How do you define 'art'? Can there be an objective definition, or is it a pointless endeavor which everyone has opposing but equally "correct" definitions?
>>7458777
Beauty achieved through skill.
>>7458777
>objective
stupid word
>>7458777
Dunno, read some books on easthetics. Kant's Critique of Judgement is probs an easy starting point.
>>7458777
Art: the externalisation of a person's emotions, beliefs, and interpretation of information.
Done.
>>7458777
Something that was created for no other purpose than for itself
>>7458789
Also, Joyce portrayal of his younger self's understanding of the aesthetic question is not likely the most sophisticated answer he came up with in his life, and you should probably look elsewhere for dedicated discussion
art has to map on to what people generally think is art to some degree.
the definition has to be able to account for shifting and contrary ideas of art. to account for as many things relating to art as possible.
any theory that is able to gather all of these strands together into a coherent form is worthy of the same status as a scientific theory.
>>7458777
I like the definition "the use and juxtaposition of symbols as a way of communicating intellectual or emotional meaning"
I have not read much philosophy of aesthetics's yet.
>>7458780
>he only values virtuosity
art is all about tearing down society's power structures and replacing them with fantasy garbage.
>>7458832
>good art is the same as bad art
Underage modern art piss baby spotted
interesting expression
>>7458874
>he thinks virtuosity equals good
>>7458874
The question asked was "How do you define 'art'?", not what is good art.
Anything that has subjective beauty.
>>7458800
Is this a joke? What about political art? Or art intended to symbolize, or get a point across? For example, the Sistine Chapel ceiling piece was created by Michelangelo FOR something...
>>7458800
That's decent as a definition of fine art, in the narrowest sense (i.e., 'fine' as in 'final,' as in 'its own purpose'). I wonder how often this applies to actual usage of the word 'art' in everyday life, though. I think it usually includes at least an emotional component.
>>7459025
>I think that is self-evident.
What is wrong with the definition?
>>7459001
Art is beauty achieved through skill. If it fails that, it is not art, regardless of what some liberal humpback with an art degree tells you as he sips his latte.
>>7458777
Think of it as a system of symbols in which its individual parts develop their own autonomy in producing an experience of metonymy in its audience.
It isn't a case of art fitting 'correct' definitions, but it also doesn't have everyone 'opposing' each other: all that matters is that the work has the capacity to produce a widespread response of internalised creativity in the subject, forming connections of perceptual/emotional memory between the disparate elements of the work, no matter how correct or uncorrect - good or bad - the presented motifs may be
>>7459129
>good art is the same as bad art
But anon, you called "art" that failed to live up to that ideal " bad art" in this sentence. This still positions it as being art.
If you can point at a thing ("thing" being a certain arrangement of objects due to the actions of a human being or the action of the human being itself) and say "that has aesthetic beauty to me" then it's technically art.
Which is why a rock isn't art but a rock formation arranged by a human in a way that is aesthetically pleasing IS art.
Note that this isn't a declaration that all art is the same. People who say things like "Star Wars isn't art" are being genuinely pretentious. It's definitely art; it's just not good art.
roger scruton
something like that. look him up
>>7458777
Videogames are art.
Defining art is fascism
>>7458842
>quality of art is necessarily related to technical skill of the artist
OP here again. Thanks for all the replies. I find trying to define art and love frustrating. It is such an abstract concept, that I can't really see how a universal definition is possible.
A rock is a rock. I can point to a rock and say that is a rock and everyone will agree, because we have something concrete to reference when saying the word. But with abstract things like art and love, there's simply nothing to point to in reference.
>>7459419
reference this
*points to dick*
>>7459545
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tOsQv-rrEE
>>7459238
i like this
The field where the definition of humanity is at play.
