TTI Forums

Riprion wrote:To answer your question, you shouldn't take their word that something is art (or more specifically "fine" art). That decision is personal and subjective. If the work doesn't elicit an aesthetic reaction in you then it probably isn't very good or maybe it's just not your style.

So art is whatever I decide art is? Today I have a feeling in response, so it is art, tomorrow I don't, so it is no longer art?

It's no longer art to you but it is probably still art to the artist or the guy who paid for it. To you it might now simply be a lump of bronze. Therein lies the rub of subjectivity. I told you the generic term is pretty useless right? Actually, any attempt to classify subjective qualities is pretty futile. This is especially true in a heterogeneous culture because reactions and interpretations will vary wildly. This is also a reason why public art usually sucks so much. It is either trying to be everything to everyone or is so specific that only a few people correctly interpret the artists intent while the rest are simply confused by it. But we are told that art is good and we are supposed to love art for arts sake so we view our confusion as a sign of our own insufficiency. But I think that's a load of crap. Everyone has the capability to make a personal judgment as to the quality of art. The more profound the aesthetic experience the more widely it will be viewed as great art.

Riprion wrote:It's no longer art to you but it is probably still art to the artist or the guy who paid for it.

Fine, I get your view that art is totally subjective. You have not answered my question, though.

Why should I accept that art is subjective?

Oleksandr wrote: Why should I accept that art is subjective?

Oh, I thought you were asking, "Why should I accept some other person's subjective opinion?" The answer to which is, "Don't. Make your own opinion."

This question actually is a new one for me. You should feel proud. I have been having this discussion (or variants) for about the last 15 years, since day one at art school. I have some answers that occur to me right away, but I want to mull this one over a little bit.

I'm disengaging. I am going back to talking about art.

Art is a product. The producer is the artist.

I define art as a product used for optical or audible enjoyment. There is good and bad art. Good art, in my opinion is the Last Supper by Leonardo Da Vinci. Bad art would be something like throwing paint at random onto a canvas. I would pay high amounts of money for the Last Supper... random paint splotches - not so much.

Beauty, in this case, is in the eye of the beholder. I would personally like to know what Ayn Rand would say about this topic. Is art the one topic she would agree is subjective? And if not, how do you define good art in the eyes of the complete objectivist? Is true art universally accepted as good? That cannot be what makes it good art though, because then it's mob rule.

Art is the one thing that must remain subjective, if you ask me.

Argat Bogotsch wrote:I would personally like to know what Ayn Rand would say about this topic.

She wrote an entire book on the subject: The Romantic Manifesto.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer? ... _manifesto

You can find it any public library in US. Otherwise, it's pretty cheap online. Some snippets can be found here: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/art.html

Argat Bogotsch wrote:Art is a product. The producer is the artist.

I don't consider art to exist independent of thought, it is a subjective quality of processing sensory input by a consciousness. Art does not exist in and of itself, it's a property of perception.

JudgeBob wrote:

Argat Bogotsch wrote:Art is a product. The producer is the artist.

I don't consider art to exist independent of thought, it is a subjective quality of processing sensory input by a consciousness. Art does not exist in and of itself, it's a property of perception.

Aye, 'tis what I was trying to get across. Art is produced through labor and thought for enjoyment, as you said, through sensory input.

Argat Bogotsch wrote:Aye, 'tis what I was trying to get across. Art is produced through labor and thought for enjoyment, as you said, through sensory input.

But not what I said. No artist, labor, thought, or producer is required. In fact no tangible object or phenomenon need even exist for art to be perceived.

This is why art is subjective, it exists only within the mind that perceives it and so by definition cannot be objective.

JudgeBob wrote:No artist, labor, thought, or producer is required.

Can you give me an example of such art?

Oleksandr wrote:

JudgeBob wrote:No artist, labor, thought, or producer is required.

Can you give me an example of such art?

Only as description from my own subjective experience, of course. I find my imaginings of the cosmos to be lovely art.

As I meant in context, it would be more accurate to say that no external artist, labor, thought, or producer is required. In essence, art does not exist without conscious perception and so by definition each mind is it's own artist.

A person labeled an "artist" is generally one who intentionally sets out to create sensory input for others to evoke similarly the art that exists in their own mind. Art must exist subjectively in the mind for it to be deliberately made manifest in some way to others. All of us are artists, but not all of us attempt to share our art in a deliberate way associated with an "artist" label.

What are the reasons to accept such a definition of art, though?

Oleksandr wrote:What are the reasons to accept such a definition of art, though?

Reason itself is enough to accept truth.

Art cannot exist without interpretation and reaction by a consciousness. It has to be by definition a personal subjective value on thought and perception. It is in essence a subjective preference in some way for the subject.

If a tree falls in the forest and no conscious entity is present to hear it, it still makes a sound. The impact causes vibration in the earth and air that exists regardless of any conscious witness. However, without any consciousness present to perceive the forest, it has no art.

JudgeBob wrote:Art cannot exist without interpretation and reaction by a consciousness.

So are many other ideas, such as an idea of concepts, justice, reason, etc. All these things don't exist as physical entities.

Do you mean that anything that is perceived by a human mind is therefore subjective? Why can't perception combined with reason be objective?

JudgeBob wrote: If a tree falls in the forest and no conscious entity is present to hear it, it still makes a sound. The impact causes vibration in the earth and air that exists regardless of any conscious witness. However, without any consciousness present to perceive the forest, it has no art.

[/quote]

Uhm, I think you're confusing things with art. For instance, your imagination isn't art. Sure, you perceive it. Sure, you can see it clearly in your mind. However, if it only exists in your mind, its only an idea. Ideas != art.

Also, it seems like under your definition the simple act of walking is artistic. No, it is walking.

Art is the physical manifestation of mental images or sounds created by an individual or group (orchestra, band, etc.) for the sole purpose of their enjoyment or the enjoyment of others (usually both). This excludes a tree falling in the forest - a forest is not a conscious being, therefore it cannot create art. Art is a conscious effort, not a random occurence or dream.

Sure, you can have an artistic vision of a beautiful forest with fairies and woodland gnomes, but until that is put on paper you are not an artist, no matter how badly you wish to be one. Until you do this, you're simply a daydreamer who thinks wishing makes it so. And it doesn't.

I may be totally lost on who is saying what ... regardless whoever believes that art can be a simple daydream or a tree falling in the forest is wrong and I am naturally correct.

/thread

Argat Bogotsch wrote:Art is the physical manifestation of mental images or sounds created by an individual or group (orchestra, band, etc.) for the sole purpose of their enjoyment or the enjoyment of others (usually both).

Not to pick on Argat but . . .

Sigh. I must point out how modern culture completely mixes both entertainment and art in one ball, and never separates them out.

Nowadays, anybody can claim anything to be art because it makes them feel orange or blue, so it is inevitable that entertainment and art seem both and the same. But they are completely different in their purpose and nature.

Well... we could just look at Wikipedia. Its essentially the same thing I said... just sounds smart

And don't worry about picking on me. I'm used to it

Argat Bogotsch wrote:

JudgeBob wrote: If a tree falls in the forest and no conscious entity is present to hear it, it still makes a sound. The impact causes vibration in the earth and air that exists regardless of any conscious witness. However, without any consciousness present to perceive the forest, it has no art.

Uhm, I think you're confusing things with art. For instance, your imagination isn't art. Sure, you perceive it. Sure, you can see it clearly in your mind. However, if it only exists in your mind, its only an idea. Ideas != art.

Sigh. And I said the forest itself wasn't art. You didn't read. For the rest, if you have never found art in an idea I pity you. Ideas and perceptions are all you have, and if you don't recognize that anything you consider to be art is simply one of those two things I doubt I can find an argument to convince you.

Argat Bogotsch wrote:Also, it seems like under your definition the simple act of walking is artistic. No, it is walking.

I haven't made any value judgements on what subjects are artistic, only that art is subjective. You may not consider walking to be art, and I might not, but neither of us has the right to tell another that they do not. I am certain that there are people who find the movement of the human body to be art. And if I were make a value judgement of art, perhaps the sublime hip motion and stride of a shapely female as she walks just so is something that to me is art. I suspect I would not be alone in such perception, if popular media and beer commercials are any evidence. Before you attempt to argue this, stop and consider how many artists use the human body and it's movement to create works that are considered artistic by many. Only ignorant arrogance would argue that walking is artistic to nobody.

Argat Bogotsch wrote:Art is the physical manifestation of mental images or sounds created by an individual or group (orchestra, band, etc.) for the sole purpose of their enjoyment or the enjoyment of others (usually both). This excludes a tree falling in the forest - a forest is not a conscious being, therefore it cannot create art. Art is a conscious effort, not a random occurence or dream.

And if you read what I wrote, my forest comparison was a quite specific that things on their own are not art. I don't know how more clear I could have made that. I disagree completely that random occurance can not be art. Anything can be art. If you have never found art in randomness, again I pity you. Art is not physical manefestation at all and does not require any physicality outside one's mind since that is where art happens. Your reaction to perception happens in your brain, not in the world external to it. Whether or not the thought or awareness in your mind has value to you as art happens completely within your mind. Just as a tree is a tree, a statue is a statue, a painting is a painting, a poem is a poem, a song is a song. They all exist simply as things in the physical world that in themselves have no artistic nature, it is only your reaction to your perception of them that can assign value to them as art. If you really think that physical objects are required to perceive art, consider that memories can have artistic value. So why not original thought? You seem to acknowledge that "artists" can turn their thoughts into physical art, so I'm not sure why you can't recognize that the art may have existed in their mind before they created a physical representation to elicit a similar perceptual response in others.

Argat Bogotsch wrote:Sure, you can have an artistic vision of a beautiful forest with fairies and woodland gnomes, but until that is put on paper you are not an artist, no matter how badly you wish to be one. Until you do this, you're simply a daydreamer who thinks wishing makes it so. And it doesn't.

I totally disagree. If it's art to you, it's art. Art doesn't require sharing, and to discount somebody's perception of art simply because you do not share it is arrogant and dim. Just because something does not have artistic value to you, you claim it can not for anyone else.

Argat Bogotsch wrote:I may be totally lost on who is saying what ... regardless whoever believes that art can be a simple daydream or a tree falling in the forest is wrong and I am naturally correct.

I've said about all I can on the topic, and am quite used to people missing my point. In short, the existence of art does not require any intention to create it. The things you mention have to do with people attempting to share their own subjective experiences with others, not with the nature of art itself.

You did say art is a conscious effort, which is almost right. It is an artifact of consciousness and does not necessarily require effort, but does exist solely within the conscious mind. If somebody else does something that to you is art, it simply is. Whether or not they intended it to be so.