Toward a Definition of Art and Bonsai as Art

[Anonymous User]

....so the first and most essential factor is the intent. Without the intent to create art, there is no art.

Prehistoric cave paintings.

 

[JasonG]

I didn't say I found porno inspiring, nor did I say anything positive about porno, but there are thousands of times more porno sites on the Internet than sites about art in general or bonsai in particular. You are however correct in your assessment of this being a commentary on our times, and not a very good one. I just wished to point something out and maybe get a chuckle out of a few. Good grief, we have to learn to laugh at ourselves once in a while.

Hi Vance,

Well, you don't need to teach me to laugh as I found the humor in your statement! Good one!
Some of the Pornographers are quite talented and artistic, ummm, atleast that is what I have been told!!

Jason

 

[Anonymous User]

So, then, how about this attempt at a definition:

Visual art is defined as a human activity that creates a visual form for the purpose of evoking an inspiring emotional response in viewers.

An object of such visual art would then be the form created.

This is close I to what I believe, but it doesn't take into consideration the "echo"

Think of viewing the object as a pebble tossed into a still pond (your mind) the more ripples, the greater the impact the object had on you. If this "echo" lasts beyond the viewing moment, maybe for days or years after seeing it, then the object was art because it "evoked an inspiring emotional response" that lasted beyond the moment.

People laugh at things labeled art, Chris has brought up the urinal titled "fountain" many times before, yet the object obviously had a profound impact on him. It served its purpose, it had an "echo" with Chris, it proved to have all the attributes of art and yet he still denied it as being such.


Will

 

[buddhamonk]

 

[Anonymous User]

buddhamonk,

This was either another attempt to marginalize the discussion of art in bonsai, an insult as to the mental health of those engaged in such discussion, or a lame pot shot at the mentally handicapped. At the very least, it added nothing to the conversation.



Will

 

[Chris Johnston]

This is close I to what I believe, but it doesn't take into consideration the "echo"

Think of viewing the object as a pebble tossed into a still pond (your mind) the more ripples, the greater the impact the object had on you. If this "echo" lasts beyond the viewing moment, maybe for days or years after seeing it, then the object was art because it "evoked an inspiring emotional response" that lasted beyond the moment.

People laugh at things labeled art, Chris has brought up the urinal titled "fountain" many times before, yet the object obviously had a profound impact on him. It served its purpose, it had an "echo" with Chris, it proved to have all the attributes of art and yet he still denied it as being such.


Will

Since I am on ignore again, I will just say that an "echo" really has no place in a definition of art. Art is. It does not gain "artness" by receiving an echo from its audience. I use "Fountain" because it is one of may particularly egregious miscarraiges of "art criticism."

 

[Chris Johnston]

Prehistoric cave paintings.

I don't see what that could possibly bear on this discussion. How much intent was there to create art? Perhaps an inkling? And are they really art? If a Neanderthal spits paint on his outstretched hand to leave a silhouette on the stone, how much can we know about it and its intent, and how would that fit a definition of art?

 

[Chris Johnston]

So, then, how about this attempt at a definition:

Visual art is defined as a human activity that creates a visual form for the purpose of evoking an inspiring emotional response in viewers.

An object of such visual art would then be the form created.

Will,
I think this is close but no cigar. Therefore any object created would be art, even what all of us would consider crud or kitsch. No, a certain amount of skill must also go into the creation.

 

[Chris Johnston]

I knew all along that the two of you will eventually arrive to the same conclusion, it's just a matter of time . After exploring 27 pages of different alternatives, there is no other place to go but towards each-other.

Mr. Lansing's is a good definition of art. Some of its weak points are: Skillful (it is a relative term), Satisfying (it is highly subjective), Coherent (it depends on the frame of reference). But no definition is perfect.

There are some other good ones.

Each famous artist seems to have his/her own definition of art - all valid ones, since they come from people who create great art themselves. The problem is that these definitions are never the same.

My favorite one today is this: Art is a human representation of mystery - (this is not a quote from anyone). I like it because it summes up how people seem to feel about art. Anyone who can represent (visually, auditively, or perform) the great mysteries of human condition, is an artist. My definition focuses not on HOW art is achieved, but WHAT it achieves. The HOW is so vast and infinite, that I couldn't dream of a sentence that includes all. It is much easier to define the result.

But the best news of today is NOT the above. It is that you (Chris) are back in Will's doghouse (ignore). It is a relief for all of us, the proud off-line community. Believe me, this is the best compliment that you can get from Will - I wish I was THAT important.

Cheers,
Attila

Attila,
Not sure I care for your definition, because it raises more questions than it answers, and that sounds too much like punching at the wind, or debating Will!

On the other hand, I worked hard to pull Will out of his pout last time, and then was sorry I did so. He is welcome to stay there.

 

[Chris Johnston]

I really like this.

Your definition also makes room for several different outcomes: art, as human activity, can eventually succeed or fail. The intent is always there, but the final result (the obect of art) doesn't always achieve the desired outcome. Just because somebody is an artist (involved in the activity called art), this doesn't guarantee that he will always create good art objects.

Your definition also implies, that if a person's intention is purely to create a functional object (such a generic chair), the result cannot be called art. However, if the intent is to create a chair that will evoke strong emotions in a viewer, then the activity (and possibly the result) can be called art.

Or a bonsai stand.

 

[Chris Johnston]

This subject defines and demonstrates the conundrum about catching the wind. The answers exist in the same realm as the question, the esoteric trying to describe the esoteric agreed to by those who believe themselves recipients of such knowledge. No offence intended, no criticism put forth, and not looking to start another argument but if you think about it is true. It's akin to trying to describe what an Avocado tastes like.

Grouper: Your definition is as valid as most but by using your criteria, pornography is a perfect example of art.

I see your humor, Vance, but that's not exactly true. Each element of Grouper's definition is clear and concise without amibiguity. No loaded words like talent or genius. Art is man's attempt to touch the emotions in mankind through the process of creating something new. The greater the skill in achieving that seamlessly, the greater the work of art. Michelangelo's David, springs to mind. And this my sound funny to those who know that I am an atheist, but his Pieta in the Vatican is one of the most moving works of art I have ever seen.

It is so moving because the subject is so universal, a mother caring for her fallen son. It is also so moving because Michelangelo had the skill and yes, talent, to breath life into that cold stone. I've seen it through the plexiglass. Photographs don't do it justice.

 

[Chris Johnston]

Oh my god. I laughed out loud. Guiltily.

 

[Attila Soos]

Attila,
Not sure I care for your definition, because it raises more questions than it answers

I thought that Grouper 52 put it very eloquently: the intent of evoking an inspiring emotional response from the viewer.

I phrased it a little differently: evoking a sense of mystery and wonderment.

I am not sure why am I accused of raising more questions than answers? I would be hard pressed to find a great work of art that doesn't evoke the above. So, if that's so, shouldn't be included as one of the defining factors, whether you like it or not?

 

[sadje]

Personally I believe trying to define art is like trying to explain the color red to a man who has been blind his whole life....

 

[sadje]

Personally I believe trying to define art is like trying to explain the color red to a man who has been blind his whole life....:rolleyess.

 

[grouper52]

Personally I believe trying to define art is like trying to explain the color red to a man who has been blind his whole life....:rolleyess.

Perhaps, to expand upon the metaphor, trying to define art to one who has been intellectually challenged his whole life is like trying to explain the color red to one who has been visually challenged his whole life?....:eyesnotrolledatallbutlookingrightatyou.

 

[sadje]

Sorry about the double post last night this website was acting up on me. Also later I’ll finish my cp when I get time but just quickly before I go. This debate reminds me of the old story of the blind men and the elephant. www.rec-room.org/Activities/stories/elephant.html I know it’s just another metaphor and not a 10 page article with a lot of words that I get lost in. And I know that art is not an elephant and heaven forbid that I’m suggesting any of you are blind. It’s just my personal view on how I’ve been watching you all describe art. Now I will put on my bullet proof vest and helmet because I will probably be shot down over enemy lines and have to make my way back to my lurkers corner where I think I’m suppose to stay. Have a good-day all.

 

[Chris Johnston]

I thought that Grouper 52 put it very eloquently: the intent of evoking an inspiring emotional response from the viewer.

I phrased it a little differently: evoking a sense of mystery and wonderment.

I am not sure why am I accused of raising more questions than answers? I would be hard pressed to find a great work of art that doesn't evoke the above. So, if that's so, shouldn't be included as one of the defining factors, whether you like it or not?

Attila,
Thanks for your interactions in this regard over the past few months. I find this definition lacking because it would only define art as that which you like. Seeking to inspire or provide a positive emotional response is great, and I wish more art did this. However, seeking to inspire fear or anger or disgust is also a valid attempt at moving the viewer. Witness Guernica.

 

[Chris Johnston]

Sorry about the double post last night this website was acting up on me. Also later I’ll finish my cp when I get time but just quickly before I go. This debate reminds me of the old story of the blind men and the elephant. www.rec-room.org/Activities/stories/elephant.html I know it’s just another metaphor and not a 10 page article with a lot of words that I get lost in. And I know that art is not an elephant and heaven forbid that I’m suggesting any of you are blind. It’s just my personal view on how I’ve been watching you all describe art. Now I will put on my bullet proof vest and helmet because I will probably be shot down over enemy lines and have to make my way back to my lurkers corner where I think I’m suppose to stay. Have a good-day all.

Sadje,
Thanks for joining in and taking a particular stand. I understand how you feel. Sometimes people use far too many words because they are speaking around what they wish not to say. I do it because I like to see myself in print.

Honestly, it is important that we try to keep this on a level where what we are saying would make sense to the non-philosopher. Far too often I find myself parsing sentences, wondering what the writer is trying to get at without saying it. It's a shame. Sometimes it's because the writer has something to hide. Sometimes it's because they don't know any better. But after repeated attempts to get the writer to clarify, if they get defensive, we can know they have bad intentions.

That's why I post threads like this. I want to get out in the open what people are trying to promote. If it's themselves, let's see it. If it's something else, let's see that.

There's no reason that we can't reduce concepts to their smallest components and then proceed from some sort of common ground. It doesn't mean we will all agree. It means there is enough commonality that we are not speaking about different subjects entirely while thinking we agree.

 

[Tachigi]

Seeking to inspire or provide a positive emotional response is great, and I wish more art did this. However, seeking to inspire fear or anger or disgust is also a valid attempt at moving the viewer

Hi Chris, On Attila's post that you quoted I don't think he referred to a "positive" emotional response. Just a emotional response that would encompass what you cited.

If you really think about it though, inspiring fear, anger, or disgust could be construed as a positive response depending on your point of view. When the image was created by the artist his intention was to evoke those emotions...in his/her eyes, that would be a very positive emotional response.