What is art?

[Chris Koziarz]

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.

While trying to develop a deeper understanding of our subject question, you restrain from defining the "formula of the art", pointing that true artists should also stop at such point, otherwise they fall into the trap of a routine. They become recipe followers and not artists any more.
That coincides with my previous observation that art is "every work that is unique". What I mean here, is that every work of art must contain a unique (or inventive) element that separates it from anything that existed before. I cannot help but draw parallel with scientific inventions. Every invention, as defined by patenting organisations, must contain the so called "inventive step" that is not a trivial combination of steps known in the prior art. But predictively, patent offices so not define what said "trivial combination" means, setting up the court playground for interpretations: life would be too boring if we could precisely define everything . But back to inventions themselves: a scientific invention is a clever and unique way of describing the world or resolving a problem, like the art is a unique way of expressing the feelings. With said uniqueness in mind, we could say that scientific inventors are also artists. The key attribute in both cases is what I call "the freshness of mind", or what you call "self imposed ignorance, or naivety". Such attribute of mind is required, so that artists distance themselves from any recipe, hence be able to create a unique work.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

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 agree that "beautiful" is not the only attribute of the work of art. From "disturbing" to "sensible", and even "controversial" forms have been produced and recognised as art forms. In the end "beauty is in the eye of beholder" as we probably said it already. Like all emotive attributes, it's a highly subjective attribute.
But I'm going try and define "beauty" in an objective sense for our purposes here. When I say something is "beautiful", I mean there exist a large group of people from general population, who appreciate the positive feelings a given work excites. That's despite the same work may excite negative feelings in another population sample, even the majority. Personally, I find beautiful any work that is clever (i.e. original with lots of "inventive steps") and conveys variety of emotions by the author. The first applies mostly to scientific, while the second to artistic inventions.
To be maximally objective in my judgement of other work's "beauty" I try to completely turn off my emotions but "feel the empathy" with the author. Otherwise, when my emotions overwrite my judgement, I tend to describe beautiful things as "ugly" or "controversial" or other dismissive word.

 

[Horsa]

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.

I know you're very good at sensing when things are being blown off course & don't like it so I didn't read your intentions. Sometimes I can read your feelings but didn't this time. Sorry! I agree we all defined art then moved on. I thought the reason for this was that it was done to death.

To answer your 1st question, my description of a horse which wasn't too good as you couldn't tell what a horse was from my description though I had a picture of a horse in mind when attempting to describe a horse was just an example of what I meant by the phrase "although most of the time what you 2 said about the more someone knows something the better you can describe it, it's not always the case as sometimes when you become too familiar with something you can no longer define it properly even though you know what it is" though a horse is better defined by being shown a picture anyway I also used the example we were all born into families & society. We know this but these are also terms we're so familiar with we can find it hard to describe. Like you said though I did what a lot of people do because that's how they've been taught & labelled a horse. It was only the scientific names of the animal group, mention of horses ancestors & what they did in the past that labelled them really as by the other parts of the description I used I could have been talking about another 4 legged animal.

Thinking about it, though I internalised it & made sense of it ages ago which is another reason why I found it hard to define, I was defining art the classical way. The part of the definition of art I came up with that you're emphasizing is only part of my definition of art so yes that was too general as it has to be seen as part of the whole definition of art I came up with & not broken down into pieces to give what I'd call a full definition. To recap my full definition of art was "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." I agree, art is a way of expressing yourself but not all ways of expressing yourself are artistic. In your example I wouldn't say you were being artistic in that instance.

Chris had a broader definition of art than me. Not all art has to be unique. We draw & paint things we see not always in different ways, i.e. abstract. Not all art has to be beautiful either, e.g. during the 1st world war soldiers created trench art to express their emotions & what happened to them. Was trench art beautiful? No. Did it express the thoughts & feelings of soldiers? Yes.
https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/beauty-from-the-battlefield-10-pieces-of-trench-art

The definition of good art as well as beauty is a matter of opinion. What good art is depends on the individual.

I get you. We all know what art is. Defining it is a surprisingly difficult & pointless exercise.

I think realistic art is good. I'm not a fan of abstract art. What is good art in your opinion?

Who are your favourite artists & why?

 

[mrzz]

While trying to develop a deeper understanding of our subject question, you restrain from defining the "formula of the art", pointing that true artists should also stop at such point, otherwise they fall into the trap of a routine. They become recipe followers and not artists any more.
That coincides with my previous observation that art is "every work that is unique". What I mean here, is that every work of art must contain a unique (or inventive) element that separates it from anything that existed before. I cannot help but draw parallel with scientific inventions. Every invention, as defined by patenting organisations, must contain the so called "inventive step" that is not a trivial combination of steps known in the prior art. But predictively, patent offices so not define what said "trivial combination" means, setting up the court playground for interpretations: life would be too boring if we could precisely define everything . But back to inventions themselves: a scientific invention is a clever and unique way of describing the world or resolving a problem, like the art is a unique way of expressing the feelings. With said uniqueness in mind, we could say that scientific inventors are also artists. The key attribute in both cases is what I call "the freshness of mind", or what you call "self imposed ignorance, or naivety". Such attribute of mind is required, so that artists distance themselves from any recipe, hence be able to create a unique work.

In general, I am quite skeptical of the connections between art and science (once I wrote an essay on it, but in Portuguese...), but you approach this "connection" by the only angle that I am ok with, which is the creativity angle. We could dwell a bit on some finer points, but we largely agree here. You are probably aware of Thomas Khun's approach to scientific evolution (I find it interesting even if I hate to read his pieces). What he calls "normal science", following your analogy between art and science, would be "conventional art", like, say, some neo-classical painter active around the end of the 18th century... I am not sure if this idea is quite explored out there... it could be a fun thing to do.

 

[mrzz]

That's despite the same work may excite negative feelings in another population sample, even the majority. Personally, I find beautiful any work that is clever (i.e. original with lots of "inventive steps") and conveys variety of emotions by the author. The first applies mostly to scientific, while the second to artistic inventions.

Fantastic. I get that you distinguish both cases, but if you link them back together we could think of defining something such as "scientific aesthetics". Obviously everyone from the "hard sciences" is not surprised by that -- after all we speak of "beautiful formulas" -- but I never saw anyone trying to define exactly what we mean by "beautiful" in those situations...

 

[mrzz]

I know you're very good at sensing when things are being blown off course & don't like it so I didn't read your intentions. Sometimes I can read your feelings but didn't this time. Sorry! I agree we all defined art then moved on. I thought the reason for this was that it was done to death.

Nothing to be sorry about. You corrected me properly. But I did question our definitions. It was done to death, true, but sometimes is good to check under the basement and see what is there...

...by the other parts of the description I used I could have been talking about another 4 legged animal.

I get what you want to say in the paragraph were this phrase is from, but your last phrase illustrates very well what I tried to point out. In some situations, any "4 legged animal" is enough for our purposes, in others you need a proper horse. What are our art definitions? Definitions of 4 legged animals, or of horses?

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/beauty-from-the-battlefield-10-pieces-of-trench-art

Thanks for that! I actually found some beauty on them...

I think realistic art is good. I'm not a fan of abstract art. What is good art in your opinion?

I really, and I mean really, don't have a recipe for good art. I do like a few abstract artists, even if a minority. I like Pollock, for example, and some intermediary works of Mondrian I particularly love (talking about painting). I wouldn't say I like "realistic" art, but instead "romantic". I love the work your countryman Constable, for example.

Who are your favourite artists & why?

Very long list, and each "why" is also a very long story. Hope we get a chance to dwell on that...

 

[Horsa]

Nothing to be sorry about. You corrected me properly. But I did question our definitions. It was done to death, true, but sometimes is good to check under the basement and see what is there...

O.K. I get you. If we want to do a thorough job of something, no matter what it is we need to ensure we aren't missing anything.

I get what you want to say in the paragraph were this phrase is from, but your last phrase illustrates very well what I tried to point out. In some situations, any "4 legged animal" is enough for our purposes, in others you need a proper horse. What are our art definitions? Definitions of 4 legged animals, or of horses?

...

In order to describe a horse properly I would have had to go through the long, complex process of describing every horse known to man. I did share some scientific names & purposes of horses etc. but for someone who heaven forbid has never seen a horse they'd still be stumped without a picture to annotate. The quadruped part of my description could have described many other animals though whether they be mustelids, cats or dogs etc. The best definitions of horses really are either in-depth horse definitions about all different breeds of horses which take up quite a lot of pages in books or pictorial. Even horse books for adults always use pictures to illustrate because although everyone knows what a horse is, it's almost impossible to describe without a picture. However, my attempt to describe a horse proved my point that the statement the more you know about something the better you can define it though true most of the time isn't always true as did my examples of society & family that we're all very familiar with but are very hard to define as we're born into them & have to take a step back to really think about what they are but we already know because we've been born into them & grew up in them.

Thanks for that! I actually found some beauty on them...

...

You're welcome. The trench art I've normally seen on antique programmes is very gory & distressing. I wanted to share some of the trench art I'd seen to show how distressing it could be but only found sales pages except for that & Wikipedia. I was amazed. I saw beauty in some of them compared to the trench art I've seen in the past.

Replying to your penultimate quote, I like Constable too, especially the Haywain. I've already said that my favourite artist is George Stubbs because his favourite subject matter is my favourite animal & that I also like Edwin Landseer among others.

O.k. It would be very nice & maybe show some pictures too (if I can find out how to share pictures) as it is an Art thread after all. :0)

 

[mrzz]

O.k. It would be very nice & maybe show some pictures too (if I can find out how to share pictures) as it is an Art thread after all. :0)

You can always post a link to a picture (using the link button on the tools bar just above the box were we type). To do what I did (that is, to insert the link in a word or phrase), select the word and click the link button, then put the link (which you should have copied first from the address bar of the browser) in the box that opens.

Or you can just copy and paste a link directly on the message:

https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/sargent-carnation-lily-lily-rose-n01615

(By the way another one from my favorites list).

 

[mrzz]

Or you can simply copy an image (using either ctrl+c or clicking on the image with the right mouse button and selecting "copy") and paste it here:

By the way, this is a Franz Marc, another guy I like a lot. You should look at his horses...

 

[Horsa]

Thank you very much for the information. I've got "The hay wain" on my wall at home. This art thread is looking much better now. The pieces of art are making it look more like an art thread. The discussion has been fascinating though. Thank you very much & @Chris Koziarz too.

You can always post a link to a picture (using the link button on the tools bar just above the box were we type). To do what I did (that is, to insert the link in a word or phrase), select the word and click the link button, then put the link (which you should have copied first from the address bar of the browser) in the box that opens.

Or you can just copy and paste a link directly on the message:

https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/sargent-carnation-lily-lily-rose-n01615

(By the way another one from my favorites list).

 

[Horsa]

Or you can simply copy an image (using either ctrl+c or clicking on the image with the right mouse button and selecting "copy") and paste it here:

View attachment 1930

By the way, this is a Franz Marc, another guy I like a lot. You should look at his horses...

Thank you very much for the recommendation. I've just looked. I love his yellow ones.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

In general, I am quite skeptical of the connections between art and science (once I wrote an essay on it, but in Portuguese...), but you approach this "connection" by the only angle that I am ok with, which is the creativity angle. We could dwell a bit on some finer points, but we largely agree here. You are probably aware of Thomas Khun's approach to scientific evolution (I find it interesting even if I hate to read his pieces). What he calls "normal science", following your analogy between art and science, would be "conventional art", like, say, some neo-classical painter active around the end of the 18th century... I am not sure if this idea is quite explored out there... it could be a fun thing to do.

Yes. Khun's "consensus of a scientific community" as the way of objective scientific truth from series of subjective statements, is still the best scientific method today. Khun's "paradigm shifts", however interesting, happen rarely though and only at the forefront, or when major technological breakthroughs enable to change the way e.g. data is obtained or processed. So, in its "classical form" science is just boring and inventive in only tiny part. It's impossible to have a break through that would negate the basic laws such as e.g. mass preservation. White art is "freer", i.e. any given artist can transcend common conventions, and human imagination is unbound.

 

[Horsa]

I was going to try out 1 of your methods of inserting images @mrzz but I found this page with both my favourite picture & a video & found it fascinating. Enjoy!
https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/george-stubbs-whistlejacket

 

[Horsa]

Yes. Khun's "consensus of a scientific community" as the way of objective scientific truth from series of subjective statements, is still the best scientific method today. Khun's "paradigm shifts", however interesting, happen rarely though and only at the forefront, or when major technological breakthroughs enable to change the way e.g. data is obtained or processed. So, in its "classical form" science is just boring and inventive in only tiny part. It's impossible to have a break through that would negate the basic laws such as e.g. mass preservation. White art is "freer", i.e. any given artist can transcend common conventions, and human imagination is unbound.

I disagree with your statement that "in its classical form science is boring" because I find some aspects of classical science fascinating especially where the constitution of humans & animals & how they work comes in (biology) & how the world came to be & how natural landmarks were formed as well as why certain weather occurs in certain places at certain times & what causes it.

 

[mrzz]

I disagree with your statement that "in its classical form science is boring" because I find some aspects of classical science fascinating especially where the constitution of humans & animals & how they work comes in (biology) & how the world came to be & how natural landmarks were formed as well as why certain weather occurs in certain places at certain times & what causes it.

Chris is probably not referring to the fields themselves, but the actual day to day activities of a scientist not in a breakthrough period/area. To follow your example, someone in the area of physiology of animals will probably spend a lot of time with tiny little details of a given bone of a given known species...

 

[Horsa]

Chris is probably not referring to the fields themselves, but the actual day to day activities of a scientist not in a breakthrough period/area. To follow your example, someone in the area of physiology of animals will probably spend a lot of time with tiny little details of a given bone of a given known species...

Ha! Thank you very much for your information. I get what he means when he's saying classical science is boring then. I guess that's what you get when a non-scientist tries talking to a scientist about science.

 

[Horsa]

https://www.bronte.org.uk/the-brontes-and-haworth/family-and-friends/branwell-bronte
This is a link to information & a picture of Branwell Bronte, a famous artist & the Brother of my favourite author.

 

[Horsa]

https://artuk.org/discover/artists/landseer-edwin-henry-18021873
This is a link to information about Edwin Landseer which has access to all his works. He's 1 of my favourite artists. Now the last few links are truly what I'd call art.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

Chris is probably not referring to the fields themselves, but the actual day to day activities of a scientist not in a breakthrough period/area. To follow your example, someone in the area of physiology of animals will probably spend a lot of time with tiny little details of a given bone of a given known species...

Ha! Thank you very much for your information. I get what he means when he's saying classical science is boring then. I guess that's what you get when a non-scientist tries talking to a scientist about science.

mrzz is right, what he explained is exactly what I meant.

 

[Horsa]

mrzz is right, what he explained is exactly what I meant.

O.K. Thank you very much.