are producing.
3) They have the time and leisure to spend a lot of time honing their craft.

The complexity bit is very interesting. I think this is not necessarily needed to produce excellent art if the craft itself has been developed. But without that stipulation, complexity is a decent metric I think.

Ah, just thought of this, that may be a good point to make. I think the art should also be able to be repeated over and over with consistency. I think this would demonstrate mastery over your craft and would then be able to discount "beginners luck" in producing good art.

Now, I surely share the idea of having a wide palate of appreciation for different kinds of art. It is why I can like this:


As well as this:

 

[Puffy]

I agree with Geauvoir that your definition lacks something. It lacks heart or beauty. I think art is undergoing something of a crises in the modern world. For me it's because people only know how to create conceptual art with their brains and have forgotten how to create beautiful art with their hearts.

View attachment 6504Here’s something I drew myself. If anything is created with “heart” I should think this is.

From an outside perspective you might not be able see why I should say so. I can imagine it might look like I just had an idea for an interesting image and calculatingly drew it out in the “conceptual” method you mention.
But that’s not the case at all.

I made this in a sheer outpouring of emotion, as an attempt to express the pent up screams of pride and agony that torment my existence.
It may well be the most sincere expression of myself I have ever managed.
This is art made not as an analytical realization of a concept, but as an almost involuntary product of the indomitable urge to externalize my psyche.
If that's not made with "the heart" I don't see what could be.

Now here's another:
View attachment 6505
I think most people would find it much easier to find "heart" in this, as the depiction is much easier to interpret emotionally.
But, while it's not unrelated to myself, it's much less personally accurate than the first drawing; as a self-expression, it is significantly less sincere.

On top of that, the first drawing is also more technically intricate: It took much more care and practiced skill to make it look the way it does than this second, which, though still not effortless, was much more chaotic and was drawn for the most part by quasi-random, lightly-controlled scribbling.

As I see it, the first drawing is an objectively better piece of art than the second, as well as one with more "heart", yet at a glance I think most people would prefer the second, and furthermore consider it to be "made with more heart".

But here's the crux of the matter: when I talk about art being a product of "complexity", I'm not just referring to use of difficult techniques. The symbolic significance and depth of sincerity of the first drawing is certainly an element of complexity, albeit one which is liable to be missed by many if not most.
The "heart" of which you speak is in no way excluded from my definition, and so the only fault you could claim on that account is that I don't exclude work which doesn't have it. I see no reason, however, to insist that an artist must have a specific attitude about their work for it to count as art.
Perhaps it is the case that art made with "heart" is generally more creatively complex than that made without, but "heart" can presumably be present in continuously variable degree, making it impossible to claim an objective reference for crossover into "art" if it were to be used as a qualifying factor.

As for the presence of "beauty", as I said from the start, beauty is entirely subjective. I find deathstep to be at times incomprehensibly beautiful, while most people at best hear it as nought but noise, if not outright unbearable. Claiming "art must be beautiful" is like declaring "food must taste good". It means nothing because taste and beauty are inherently subjective.

I'm not personally interested in debating whether your image is art or not. As it's clearly personal to you, and me saying it is or isn't art is a statement that devalues something of value to you.

If we're purely discussing Alexander's definition of heart and beauty then I'm unsure what he'd make of these. He states it in a way that something has degrees of beauty to it. Your first image has more heart than the second by his standards. For him, it isn't just a case of whether something is expressive of emotion or not.

He is very metaphysical in his outlook and sees art as a means of connecting with something transcendent. Art is a mode of mirroring that and crafting it into material form. It's through an open heart, clear of the kind of emotions you're trying to release here in your drawing, that we recognise that.

He's gifted in showing how this form of art often obeys quite common patterns. He could take a range of pre-modern art from different cultures and show how there's a common underlying geometry and form at play, like a universal language. He would argue it's because the different cultures are connecting to the same transcendent essence of beauty and are merely expressing it through different cultural idioms.

So depending on your personal worldview, etc, you may not be interested in him. @Old Things I would recommend Alexander's series The Nature of Order as a bridge into our previous conversation on the plurality of different spiritual traditions. I do think you're mistaken in saying there is no relationship among different spiritual traditions. Alexander is Catholic himself and goes to pains to show how the underlying form of the art from different spiritual traditions is basically the same. i.e. That they're connecting to the same thing in different ways.

 

[AntaresVII]

Like others have said, I think something is missing. What I think is missing is expression [of emotion].

Just one more aspect of complexity. Again, I see no reason that this particular element must be present for something to be considered art, but I certainly recognize that its present does improve art, which is to say it does make it more artful.
Note also that this too is a continuous variable and as such is impossible to use to objectively delineate art from non-art if used as a qualifier.

We might also add that artists should theoretically get better at honing their craft over time.

Superfluous. Does an artist's past art get less artistic over time if they don't keep improving? I think not. I will say that making art in the same style at the same skill level over and over can certainly be seen as less artful the more it is iterated as it is no longer crafting, but simply imitation of past effort.

Of course, there could be other things at play that keeps the artist from making truly good art like over-commercialization and profit, for example.

But being a commercial success doesn't make art less artful, so this is just a complaint against art quality suffering due to profit rather than quality motives.

But overall, I think art is better when:
1) The artist is trying to make excellent art (and competence goes with this).
2) They are not hindered or controlled in what they are producing.
3) They have the time and leisure to spend a lot of time honing their craft.

This is all pretty reasonable, but it's simply a set criteria for "high" or "good" art, drawing an ultimately arbitrary line between less and more artful art so you can focus on the range of quality that you think is best. This doesn't make poorer art "not art" though.

The complexity bit is very interesting. I think this is not necessarily needed to produce excellent art if the craft itself has been developed.

Developed craft is complexity. Some art can look simple, but you know it's not something just anyone can just throw together.
Of course, some actually simple art can still be quite beautiful, but because it's so easily replicated you wouldn't, say put it in a museum.

Ah, just thought of this, that may be a good point to make. I think the art should also be able to be repeated over and over with consistency. I think this would demonstrate mastery over your craft and would then be able to discount "beginners luck" in producing good art.

I agree, consistency is a good way of determining what degree of control an artist has over their work's complexity. There is of course some value in an accidentally good piece of art, but the same piece you know was done with more intention and understanding should, I think, be considered better art, as ephemeral as that may be, since the whole point of art as opposed to just natural beauty is the fact of control and understanding.

 

[Old Things]

So depending on your personal worldview, etc, you may not be interested in him. @Old Things I would recommend Alexander's series The Nature of Order as a bridge into our previous conversation on the plurality of different spiritual traditions. I do think you're mistaken in saying there is no relationship among different spiritual traditions. Alexander is Catholic himself and goes to pains to show how the underlying form of the art from different spiritual traditions is basically the same. i.e. That they're connecting to the same thing in different ways.

What would be the link then between spiritual discipline and self-expression? It's not that there are no relationships between different religions, it is that the relationships are superficial. When you get down to the core of each religion's beliefs about the fundamental metaphysical properties of the universe, they are actually quite different.

Watch this video for more.


With one exception, I believe what this video says.

 

[Old Things]

Like others have said, I think something is missing. What I think is missing is expression [of emotion].

Just one more aspect of complexity. Again, I see no reason that this particular element must be present for something to be considered art, but I certainly recognize that its present does improve art, which is to say it does make it more artful.
Note also that this too is a continuous variable and as such is impossible to use to objectively delineate art from non-art if used as a qualifier.

We might also add that artists should theoretically get better at honing their craft over time.

Superfluous. Does an artist's past art get less artistic over time if they don't keep improving? I think not. I will say that making art in the same style at the same skill level over and over can certainly be seen as less artful the more it is iterated as it is no longer crafting, but simply imitation of past effort.

Of course, there could be other things at play that keeps the artist from making truly good art like over-commercialization and profit, for example.

But being a commercial success doesn't make art less artful, so this is just a complaint against art quality suffering due to profit rather than quality motives.

But overall, I think art is better when:
1) The artist is trying to make excellent art (and competence goes with this).
2) They are not hindered or controlled in what they are producing.
3) They have the time and leisure to spend a lot of time honing their craft.

This is all pretty reasonable, but it's simply a set criteria for "high" or "good" art, drawing an ultimately arbitrary line between less and more artful art so you can focus on the range of quality that you think is best. This doesn't make poorer art "not art" though.

The complexity bit is very interesting. I think this is not necessarily needed to produce excellent art if the craft itself has been developed.

Developed craft is complexity. Some art can look simple, but you know it's not something just anyone can just throw together.
Of course, some actually simple art can still be quite beautiful, but because it's so easily replicated you wouldn't, say put it in a museum.

Ah, just thought of this, that may be a good point to make. I think the art should also be able to be repeated over and over with consistency. I think this would demonstrate mastery over your craft and would then be able to discount "beginners luck" in producing good art.

I agree, consistency is a good way of determining what degree of control an artist has over their work's complexity. There is of course some value in an accidentally good piece of art, but the same piece you know was done with more intention and understanding should, I think, be considered better art, as ephemeral as that may be, since the whole point of art as opposed to just natural beauty is the fact of control and understanding.

It does seem that our fundamental differences are in how we classify art. I think at some point something is NOT art. For example, is brushing my teeth art? I don't think many people would intuitively think so. So while I agree more or less with what you have said, I think expression is a valuable piece of what constitutes art at its core, along with repeatability.

So your metrics seem to be about intentionality and complexity whereas I call it expression and repeatability. Perhaps we are both talking about two sides of the same coin.

 

[Puffy]

So depending on your personal worldview, etc, you may not be interested in him. @Old Things I would recommend Alexander's series The Nature of Order as a bridge into our previous conversation on the plurality of different spiritual traditions. I do think you're mistaken in saying there is no relationship among different spiritual traditions. Alexander is Catholic himself and goes to pains to show how the underlying form of the art from different spiritual traditions is basically the same. i.e. That they're connecting to the same thing in different ways.

What would be the link then between spiritual discipline and self-expression? It's not that there are no relationships between different religions, it is that the relationships are superficial. When you get down to the core of each religion's beliefs about the fundamental metaphysical properties of the universe, they are actually quite different.

Watch this video for more.


With one exception, I believe what this video says.

Well, for example and to try and stay on thread, I’d say one commonality is having an open heart. Within Christian tradition this is achieved through devotion, hymns and prayer. It’s not the only method but it is one shared by many cultures. Traditional Andean, Mexican and Native American traditions work with prayer, chants and songs; in Hinduism it’s referred to as Bhakti, in Buddhism it’s referred to as Metta.

When the heart is open it has a common language that is recognised across traditions. For example through traits like Loving kindness, forgiveness, compassion, humility, service. I’ve met people from many spiritual paths, including Christian, who seem to be in agreement that these are right ways of living.

To loosely bring this back on topic, for Alexander that’s what art is, it’s a form of prayer. A form of expressing devotion from the heart. In Christianity that might be like in the stained glass windows of Chartres Cathedral, in Islam the mosaics of the Alhambra, in the Amazon embroideries depicting ayahuasca visions. But if you look past the differences in the outer appearance (I.e different traditions) they share the same underlying geometry and form. Because they’re just open hearts connecting to the same thing using the different languages and cultural expressions they’re familiar with.

 

[Old Things]

To loosely bring this back on topic, for Alexander that’s what art is, it’s a form of prayer. A form of expressing devotion from the heart. In Christianity that might be like in the stained glass windows of Chartres Cathedral, in Islam the mosaics of the Alhambra, in the Amazon embroideries depicting ayahuasca visions. But if you look past the differences in the outer appearance (I.e different traditions) they share the same underlying geometry and form. Because they’re just open hearts connecting to the same thing using the different languages and cultural expressions they’re familiar with.

The outward manifestations are similar (because we are all human), but the fundamental axioms that people believe in different religions are totally different.

I'll try and stay on topic.

Art is all just an expression of some sort. The only real "devotion" there is in art is in "who?" you are trying to glorify in your art. Buddhists who do practice the art of taking hours and hours to build a picture out of the sand and as soon as it is done they erase it is basically just praising the void. Likewise, when the psalmist writes his poem to God, it is YHWH that he is glorifying. Art is in some sense praise to someone or something. It's all about who or what you are glorifying.

 

[AntaresVII]

I'm not personally interested in debating whether your image is art or not. As it's clearly personal to you, and me saying it is or isn't art is a statement that devalues something of value to you.

The fact that I value something doesn't make it art. I value time alone, and I don't see how that could possibly be considered art. Therefore, your calling it not art is not a devaluation, simply a challenge to the definition of "art".

I don't like to attach emotional value to things that have no logical reason to hold it, it just clouds one's perception of reality, and makes conversation subsequently vapid and unenjoyable.

But as you wish, I pass on:

If we're purely discussing Alexander's definition of heart and beauty then I'm unsure what he'd make of these. He states it in a way that something has degrees of beauty to it. Your first image has more heart than the second by his standards.

I agree beauty, and artistic quality, has degrees. I make my definition of art broad because I think even the least degree should be recognized for what it is, though by no means elevated beyond its merit.

For him, it isn't just a case of whether something is expressive of emotion or not.

He is very metaphysical in his outlook and sees art as a means of connecting with something transcendent.

Transcendence is a weird thing. Reality is fundamentally non-transcendable, as even impossible imagined things are a product of reality; so as I see it transcendence is essentially the quality of connecting to metaphysical truth.
Metaphysical reality is, by definition, reality when stripped of particulars. My understanding of transcendence is something like being able to reach beyond the literal and limited context of something that is technically particular and seeing it as the broader form of enduring truth.

You can tell me if you think that's closer to the mark than just "emotional expression".

Art is a mode of mirroring that and crafting it into material form. It's through an open heart, clear of the kind of emotions you're trying to release here in your drawing, that we recognise that.

I'll have to disagree on a key point here: My emotional expression in that art is not antithetical to an "open heart", at least as I understand you're presentation of it: as an ability to perceive and/or appreciate beauty in something on a transcendent/metaphysical level.
In fact, the those emotions are, I think, crucial to the transcendent nature of the art: It is an expression of both pride and agony, of complete freedom, self-sufficiency, capablity, power; and inescapable suffering, being trapped within oneself, helpless, weak.
You can see it in the drawing itself (at least I've tried to make that possible), as there is an inherent ambiguity as to whether the forces evidently erupting from the character are controlled and intentional, or overwhelming and involuntary. It goes right down to the pose of the character itself, stretched in what can as easily be seen as a stance of euphoric power as agonized victimhood.

I mean them both quite equally, and that is what is transcendent — metaphysically real — about it. Physical reality doesn't put up with such contradictions, but truth is often paradoxical. As Oscar Wilde put it "A truth is something whose opposite is also true."
And so my agony and joy are together the same, and I cannot say for sure that they contradict at all.
I am certain, however, that such a state of being could not possibly prevent me from seeing transcendent beauty, because I am quite certain that it is such a state.

 

[AntaresVII]

It does seem that our fundamental differences are in how we classify art. I think at some point something is NOT art. For example, is brushing my teeth art? I don't think many people would intuitively think so.

That's something I've had to consider for this definition a fair bit. I would consider brushing your teeth art, in a very, very small sense; but I completely understand that this doesn't fit intuitive notions of "art" and that although unavoidably arbitrary, for practical purposes (say, admitting pieces into a museum), you have to draw a line somewhere and say "yeah, fine, you can call your thing art, but it's not good art, and I'm not putting it on display"

I think of it like lighting up a room:
I'm looking to quantify light at its most fundamental core, and so if I detect a single photon in a dark room I'll say there's light in it.
For your part, you would say — and I absolutely understand why — that to call a room "lit" requires there to be, say, enough light to clearly see.

It's not that we disagree, really, about there being light in the room, — I know full well that the room is still dark — it's more that we're taking different approaches to our judgments: mine as a matter of absolute technicality, and yours as one of intuitive sense and practicality.

So your metrics seem to be about intentionality and complexity whereas I call it expression and repeatability. Perhaps we are both talking about two sides of the same coin.

That sounds about right. There's minor differences in the nuance, again I think based in our different approaches, — technicality vs practicality — but ultimately it probably boils down to semantics.

 

[Old Things]

It does seem that our fundamental differences are in how we classify art. I think at some point something is NOT art. For example, is brushing my teeth art? I don't think many people would intuitively think so.

That's something I've had to consider for this definition a fair bit. I would consider brushing your teeth art, in a very, very small sense; but I completely understand that this doesn't fit intuitive notions of "art" and that although unavoidably arbitrary, for practical purposes (say, admitting pieces into a museum), you have to draw a line somewhere and say "yeah, fine, you can call your thing art, but it's not good art, and I'm not putting it on display"

I think of it like lighting up a room:
I'm looking to quantify light at its most fundamental core, and so if I detect a single photon in a dark room I'll say there's light in it.
For your part, you would say — and I absolutely understand why — that to call a room "lit" requires there to be, say, enough light to clearly see.

It's not that we disagree, really, about there being light in the room, — I know full well that the room is still dark — it's more that we're taking different approaches to our judgments: mine as a matter of absolute technicality, and yours as one of intuitive sense and practicality.

So your metrics seem to be about intentionality and complexity whereas I call it expression and repeatability. Perhaps we are both talking about two sides of the same coin.

That sounds about right. There's minor differences in the nuance, again I think based in our different approaches, — technicality vs practicality — but ultimately it probably boils down to semantics.

It seems to me that for you the faucet is always dripping, meaning, it never fully turns off. Everything is art in some capacity because it is done by humans and humans are inherently creative. You are right that we have different definitions of art and this fundamentally changes what we consider art even is. So while I would never say a factory that makes plastic bottles would be considered art, would you say this is some form of art? The very idea that something as expressionless and devoid of personal involvement as this seems crazy to consider art, but I'm wondering what you think of this.

 

[AntaresVII]

It seems to me that for you the faucet is always dripping, meaning, it never fully turns off. Everything is art in some capacity because it is done by humans and humans are inherently creative.

Yes. I think it is imperative to allow art such broad definition, because art is the aim of all people in all things they aim to do well. We want our world to be beautiful, right down to the pencils, and anything we do to achieve that end must be art, because that is art’s end.

You are right that we have different definitions of art and this fundamentally changes what we consider art even is. So while I would never say a factory that makes plastic bottles would be considered art, would you say this is some form of art?
The very idea that something as expressionless and devoid of personal involvement as this seems crazy to consider art, but I'm wondering what you think of this.

I think the design of the shape of a water bottle is art.
The engineering of the machines that make them is art.
The system by which they are molded, filled, and packed is art.
The architecture of the factory is art.
Everything that has had the touch of human creativity, to the smallest degree, is in that degree art.
I personally really appreciate the coldly practical aesthetic of factories. I find them beautiful for that, and I think that it’s fair to call a well-designed factory artful.

The reason we have art museums isn’t to hold every kind of art, but to give a place for art that is made for its own sake, and not utility in any way. We’ve become used to the idea that art is the stuff you go to appreciate for its own sake, that only can be appreciated for its own sake, but really nothing should ever have stopped us from appreciating the useful and practical things for their own sake too.

Again, in essence, I’m not really disagreeing with your boundaries for art, since those boundaries are necessary to distinguish and call proper attention to the exceptional art that is the pinnacle of creative effort, rather, I am simply noting that those boundaries are inherently fuzzy, and so, from an objective standpoint, are arbitrary, and so shouldn’t be used to scoff at people who allow themselves to enjoy simpler tastes.

 

[Old Things]

Again, in essence, I’m not really disagreeing with your boundaries for art, since those boundaries are necessary to distinguish and call proper attention to the exceptional art that is the pinnacle of creative effort, rather, I am simply noting that those boundaries are inherently fuzzy, and so, from an objective standpoint, are arbitrary, and so shouldn’t be used to scoff at people who allow themselves to enjoy simpler tastes.

Alright, I think I understand - at least in part. Your concern is not saying anything that is art to not be called art. I would agree with the sentiment, I think. But, as far as my pragmatism goes for what I consider art, I think it is necessary to say some things humans do are not art because then you end up with war being art, and I'm not personally a fan of that.

So, if I might be brutally honest here for a moment, I think you have overcompensated by saying all human activity is art. But I think in saying this you are actually defeating your own definition of intentionality. If someone is not intending to make art, then I'm not sure why we would call something art that is not meant to be art. It defeats the purpose of art IMO. So as far as intentionality goes, I think there should be an intention of creating art. If no intention is there for art, then a child doing homework and writing "2+5=7" becomes art, and I just don't think it is meaningful to categorize that as art.