How important is art to you? You know visual art, music, literature, what do you need et cetera.
ColorStorm:
visual art - not that important, though something would certainly be missing if it weren't there
music -
important, i love music, though i think i could get by fine without it
literature - not that important, i mainly read non-fiction nowadays. (i don't
know if non-fiction is considered art, but if it is, where do you draw the
line--you might as well call any use of written language 'art')
Someone
else:
any use of written language is art
actually where do you draw the line...
ColorStorm:
interesting, but then, why limit it to written language? in many cases it's not
very different from spoken language.. in which case saying "hi bob"
would be art
re where to draw the line, i guess the only thing to do is to say that some things are more artistic than others. non-fiction literature is somewhat artistic
fiction is more artistic
explaining to your spouse how your day went is not very artistic
Someone else:
but, scribbling on a piece of paper isn't very 'artistic', yet it's still 'art', at least in the conventional sense of the word? i was thinking just now that
art is a product of interaction, maybe?
idk. that's a raw thought that i haven't dwelled on for more than a minute. what do you think
ColorStorm:
(btw i just figured out who you are :P) i guess art is
interactive in that the point is to share it with others, but saying it's a
product of interaction isn't a sufficient definition, it's
more specific than that..
it requires talent, for one thing (thinks about what else..)
i'd say it conveys things in a non-straight-forward/non-linear way, but that's not necessarily true of writing
though the talent itself of how to express an idea and coming up with ideas to express is a non-straight-forward process
that's all i can think of on the subject. i feel like there are probably better definitions out there
Someone else:
i don't think so? personally. it requires talent to make good art.
we only recognize certain products of interaction as art because we appreciate
or are fond/passionate about that particular field/(can't think of the right
word). e.g. when i used to play video games, u used to think to myself that it
was an art, and it totally was. at least to that of I'd who are familiar with
that specific video game. to every one else it'd be rubbish. button mashing.
so,
if we only recognize stuff that we are fond of/passionate about as 'art', and
if 'what makes something 'good' is subjective, to me, then wouldn't that make
art
subjective? as in, what makes something 'art' is subjective? and if that's
true, then wouldn't it be fair to say that 'art' is the product of interaction?
(i know that's a very general description of it, but that's what i was going
for. to define art in its entirety)
idk i'm probably not making sense lol
omg just read what i wrote and it's full of typos & auto correct fails -.-
ColorStorm:
well, even if art is subjective, it's still presumably more constrained than
simply being anything that's the product of interaction? i guess the definition
of art would then have to explain how one comes to a subjective judgment. but,
for what it's worth, i disagree that..
it's just a matter of what one feels passionate about. i feel more like those
who are into games are more likely to see the inherent art
that goes into
'the art of failing' ;)
making them. although yes, it is subjective to a degree. that's one of the
confusing things about art. like beauty, or morals, it's somewhat subjective
and somewhat not, which makes it really hard to pin down to a definition.
Someone else:
i didn't articulate my point well enough smh lol. at is objective in the sense that it's the product of interaction. what we personally (or collectively)
consider to be art is subjective. ...i don't know if i just made things more complicated by saying that though
lol idk man....
i guess i understand, though i personally disagree with drawing the line between the objectivity and subjectivity of art there.
ColorStorm:
i think there are general features, other than the intent to communicate, that
make a process of creation 'art'. btw, that's another good aspect for the definition
of art: it's "creative"maybe i misunderstood you though, it's
possible that we're in agreement. art is somewhat subjective
hmm? but... is what's considered as 'creative' subjective?
but
yeah there is more to it than communication: expression, i guess. something
that's achieved by interaction with... whatever :p
yeah, it's somewhat subjective what's deemed as 'creative', but there's still a
meaning to the word taht's more-or-less shared and applies to
thing/processes-in-themselves..
Someone else:
but yeah there's probably more that goes into it still
that's a good point, btw, art is more than just communicative, it's expressive (i see expression as being a subset of communication, but still, there's a nuance to it)
Someone else:
but isn't communication is a subset of interaction? (i don't
even know what subset means lol; i'm asking you)
ColorStorm:
hmm, yes, i think it is. (subset i think isn't exactly the right word
there, btw, but it gets the point across), if every member of X is in Y (and
there are possibly members of Y that aren't in X), then X is a subset of Y.
..where X and Y are sets
maybe it's better to say that expression is a subset of interaction
if expression is a subset of communication, and communication is an a subset of interaction, then it follows that expression is a subset of interaction. but..
maybe there are possible elements or examples to expression that aren't necessarily communication, but are interaction? not sure.
.. what I'm trying to do is figure out what make art objective? as it is, arguably, both subjective and objective. then how do you define art objectively?
depends on what 'objectively' means. there are no parameters that will separate art from non-art to scientific vigor. you can only define it using words that are themselves somewhat objective (like 'creative, non-linear, expressive, emotive, communicative, talented), but that doesn't necessarily mean it's...
Someone else:
if that makes sense...does it not suffice to say that art is the product of
interaction? no?
ColorStorm:
...under-defined, because those (or other) words used to define it
could be precisely what the word actually means, as it too is a somewhat
subjective concept
well, first, it may be more accurate to say 'interaction is a
product of art' [not all interaction, but some interaction], or 'art is a part
of interaction'
i think even cases of non-linear _______ can still be considered art?
it seems a little off to it's a 'product of interaction'. second, while it may
be true, it's not a complete account of what 'art' means by far, imo
can you rephrase your last question?
Someone else:
hmm. yes i see it now. the flaw in that statement. but i think there is some truth to it and just needs working on :p
yes, it s not as complete account. you are right :)