What is art?

[Horsa]

I had a really good, interesting conversation in an art gallery with an art gallery attendant yesterday (which we both enjoyed) while I was wasting time having a look round (which I enjoyed doing. I especially liked 3 pictures, 1 being of 2 ponies in a snow-storm at night, 1 a horse & cart in woods with a lady collecting wood & the charge of the light brigade painting though sad) & a couple of cuppas because I had an interview nearby & I was 2 hours early as I set off early to ensure I could find the place. I thought it was on something quite a lot of people would like & be interested in so feel free to join in. I hope you enjoy.

A simplistic answer to that would be that art is drawing, sculpting & painting in all different mediums & using all different methods but the answer is not as simple as that. Art is a way of expressing yourself & how other people express themselves mainly visually. Art is a way of depicting the world around you & how you see it & the way other people depict the world around them & the way they see it. Who actually decides what is classed as art & who has the right to define what is classed as art? Some people would say art is beautiful but not all art is beautiful & not all good art is beautiful neither is all realistic art beautiful. We all have different aesthetic tastes & different ideas & opinions on what art is & what is classed as art & the right to have these. I'll now go on to the question "what is good art?". That also is a matter of taste & opinion. My idea of good art is something that is realistic & looks like what it should do. Other people prefer abstract art like most of the artwork that was created by Pablo Picasso, Barbara Hepworth, Henry Moore & David Hockney. I prefer art similar to that by George Stubbs, Edwin Landseer, Caravaggio, Michelangelo & Leonardo Da Vinci. Some of the old so-called realistic art could actually be seen as abstract though it looks like what it is supposed to be because it's religious & has angels & we don't really know whether angels exist. The existence of angels is also a matter of opinion & belief. Other art I like which looks like it's supposed to be but cannot be seen as realistic is pictures of unicorns & Pegasus because they never existed other than in people's imaginations anyway. The good thing about abstract art is that it encourages people who can't draw & paint very realistically to draw & paint which is good as it gives them an outlet for expression & is a good form of relaxation. Then again we come to the question of what good art is & who gets to judge.

What do you think?

 

[Chris Koziarz]

I had a really good, interesting conversation in an art gallery with an art gallery attendant yesterday (which we both enjoyed) while I was wasting time having a look round (which I enjoyed doing. I especially liked 3 pictures, 1 being of 2 ponies in a snow-storm at night, 1 a horse & cart in woods with a lady collecting wood & the charge of the light brigade painting though sad) & a couple of cuppas because I had an interview nearby & I was 2 hours early as I set off early to ensure I could find the place. I thought it was on something quite a lot of people would like & be interested in so feel free to join in. I hope you enjoy.

A simplistic answer to that would be that art is drawing, sculpting & painting in all different mediums & using all different methods but the answer is not as simple as that. Art is a way of expressing yourself & how other people express themselves mainly visually. Art is a way of depicting the world around you & how you see it & the way other people depict the world around them & the way they see it. Who actually decides what is classed as art & who has the right to define what is classed as art? Some people would say art is beautiful but not all art is beautiful & not all good art is beautiful neither is all realistic art beautiful. We all have different aesthetic tastes & different ideas & opinions on what art is & what is classed as art & the right to have these. I'll now go on to the question "what is good art?". That also is a matter of taste & opinion. My idea of good art is something that is realistic & looks like what it should do. Other people prefer abstract art like most of the artwork that was created by Pablo Picasso, Barbara Hepworth, Henry Moore & David Hockney. I prefer art similar to that by George Stubbs, Edwin Landseer, Caravaggio, Michelangelo & Leonardo Da Vinci. Some of the old so-called realistic art could actually be seen as abstract though it looks like what it is supposed to be because it's religious & has angels & we don't really know whether angels exist. The existence of angels is also a matter of opinion & belief. Other art I like which looks like it's supposed to be but cannot be seen as realistic is pictures of unicorns & Pegasus because they never existed other than in people's imaginations anyway. The good thing about abstract art is that it encourages people who can't draw & paint very realistically to draw & paint which is good as it gives them an outlet for expression & is a good form of relaxation. Then again we come to the question of what good art is & who gets to judge.

What do you think?

You are talking about visual forms of arts only here because you've been in a picture gallery talking to the custodian. No surprise because a visual sense of eye-sight serves us 90% of communication with the outside world. Therefore, artists use visual forms such as paintings, that you've been discussing with said custodian.
But then, there are the remaining 10% of senses, including hearing. So no brainer: music is the second big art form we need to add here. There are many forms of music and each one has its prominent artist. Of course as technology progresses, the art forms also change. Visual forms can take embrace motion and we got films ("movies" in AmE) starting around 1900, then we added sound around 1930-40 and now we have combined visual motion & music into video art. I'm not sure if there exists any art for the remaining ~1% senses (such as sense of touch), I haven't heard of any, maybe people who are both blind and death could tell you (by touching only) and possibly "para-arts" other senses known to experts only.
So, these are art forms based on basic senses. Then how about higher forms of communication such as language? Here we go: prose & poetry, the art types which utilise language as communication medium.
So far, everything we said is understood and admired by all average people, perhaps with the exception of said "para-art" (I just invented this term herein, not sure if someone else came with it before me). But there are many sophisticated art forms know only to experts whose understanding of certain issues is deeper than everybody's else. Mathematicians, physicists invent their theories, often very abstract. I'd call these theories works of art. Software engineers/computer scientists invent new algorithms that supposed to resolve various problems automatically. I also call the clever computer program an art. There exist a book entitled "the art of computer programming". You can verify by googling it. We can go on and on.
So what is art? I haven't thought about it at length. I'm practical, so I'd just say every work that is unique and has this "feel" of being beautiful. The last is very imprecise and subjective but I don't know how to define. You find examples of art everywhere, even on this site. The tennis player nicknames that people invent are work of art. Even a simple nickname like "dull" for Nadal, is a work of art (albeit a rude one) because the artist found a clever and interesting way to express the richness of his feelings towards a given player using a simple "catchy" word.

 

[Horsa]

You are talking about visual forms of arts only here because you've been in a picture gallery talking to the custodian. No surprise because a visual sense of eye-sight serves us 90% of communication with the outside world. Therefore, artists use visual forms such as paintings, that you've been discussing with said custodian.
But then, there are the remaining 10% of senses, including hearing. So no brainer: music is the second big art form we need to add here. There are many forms of music and each one has its prominent artist. Of course as technology progresses, the art forms also change. Visual forms can take embrace motion and we got films ("movies" in AmE) starting around 1900, then we added sound around 1930-40 and now we have combined visual motion & music into video art. I'm not sure if there exists any art for the remaining ~1% senses (such as sense of touch), I haven't heard of any, maybe people who are both blind and death could tell you (by touching only) and possibly "para-arts" other senses known to experts only.
So, these are art forms based on basic senses. Then how about higher forms of communication such as language? Here we go: prose & poetry, the art types which utilise language as communication medium.
So far, everything we said is understood and admired by all average people, perhaps with the exception of said "para-art" (I just invented this term herein, not sure if someone else came with it before me). But there are many sophisticated art forms know only to experts whose understanding of certain issues is deeper than everybody's else. Mathematicians, physicists invent their theories, often very abstract. I'd call these theories works of art. Software engineers/computer scientists invent new algorithms that supposed to resolve various problems automatically. I also call the clever computer program an art. There exist a book entitled "the art of computer programming". You can verify by googling it. We can go on and on.
So what is art? I haven't thought about it at length. I'm practical, so I'd just say every work that is unique and has this "feel" of being beautiful. The last is very imprecise and subjective but I don't know how to define. You find examples of art everywhere, even on this site. The tennis player nicknames that people invent are work of art. Even a simple nickname like "dull" for Nadal, is a work of art (albeit a rude one) because the artist found a clever and interesting way to express the richness of his feelings towards a given player using a simple "catchy" word.

I have to agree with you. Music & poetry etc. are also arts. There are lots of different arts like calligraphy for instance but sometimes we have to narrow it down into what people normally think of when they think of art & then sometimes we're free to think outside the box & broaden the sphere of arts a bit.

 

[mrzz]

Very good thread, @Horsa , and a very clever post, @Chris Koziarz .

The deeper and broader the concept we discuss, the harder it is to define it. It would be (somewhat) easy to define what is, say, early American Impressionism, as it is a category within a category within a category. But is a bit harder to define what Impressionism is, again harder to define what painting is (what it is, not how it is done), even harder to define what visual arts are, and finally art in its most general aspect.

It is interesting to note that the same can be said about science. It is easy to define what is, say, low energy applied nuclear physics. A bit harder to define nuclear physics, quite hard to define what is physics, and almost impossible to define what is science.

In the second half of the XXth century a very representative current within science philosophy adopted a very pragmatic approach: Science is what scientists do (it is not that simple, but it is almost like that). So we can borrow that notion and say that art is what artists do. Who decides who is an artist, then? The viewer, of course. After all, art is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Horsa]

Very good thread, @Horsa , and a very clever post, @Chris Koziarz .

The deeper and broader the concept we discuss, the harder it is to define it. It would be (somewhat) easy to define what is, say, early American Impressionism, as it is a category within a category within a category. But is a bit harder to define what Impressionism is, again harder to define what painting is (what it is, not how it is done), even harder to define what visual arts are, and finally art in its most general aspect.

It is interesting to note that the same can be said about science. It is easy to define what is, say, low energy applied nuclear physics. A bit harder to define nuclear physics, quite hard to define what is physics, and almost impossible to define what is science.

In the second half of the XXth century a very representative current within science philosophy adopted a very pragmatic approach: Science is what scientists do (it is not that simple, but it is almost like that). So we can borrow that notion and say that art is what artists do. Who decides who is an artist, then? The viewer, of course. After all, art is in the eye of the beholder.

Thank you very much. @mrzz. I love the way you make something that should be very simple to define as everyone's familiar with it but it's very hard actually simple again.

I love your Science example too. Science is also something we all become familiar with so should be simple to define but thinking about it properly it's very hard & you make it sound so simple again.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

Very good thread, @Horsa , and a very clever post, @Chris Koziarz .

The deeper and broader the concept we discuss, the harder it is to define it. It would be (somewhat) easy to define what is, say, early American Impressionism, as it is a category within a category within a category. But is a bit harder to define what Impressionism is, again harder to define what painting is (what it is, not how it is done), even harder to define what visual arts are, and finally art in its most general aspect.

It is interesting to note that the same can be said about science. It is easy to define what is, say, low energy applied nuclear physics. A bit harder to define nuclear physics, quite hard to define what is physics, and almost impossible to define what is science.

In the second half of the XXth century a very representative current within science philosophy adopted a very pragmatic approach: Science is what scientists do (it is not that simple, but it is almost like that). So we can borrow that notion and say that art is what artists do. Who decides who is an artist, then? The viewer, of course. After all, art is in the eye of the beholder.

Thanks @mrzz for your input to this thread. Let me expand your emphasised thought and insert my observation that depth and breath of any concept (art & science inclusive) are orthogonal aspects of the concept at hand. Here I mean, that we can discuss/research one aspect or the other, but usually not both at the same time. So, e.g. we have experts in every field who dedicate their time and passion to acquire in-depth knowledge and skills in that field and push the boundaries of human understanding therein. But necessarily, those experts often don't know the simple facts in other, even related fields, simply because they lack the time to properly study the other field. On the other hand, the scientists who try to see the things "broadly", must restrain their knowledge to shallow layers only. They have to time for an in-depth research. They often rely on the results of experts researchers in the field.

Above, you give the examples of broad concepts and then narrowing them down progressively, claiming the broader a given concept is, the harder it is to define. I agree with your claim. But why is the broad concept "hard to define"? It just occurred to me that my observation above might be the answer here: the broader we think about anything, the shallower our knowledge of said thing tends to be. If we have no deep knowledge, we are unsure what we talk about, things become fuzzy, any definition imprecise. On the other hand, experts with deep knowledge, know exactly what they talk about, their work being very focussed, must be easy to define. What do you think?

 

[mrzz]

@Chris Koziarz , your post pointed me to a lot of directions, and I which I could explore them all. On one hand, your observation, as you well noted, is quite pragmatic. Since one does not have all the time in the world, there is a limit for the "total area" of his knowledge. If he covers more fields, he cannot go as deep in each and everyone of them. This makes a lot of sense, naturally.

Your conclusion, if I understood it correctly, applies this same "total area" constrain not to human knowledge, but to knowledge itself. It has an interesting parallel with an idea/concept that Niels Bohr explored. He borrowed (his own) complementarity principle from physics and applied it to science in general. He said something along the lines (can't remember the proper reference know) that one is either absolutely precise or either absolutely (I am lacking a word here) "meaningful". In other words, if one makes a statement that is intended to have a deep and broad meaning, he will be forced to use a sentence which does not defines its own boundaries of validity either/or to use terms which are not precisely defined. The more precise you are, the less general is the statement you made.

It also reminded me a very beautiful passage from Alan Moore's "Watchmen". One of the characters is an ornithologist, and there is an ornithology essay of this character within the story. In this essay the author asks if by studying the birds in so much detail, the scientists simply loose perspective of the animals themselves. I can't help but think that this is a very beautiful way to illustrate your conclusion.

However, my initial observation was much more pedestrian. It explored basically one thing: that if you are within the boundaries of an "area", you can use that area vocabulary to define everything. The deeper you are, the larger the vocabulary, the easier it gets. It is like a father-son dialogue, when the child asks "what is that?" and the father answers: "This is so and so". "But what is so and so?", the child replies... this goes on and on, and at some point the father is speechless. I guess we are kind of in the father's shoes when we need to answer what is art (or science...).

 

[Horsa]

I'm not going to interrupt you 2 Gentlemen's conversation by quoting you but wanted to tell you that I find it interesting. I agree that the more someone knows about something the more they should be able to define it but it doesn't always work like that. Sometimes something gets that familiar to us that we can no longer define it. I know. It's happened to me. Sometimes harder words, terms & concepts are easier to define than easier ones simply because the easier ones have become so familiar to us. It's 2nd nature for us to just know what they are without describing them & we learnt what they were that long ago we forgot how to actually describe it properly. We all had a good go at describing art though. I would also say that if Chris is using word-play as an example of an art-form it would be a good idea to give credit to the master of word-play, William Shakespeare. I don't think anyone here can even get near the level of word-play Shakespeare showed. I only came across word-play when I was 13 & had to study Romeo & Juliet which I loved. It was full of it though the quotes that immediately spring to mind when I think of Romeo & Juliet don't include word-play. The quotes I think of when thinking of Romeo & Juliet are, "I'll look to like if looking liking move but no more deep will I endart mine eye than your consent give strength to make it fly.", "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Rome?", "What light from yonder window breaks? It is the moon & Juliet is the sun.", & "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.".

@mrzz That essay on birds sounds fascinating. Please feel free to share.

Like you both stated though, people have to specialise because even if someone was capable of knowing everything about everything they wouldn't have time to learn about everything in the 1st place.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

@Chris Koziarz , your post pointed me to a lot of directions, and I which I could explore them all. On one hand, your observation, as you well noted, is quite pragmatic. Since one does not have all the time in the world, there is a limit for the "total area" of his knowledge. If he covers more fields, he cannot go as deep in each and everyone of them. This makes a lot of sense, naturally.

Your conclusion, if I understood it correctly, applies this same "total area" constrain not to human knowledge, but to knowledge itself. It has an interesting parallel with an idea/concept that Niels Bohr explored. He borrowed (his own) complementarity principle from physics and applied it to science in general. He said something along the lines (can't remember the proper reference know) that one is either absolutely precise or either absolutely (I am lacking a word here) "meaningful". In other words, if one makes a statement that is intended to have a deep and broad meaning, he will be forced to use a sentence which does not defines its own boundaries of validity either/or to use terms which are not precisely defined. The more precise you are, the less general is the statement you made.

It also reminded me a very beautiful passage from Alan Moore's "Watchmen". One of the characters is an ornithologist, and there is an ornithology essay of this character within the story. In this essay the author asks if by studying the birds in so much detail, the scientists simply loose perspective of the animals themselves. I can't help but think that this is a very beautiful way to illustrate your conclusion.

However, my initial observation was much more pedestrian. It explored basically one thing: that if you are within the boundaries of an "area", you can use that area vocabulary to define everything. The deeper you are, the larger the vocabulary, the easier it gets. It is like a father-son dialogue, when the child asks "what is that?" and the father answers: "This is so and so". "But what is so and so?", the child replies... this goes on and on, and at some point the father is speechless. I guess we are kind of in the father's shoes when we need to answer what is art (or science...).

Niels Bohr said "Truth and clarity are complementary.". It means, in the context of his complementarity theory, that both truth and clarity cannot be observed at the same time. Very interesting philosophical extension of wave and particle duality, one of Bohr's staple theories. So, by "meaningful" above, you probably mean "absolutely truthful" in Bohr's sense. And yes, you understand correctly my observation, and you proved it by bringing in a highly relevant aspect of Bohr's philosophy. Thanks for that!

I haven't watched "Watchmen", yet I can imagine the scene you describe be a good illustration of what we are talking about here. We, expert researchers, do need to step back from time to time to see a broader picture and do not forget how the forest looks like:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/can-t-see-the-forest-for-the-trees

 

[Horsa]

You are talking about visual forms of arts only here because you've been in a picture gallery talking to the custodian. No surprise because a visual sense of eye-sight serves us 90% of communication with the outside world. Therefore, artists use visual forms such as paintings, that you've been discussing with said custodian.
But then, there are the remaining 10% of senses, including hearing. So no brainer: music is the second big art form we need to add here. There are many forms of music and each one has its prominent artist. Of course as technology progresses, the art forms also change. Visual forms can take embrace motion and we got films ("movies" in AmE) starting around 1900, then we added sound around 1930-40 and now we have combined visual motion & music into video art. I'm not sure if there exists any art for the remaining ~1% senses (such as sense of touch), I haven't heard of any, maybe people who are both blind and death could tell you (by touching only) and possibly "para-arts" other senses known to experts only.
So, these are art forms based on basic senses. Then how about higher forms of communication such as language? Here we go: prose & poetry, the art types which utilise language as communication medium.
So far, everything we said is understood and admired by all average people, perhaps with the exception of said "para-art" (I just invented this term herein, not sure if someone else came with it before me). But there are many sophisticated art forms know only to experts whose understanding of certain issues is deeper than everybody's else. Mathematicians, physicists invent their theories, often very abstract. I'd call these theories works of art. Software engineers/computer scientists invent new algorithms that supposed to resolve various problems automatically. I also call the clever computer program an art. There exist a book entitled "the art of computer programming". You can verify by googling it. We can go on and on.
So what is art? I haven't thought about it at length. I'm practical, so I'd just say every work that is unique and has this "feel" of being beautiful. The last is very imprecise and subjective but I don't know how to define. You find examples of art everywhere, even on this site. The tennis player nicknames that people invent are work of art. Even a simple nickname like "dull" for Nadal, is a work of art (albeit a rude one) because the artist found a clever and interesting way to express the richness of his feelings towards a given player using a simple "catchy" word.

I didn't just talk about visual art as I said art is a way of expressing yourself & a way other people express themselves & you can express yourself through music & language as well as other people though I did say normally visual.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

I'm not going to interrupt you 2 Gentlemen's conversation by quoting you but wanted to tell you that I find it interesting. I agree that the more someone knows about something the more they should be able to define it but it doesn't always work like that. Sometimes something gets that familiar to us that we can no longer define it. I know. It's happened to me. Sometimes harder words, terms & concepts are easier to define than easier ones simply because the easier ones have become so familiar to us. It's 2nd nature for us to just know what they are without describing them & we learnt what they were that long ago we forgot how to actually describe it properly. We all had a good go at describing art though. I would also say that if Chris is using word-play as an example of an art-form it would be a good idea to give credit to the master of word-play, William Shakespeare. I don't think anyone here can even get near the level of word-play Shakespeare showed. I only came across word-play when I was 13 & had to study Romeo & Juliet which I loved. It was full of it though the quotes that immediately spring to mind when I think of Romeo & Juliet don't include word-play. The quotes I think of when thinking of Romeo & Juliet are, "I'll look to like if looking liking move but no more deep will I endart mine eye than your consent give strength to make it fly.", "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Rome?", "What light from yonder window breaks? It is the moon & Juliet is the sun.", & "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.".
.

I'm not sure if I quite understand the meaning of the emphasised statement of yours. You seem to imply there are concepts we do not define, or we defined said concepts so long ago that we "forgot" their definition. In my perception, such statement goes to the basics of all logical systems invented by humans, starting from logic & mathematics. It's impossible to define everything. Some alements of the reality and its properties must be given as granted, and they are called axioms:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
Only then, we can build more complex definitions and properties, based on axioms and the inference rules. Basic inference that you've learned at school is also given as axiom.
So the trouble you have with defining some elements of surrounding reality, may be in my understanding, when you try to question the meaning of axioms of the logical system you operate in. I don't know the basics of your logical system to speculate any further. The analogy in my logical system would be e.g. my questioning of the deterministic operation of Turing Machine (an ideal computer model). I don't question it because I know Turing Machine is an axiom in my world.

 

[Horsa]

I'm not sure if I quite understand the meaning of the emphasised statement of yours. You seem to imply there are concepts we do not define, or we defined said concepts so long ago that we "forgot" their definition. In my perception, such statement goes to the basics of all logical systems invented by humans, starting from logic & mathematics. It's impossible to define everything. Some alements of the reality and its properties must be given as granted, and they are called axioms:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
Only then, we can build more complex definitions and properties, based on axioms and the inference rules. Basic inference that you've learned at school is also given as axiom.
So the trouble you have with defining some elements of surrounding reality, may be in my understanding, when you try to question the meaning of axioms of the logical system you operate in. I don't know the basics of your logical system to speculate any further. The analogy in my logical system would be e.g. my questioning of the deterministic operation of Turing Machine (an ideal computer model). I don't question it because I know Turing Machine is an axiom in my world.

I'm not saying that we don't define the concepts but that we've become so familiar with them sometimes because we defined them so long ago that we forgot what the proper definitions were although we still know what they are that although we know what they are we find it very hard to put them into words though we know what they look like or sound like. I get it. We take some things for granted once we know what they are & never really question them. Good examples are families & society because to really look at them properly & in an unbiased way we'd have to take a back-seat look at them & take ourselves out of the family & society that we were born into & are familiar with. To use a simple example from the book Hard times by Charles Dickens when Mr. Gradgrind asks his class to define a horse & 1 of the pupils knew what a horse was but because she was so familiar with it couldn't give a proper definition of it. I'd define a horse as a quadruped which is also a member of the equine family of animals or equidae, descendant of the eohippus & equus sylvestrus now known by the scientific name of equus caballus or as a caballo in Spanish & a cheval in French, a herbivore, a mammal, a beautiful animal which has done a lot for man in history like transport people, pull ploughs & canal boats & that people enjoy watching race & jump but you get my meaning now. It's easier to just show a picture of a horse than to define one.

I don't have any trouble defining anything. My point was that sometimes it's easier to give a definition when we aren't too familiar with something although like you & @mrzz said most of the time the more we know about something the better we can define it. I was just putting the case across that this isn't always the case. I know what the Turing machine is.

 

[mrzz]

One thing I can tell for sure: we may not have answered what is art, but hell we made a bloody good digression!

Chris, "Watchmen" has a cinema version (which is quite decent), but I meant the original graphic novel, which has a lot of details, such as this essay, which are naturally lost in the motion picture. Horsa, I read a Portuguese translation (I actually still have it, I bought a long time ago...), but I just found someone who posted the essay (I love that title):

https://dannyhjorgensen.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/blood-from-the-shoulders-of-pallas/

But Chris got the spirit, which is exactly "can't see the forest from the trees".

Anyway I guess I'll digest a bit more and try to come back to the original point given our observations.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

I'm not saying that we don't define the concepts but that we've become so familiar with them sometimes because we defined them so long ago that we forgot what the proper definitions were although we still know what they are that although we know what they are we find it very hard to put them into words though we know what they look like or sound like. I get it. We take some things for granted once we know what they are & never really question them. Good examples are families & society because to really look at them properly & in an unbiased way we'd have to take a back-seat look at them & take ourselves out of the family & society that we were born into & are familiar with. To use a simple example from the book Hard times by Charles Dickens when Mr. Gradgrind asks his class to define a horse & 1 of the pupils knew what a horse was but because she was so familiar with it couldn't give a proper definition of it. I'd define a horse as a quadruped which is also a member of the equine family of animals or equidae, descendant of the eohippus & equus sylvestrus now known by the scientific name of equus caballus or as a caballo in Spanish & a cheval in French, a herbivore, a mammal, a beautiful animal which has done a lot for man in history like transport people, pull ploughs & canal boats & that people enjoy watching race & jump but you get my meaning now. It's easier to just show a picture of a horse than to define one.

I don't have any trouble defining anything. My point was that sometimes it's easier to give a definition when we aren't too familiar with something although like you & @mrzz said most of the time the more we know about something the better we can define it. I was just putting the case across that this isn't always the case. I know what the Turing machine is.

Now I understand where you're coming from, thanks for the clarification. Especially the examples from equidae family classification helped my understanding. Indeed, I also find the usage of simple common terms as building blocks in reality modelling be often far more convenient than elaborate dissection of reality and construction of complex models by the experts.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

One thing I can tell for sure: we may not have answered what is art, but hell we made a bloody good digression!

Chris, "Watchmen" has a cinema version (which is quite decent), but I meant the original graphic novel, which has a lot of details, such as this essay, which are naturally lost in the motion picture. Horsa, I read a Portuguese translation (I actually still have it, I bought a long time ago...), but I just found someone who posted the essay (I love that title):

https://dannyhjorgensen.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/blood-from-the-shoulders-of-pallas/

But Chris got the spirit, which is exactly "can't see the forest from the trees".

Anyway I guess I'll digest a bit more and try to come back to the original point given our observations.

Thanks for a link to Alan Moore's essay, that illustrates your point. Great read! Rarely anyone can show how science and art can complement each other in a single piece of writing like that. I especially enjoyed Alan's description of prey animals' emotions after having heard the screech of a hunting owl. He immersed himself in the situation so much as to literally become 1 of said prey animals. Brilliant.

 

[Horsa]

One thing I can tell for sure: we may not have answered what is art, but hell we made a bloody good digression!

Chris, "Watchmen" has a cinema version (which is quite decent), but I meant the original graphic novel, which has a lot of details, such as this essay, which are naturally lost in the motion picture. Horsa, I read a Portuguese translation (I actually still have it, I bought a long time ago...), but I just found someone who posted the essay (I love that title):

https://dannyhjorgensen.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/blood-from-the-shoulders-of-pallas/

But Chris got the spirit, which is exactly "can't see the forest from the trees".

Anyway I guess I'll digest a bit more and try to come back to the original point given our observations.

I actually think we all answered the question what is art very well then went on to defining other things too & like you said just generally went on to having an interesting conversation.

Thank you very much. On 1st looking I was blown away by the language as it's a beautiful piece of writing. Then I thought about what it meant & how it tied in with the conversation as a whole. It was a very good example. Thank you very much for sharing.

Very true. I was thinking the same thing at the same time but the phrase where I live is "can't see the wood for the trees".

I look forward to seeing your response.

 

[Horsa]

Now I understand where you're coming from, thanks for the clarification. Especially the examples from equidae family classification helped my understanding. Indeed, I also find the usage of simple common terms as building blocks in reality modelling be often far more convenient than elaborate dissection of reality and construction of complex models by the experts.

You're welcome. I was going to use the book & horse example before-hand but thought that you'd think "this woman is a book-worm who truly has got horses on the brain. Can't she think of anything else?". I am a female book-worm with horses on the brain so it would be fair to think that. I also couldn't use the book & horse example without trying to define the word horse myself but like I said it's a lot easier for someone to show a picture of a horse than describe 1 though we all know what 1 is & what it looks like. I could have gone one further & related it to the artist George Stubbs & equine art thus bringing the conversation back to art but was in 2 minds whether to or not. George Stubbs is my favourite artist anyway. He knew a lot about the anatomy of a horse & did a good job of making all his paintings anatomically correct. Here is a link to a webpage about him with 3 of his paintings underneath. https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/artists/george-stubbs
I hope you find it interesting & like his paintings.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

I actually think we all answered the question what is art very well then went on to defining other things too & like you said just generally went on to having an interesting conversation.

Thank you very much. I'll just take a look.

Very true. I was thinking the same thing at the same time but the phrase where I live is "can't see the wood for the trees".

I look forward to seeing your response.

Ha, interesting how you substitute "forest" with "wood" in a common saying I have brought in above. I've started guessing that your version must be from UK while my version is definitely from US (I did not learn it in Australia). So I looked up the distinction between the 2 and found this, apparently reliable source:
https://sciencing.com/differences-woods-forests-jungles-8377449.html
"The U.S. National Vegetation Classification system differentiates them according to their densities: 25 to 60 percent of a a wood is covered by tree canopies, while 60 to 100 percent of a forest is canopied."
while in England:
"In English history, woods were simply areas covered in trees. Forests, however, were similar to modern wildlife preserves."
So the minute difference between American and British version of the saying in question, appears to be the Americans imply bigger, denser, wilder (or simply broader) area of knowledge missed by someone "looking for trees". But in all practical purposes, there is no difference.

 

[Horsa]

Ha, interesting how you substitute "forest" with "wood" in a common saying I have brought in above. I've started guessing that your version must be from UK while my version is definitely from US (I did not learn it in Australia). So I looked up the distinction between the 2 and found this, apparently reliable source:
https://sciencing.com/differences-woods-forests-jungles-8377449.html
"The U.S. National Vegetation Classification system differentiates them according to their densities: 25 to 60 percent of a a wood is covered by tree canopies, while 60 to 100 percent of a forest is canopied."
while in England:
"In English history, woods were simply areas covered in trees. Forests, however, were similar to modern wildlife preserves."
So the minute difference between American and British version of the saying in question, appears to be the Americans imply bigger, denser, wilder (or simply broader) area of knowledge missed by someone "looking for trees". But in all practical purposes, there is no difference.

Definitely. In Britain, we use both words synonymously but woods are normally seen as smaller versions of forests. Like you said, it means the same thing but we use wood to mean a small forest & forest to mean a larger area of woodland.

 

[mrzz]

I actually think we all answered the question what is art very well then went on to defining other things too & like you said just generally went on to having an interesting conversation.

You are right, we all did answered the question, albeit my answer was so blatantly pragmatic that it could be seen as just a way to rephrase the question (which could be a good thing after all).

But, borrowing a bit of your discussion above about the "definition" of a horse, I ask: is giving a name to something a definition of that thing? Or is just a label? Obviously, a multitude of ontological and semiotics questions here, but my point is much more pedestrian (again): we intuitively know that just giving a name is not enough, so what we do? As you said above, it is much easier to show a picture of the horse than to define it. To define is neither to show a picture (or point to the thing itself), neither to call its name. It is something in between.

Let's go back to your take on the question, Horsa. You followed the "classical" approach that art is expression of emotions, saying that art is a way of expressing one self. This is surely a definition, but isn't it too general? When I play tennis and miss an easy forehand, I normally scream some bad word. I can guarantee you that I am expressing myself when I do that. Is it art? I do not think so.

So, we must admit that art must be a particular way to express one self. That connects us to Chris' final paragraph of his first post, "a clever and particular way" of expressing something. But the funny thing is that he got there by starting from "every work that is unique and has this "feel" of being beautiful". While I pretty much agree with that, I cannot help but notice that we are going in circles. All our questions about art were then answered by this "feel". But... what is this "feel"? We are back to square one, I'm afraid. (and before some post-modernist reader starts complaining that our notions are too old fashioned, because they are built over the word "beautiful", I remember we can substitute this word by anything one would like, from "disturbing" to "sensible").

I personally would stop on the "particular" way to express one self. And the moment you define too well what that "particular" means, is the moment you start to kill genuine artistic expression. After all, one thing that I can be sure is that if you have a formula to follow, you don't have art (at least not good art).

To define art is to know a priori what art is (if we were satisfied with a posteriori judgements, we would not ask the question to begin with). But this is too damn close to a formula for my taste, so I rather do not ask the question at all. It is kind of a self imposed ignorance, or naivety. A lot fine art historians (Gombrich and Hauser come to mind), from very different perspectives, agree that art and artists lost a good deal of their "spontaneity" once they became too aware of themselves. I wholeheartedly agree with this.