Talk:Definition of art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

I'm curious:

  1. Is this page really best separated from "Art"?
  2. Does this page need to be called "Definition of art", rather than, say "What is art?" Some of us believe that it may be very fruitful to discuss what art is about, what it means to various people, and disagreements about the nature of art, but don't find that providing a "definition" is necessarily the best way to do this. There are certainly philosophers and others these days (e.g. from Ludwig Wittgenstein or George Lakoff) indicating that the "definiton" may not always make sense as a way to describe human concepts. It seems it might be more NPOV, therefore, to take the word "definition" out of the title - unless this page is going to be about things that should strictly be called definitions.

-Ryguasu 07:27 Nov 17, 2002 (UTC)

I made this page a while ago in the hopes it would turn into a general presentation on the nature of art, kind of like the definition of music page has done, while the art page could be more of a jumping off point for specific things (visual art, dance, music, etc.). As for the title, i think it's ok with the disclaimer at the top of the page; you might want to incorporate you comments above into the article.
The whole art/visual arts and design area needs a lot of work in general; more definitions and more infrastructure. Not being an art student, I'm trying to do what I can, but what we could really use is someone who knows what they're talking about :-) -- Merphant

I would think that most people seeking information on art are a bit more interested on what art is (more of a definition) than just a list of art forms and categories. Wouldn't this page be a better front page on art, and the forms and categories be a better next page? That was what I was looking for at first. In the spirit of "just diving in" I added a few of my own ideas on art in general here and edited others a bit for clarity.

-GeorgeHarnish 29 Jul 2003


The following is moded from the main page. Please try not to write your view, but that of many. Try not to shout. Try not to write in the first person singular. branko


Someone remarks on the article page: "One wonders what people were saying when the first impressionist paintings made their appearance.". Well, the (1908?) book Pictures Every Child Should Know [1] by Mary Schell Hoke Bacon discusses the great paintings and painters of the world, with one exception:

"Monet's remarkable method of putting his colours upon canvas does not mean impressionism. He is an impressionist but also _Monet_--an artist with a method entirely different from that of any other. He belongs to what in France is called the _pointillistes_. The word means nothing more nor less than an effort to accomplish the impossible. If you stand a little way from a very hot stove you may be able to see a kind of movement in the air, a quivering of particles or molecular motion, and this is what the _pointillistes_ try to show in their paintings--Monet most of all."
"The theory is that by putting little dabs of primitive colours, close together upon canvas, without mixing them, just separate dabs of red, yellow, blue, etc., the effect of movement is produced. Needless to say, none of them ever have produced such an effect, but they have made such grotesque, ugly pictures that they have attracted attention even as a humpbacked person does."

HTH :-) branko

Any text which purports to offer a definition of art should provide one of at least several possible definitions. The following represents one example:

As has been previously discussed understanding of art is via one or more of the 5-senses and perception is always colored by experience. Therefore, a reaction to art as ugly or beautiful is subjective. However, art is not subjective. Art exists beyond perception (opinion however this can be supported with additional research).

A practicing artists requires a basis for criticism,(opinion) a way to determine (whether perceived to be ugly or beautiful) the sensory input meets the criteria to be considered art. The following is a definition of art that is relative across all form and media (supportable opinion). It can be a foundation for critical assay and most importantly it can be taught. The definition is as follows:

Art is a poetic ontology of (insert art form here i.e. space, light, sound, language, etc.) that contains the mythic represenation of itself. Additionally, the elements of any ontology define the essence of its poetic idea.

Simply put the term ontology in artistic expression can be thought of as a self sustaining system. That the elements of the system are self referential, that is, all parts of the system contribute to the organic integrity of the whole is equally important. Extraneous or missing elements are seen to degrade the artistic integrity of the Ontology. This definition is wholly Jungian in concept and supported by the writings of Peter Magyar, Attilla Joseph, Plato, and Aristotle.

If any parts of the above text merit inclusion on the main page it will be up to a more skilled "writer" than myself to include them. As an Architect my work exists in the form of space not language. My artistic skill set is rather weak in this medium. ---User:F Campbell

Er, purports, I believe, but no matter. (I understood that according to the etiquette of this site we are to quietly correct rather than cajole)
I agree that when endeavouring to offer a definition of as elusive a subject as art, it is best to offer several definitions from which the reader may choose.
One definition that works for me is that art is objects that are kept primarily for aesthetic rather than utilitarian reasons. In contrast, design is making utilitarian objects more beautiful. Clothes, parks, and cool-looking automobiles are designed; paintings and sculpture are art. Architecture falls somewhere in between, I suppose, depending on the nature of the undertaking. This definition is not particularly intellectually fulfilling, but it works for me. It does not address performance art, such as theater or music, nor does it do justice to the media representations of these (cinema and recorded music). Kat 01:32, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The Concepts embodied in the notion of art as poetic ontology are seductive in that one can begin to group all categories of artistic activity within.
Examine this excerpt from the writings of noted author Ursula K. Leguin.
"...a story equally needs what Jill Paton Walsh calls a trajectory — not necessarily an outline or synopsis to follow, but a movement to follow: the shape of a movement, whether it be straight ahead or roundabout or recurrent or eccentric, a movement which never ceases, from which no passage departs entirely or for long, and to which all passages contribute in some way. This trajectory is the shape of the story as a whole. It moves always to its end, and its end is implied in its beginning."
She speaks of the work of literature developing a self fulfilling organic system or ontology of language. Such systems are also easiliy experienced in works of music or poetry.
One interesting element about the concept of art as poetic ontology is the de-linking of preception and reaction from the experience of art. The works of Frank Stella are art. Whether you preceive them as "ugly" or "beautiful" does not change their value as art. It would be valuable to obtain the opinion of a curator of a major museum or better yet a significant art critic. Art can be critically acclaimed despite popular perception of its aesthetic merit. The work of Sculptors Claes Oldenburg or Duane Hanson are examples.
Lastly it has been stated that Architecture in its purest sense can be regarded as the "highest" of all art forms. Examine the recent works of Santiago Calatrava or Frank Geary. I will admit however that most works of architecture fail to rise to the level of art. Or they fail to develop a poetic ontology of space that contains the mythic representation of itself.

---User:F Campbell

I've tried to integrate some of the discussion above into the article. It could still use some editing, but there are two questions on the art page that this article still fails to address:

  1. Is art always a form of individual expression?
  2. Will a work of art only be art once it is finished?

I am inclined to answer no and no. My justifications will come later. What does everyone else think? -- Merphant 04:33, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There are no pat answers to questions such as these. Traditionally, art is considered a form of individual expression, but this belies the collaborative nature of many undertakings, and the role of skilled craftspeople in many media. Consider photography, where even though one person may take credit for the artistic work, the work of stylists, assistants, and set designers play important roles; in the darkroom, the print may be made by yet another person and is hardly a process free of artistic controls. On the other hand, there are few if any artistic undertakings where a true, equal partnership among several artists can be said to be present.
Likewise with unfinished works, there is no pat answer. The more traditional artist might strive to keep incomplete works out of view even from friends, and almost every artist destroys unfinished works at least occasionally when the works are not living up to their standards. At the other extreme, some surrealist artists like Salvador Dali considered their entire lifetime to be an artistic statement; Dali went so far as to collect his excrement under the dubious notion that it was part of his artistic contribution to the world. Such an approach to the nature of art would surely hold that anything in an incomplete state would still be art. And some media, particularly oils, lend themselves to constant revision and fussing, so that it is a matter of judgement in some cases whether a work is complete or not. Some painters were notorious for revising their paintings after they were complete, in much the same way that musical composers do.
I originally wrote three questions in the article called Art as an example of how opinions on art differ.
# Can somebody make art if the creation was not intended to be art?
# Is art always a form of individual expression?
# Will a work of art only be art once it is finished?
To be honest, I thought--but wasn't sure--that these issues were being contested in the world of art science or art criticism. I know nothing about art. Although I can certainly appreciate art, art lovers and artists alike usually revolt me immensely, because they seem to insist on being part of a cabal. In other words, I have never tried to know about art, even if I appreciated a specific expression of art. (Is that what they call l'Art pour l'art?)
For instance, the question if 'somebody [can] make art if the creation was not intended to be art' was based on something I saw or heard about the paintings of cats or mentally retarded people; apparently, critics contested that these were real works of art, as the makers had not intended them to be art.
So I hoped, as I often hope with articles I work on, that somebody would come along and use solid facts as a hammer to bang my assumption-filled polemic into place. Although I am very gratified that actual discussion has arisen over my original questions, I fear my list has been turned into some todo list of things-we-need-to-solve-to -come-to-a-conclusion-about-what-art-is.
First, my questions were meant as examples of controversies, be they imagined or real.
Second, the questions are not always fair. Take 'will a work of art only be art once it is finished?' You could say this about a house, too: 'will a house only be a house once it is built completely?' This only goes to show how difficult it can be to define anything, but that should not be a deterrent.
I offer these comments, again in the hope that they can provide a springboard for further discussion and a better article.
BTW, I very much like Definition of music. branko


It is gratifying to see the Article taking shape. I have been taught at my University to view art in one way. Most people are not taught anything useful about art. My preference has already been stated (perhaps ad nausium) However I am grateful to have had the opportunity to have a preference. Most schools of art and architecture fail to give any guidance beyond the Soho/beatnick/nihlist inspired retoric of James J. Kelly's seminal work of non-information the "Sculptural Idea"and other equally useless texts from the late 70's and early 80's. These "standards" of art education led me horribly astray for years and gave me the mistaken impression that there could be no straight answers to the questions "what is art?" "when does an object or sound merit the description?".
It was rather late in my college years that I was introduced to the radical (at the time) writings of a few brilliant Hungarian philosopers and artists who had preserved the essence of an idea common among renaisance artists and composers through the early part of the 20th century. Somehow these concepts had survived behind the "iron curtain" while the free western art intelligencia (mafia)? had managed in the 50's and early 60's to stamp them out in higher education.
The notion of self referentiality as the essence of all artistic definition is of course quite dangerous. It has been misused historically by dictators, religious leaders, etc. Hitler regularly touted a perceived self referential connection between Mythic Atlantis and the Third Reich. I think Jung ultimately became a Nazi. However there is too much power in this notion to have abandoned it entirely.
One can design using these concepts, one can write great literature, compose great music, cook fantastic cuisine as one begins to strive to create organic self sustaining systems with their artistic endeavours.
Most importantly one can teach it. Teach young people who have not been raised among artistic riches, or in isolation, or with profound grace. Teach young people who have only been raised among the visual squalor that passes for most of America and therefore have had nothing to enrich the water of experience that is their personal artisic ocean.
I suppose the primary reason for writing this section is to point out that there are other older, deeper, and profoundly more interesting controversies than those already proposed. These controversies could become the very essence of your article. From my already established point of view your questions are as easliy answered as the base question What is Art?.
Q.Can somebody make art if the creation was not intended to be art? Self sustaining systems arise in nature all the time. Snowflake, Leaf, Mandelbrot set. These are beautiful, however while they do meet the critera to be a form of Ontology they are not "poetic Ontologies", that is they do not come from human experience as filtered through perception. They are therefore not art. There must be "poetic" intent.
Q.Is art always a form of individual expression? Of course not. A self sustaining organic system can easliy be developed and contributed to by multiple individuals. This is actually quite important since a great work of Architecture is seldom fully realized by one mind. Frank Lloyd Wright employed at his "fellowships" numbers of talented and ultimately great students who, once shown Wright's underlying ontology for a particular project, were able to sustain and embellish the project to a complete and unified whole. Many Authors find new directions of expression by teaming with another for a particular work.
Q.Will a work of art only be art once it is finished? An organic self referential system or Ontology is always infinite and therefore never finished (the Mandelbrot set is a great example). This goes for "Poetic Ontologies" as well. This idea was particularly appealing to renaisance artists who saw with the Church taught concepts of liturgial / biblical self referentiality a connection between artistic expression and the divine. Hence the decadant and destructive connection between art and state known as allegory. Even Musical compositions can be endlessly permutated in "variations" by talented musicians.
I hope you will come to understand one thing of which I am certain. Religion and Art are very similar. They are both self sustaining organic systems based upon human perception. Philosophy (the so called "cereal box" religion) is a link between them both. A serious discussion of Art will begin to delve into these interrelationships.
In part I initially logged onto this page while searching for a serious academic discusion on art which would help me further my aesthetic development. Having recently logged on to aesthetics-online.org I was immediately struck by a fact. I should not be contributing to this subject on this site until I have spent a few months on that site.

---User:F Campbell

A couple of points:
  1. It would be very nice if you logged in (it only takes a second and it's completely free; you don't even have to give and email address) and signed posts with three tildes (~~~) so it would be easier to keep discussions straight.
  2. Aesthetics is not art. Is i understand it, it is the philosophy of beauty. Yes, this is certainly related.
  3. This article should also represtent the views of laymen, that is, people who have not necessarily studied art in depth. I figure that is most of us. I will visit http://aesthetics-online.org and read some stuff because I'm interested, but that also is one point of view, and not necessaily the best.
  4. Don't let that keep you from contributing to Wikipedia. I'm sure you know a lot of stuff that is not covered here.
-- Merphant 07:44, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip on logging on. I searched around on the internet a bit after writing my words on this page and was stunned and overwhelmed to realize the depth/breadth of discussions occuring on certain sites. Articles / Books etc all dealing with this subject. I suppose I knew there was much more out there but I had no idea how much. This computer thing is a bit before my gen and I have never before partaken in e-discussion. It was quite breathtaking. Anyway, now I feel pretty inadequate (and I thought I knew some stuff). I have heard this expression stated and I do believe it: "incompetant people don't know/won't admit they are incompetant". I never want to believe I have all the answers.
Anyway I appreciate your statement that comments are welcome from non Art establishment people. Some of the things I learned on the other site aesthetics-online.org include a huge volume of reference material. I will return to that site to pull a more comprehensive list for inclusion on this site. After spending a few hours at the other site, it appears that this article is covering most of the points being discussed, however if Authur Danto from Columbia University ever checks this page out it will be embarrassing. These serious Art critics are absolutly vicious. It is obvious that this subject is connected with prestige/huge sums of money/and connections to power. I will continue to contribute as best I can. I have invited noted Author / Doctor of Architecture and Dean of FAU school of Architecture Dr. Peter Magyar to participate. He says he will participate after he returns from a trip to Italy later this month. This too may turn out to be embarrassing.---User:F Campbell
There is an excellent definition of Ontology or "First Philosophy" in the online Catholic Encyclopedia. I found it while searching for a "simple" definition. Simply translated it is the study of the essence of being. It is of course much more than this but that may be the simplest definition. I am interested in communicating these ideas to my clients and collegues and I require some language that is useful to others.---User:F Campbell

"It can arouse aesthetic or moral feelings, and can be understood as a way of communicating these feelings": What about surrealism, which specifically decries the conscious expression of aesthetics and morality? --Daniel C. Boyer 17:51, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Furthermore, the methods claimed to be "surautomatism" more thoroughly challenge these definitions; for instance, how does one fit decretage into these definitions of art? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:47, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This was dropped off by a new user, I moved it here for further consideration;

A possible attempt at an all encompassing definition of art: Art is an interpretation of reality by means of a medium. Each component of that definition must be examined for its significance. The term 'interpretation' implies an interpreter (artist) as well as a point of view or point of reference being expressed. The interpretation is of a single subject matter, 'reality'. Nothing, no matter how fanciful or internal comes ex-nihilo. Everything is based in and on our experience of reality. The final component of the definition refers to the material that is used to express the interpretation, the 'medium'. Of course, media can range from the written word to musical notes, clay, paint, photography, cinema, video games, etc. Despite the nearly limitless variety of media, the one very important quality that all of them share is the fact that they are all DIFFERENT FROM REALITY. You can take a photo of a man but that photo differs from the reality of the man in numerous ways: the photo is taken from a certain vantage point, with a fixed angle, at a certain exposure, at a chosen moment, etc. And all of these differences from reality become vessels of ARTISTIC CHOICE and OPPORTUNITIES to EXPRESS an idea and color with meaning as opposed to simply reproducing. In its early history, photography was indeed contested on whether simple mechanical reproduction can be considered art. But as noted, that simple 'mechanical reproduction' involves a great many choices when combined can portray a figure that is powerful, or one that is weak, one that is frightening, or one that is impotent. Yet the subject matter is the same man. And so, these DIFFERENCES FROM REALITY that a medium possesses can be seen to be the medium's primary means of expression and thus, we can derive an aesthetic for what makes GOOD ART by examining how well an artwork EXPLOITS such differences of reality that its chosen medium alone possesses. Especially since there are so many choices of media, the fact that an artist has chosen one particular medium as opposed to any other must not be merely coincidental or arbitrary. Why cinema over stage? There should be a good and constant reason throughout the expression. And here we do indeed broach the beginnings of aesthetics - what makes something good or beautiful.


A primary principle of aesthetics is ECONOMY. In philosophy, we find this idea captured in the principle of OCCAM'S RAZOR. Probably derived from the very nature of the physics of our reality, this principle of economy abhors waste or arbitrariness. Everything serves a purpose and that purpose is accomplished with as few resources as possible. Nature doesn't stick on a useless limb, neither should we.

Elde 09:20, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] This page and Art

If anyone meanders over to Art, they'll see a short page, bare-bones with a few examples. But to many people Art is one of the most important topics in the world. Readers visiting the Art page will look at it and think that Wikipedia is just not capable of producing good articles about important topics. They won't give it a huge chance by clicking each wikilink. They might never find Definition of art. Now, this page, Definition of art, is loaded with information that applies directly to Art. I'd strongly suggest moving the following pieces from this page to Art.

Yes, I realize this is most of the substance of this article, and what is left woudl barely merit its own article, but I think it is necessary. I understand the reason for creation of this page, it seems appropriate to separate a topic from its convuluted definition. However, as such an abstract concept, art is inherently what its definition says it is. The 4 topics I have listed above truly give insight into art itself, and deserve to be displayed on the main art page to give readers something to actually read when they come to wikipedia to learn about art.
—siroχo 19:43, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

I say go for it. Maybe the best thing to do would be to incorporate all the content of this page into art, and have this page be a redirect. Fewer than 20 articles link here, anyway. The only suggestion I have is to structure it so that the table of contents is near the top of the article in the new art page so it would be easy to jump to specific parts. Merphant 04:19, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree. I'd even say that Definition of art should become a redirect to Art. I think that Art is so bad I listed it on Wikipedia:Article of the week in the hope that people would work on it. After you move the material, I still think it will need work. For instance, I think the stuff on martial arts should go. Bmills 07:27, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've done this, and added some other stuff. Now Art needs a good copyedit. Bmills 11:26, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Art...

There is some very good stuff right here in the discussion and I only wish I had time to refer to all that i think is sound and unsound. Clearly that would take a long time. I do get the feeling that this is becoming a collaboration, in the way there is a real wish to work together to get to the bottom of the subject.

With this in mind I would like to point out one thing (well perhaps two)

It Is very easy to get stuck on the detail when looking for a basic definition of Art, we should all bear in mind that Art is not just Visual art, our basic definition must be true for people arriving from music,drama, theatre, film and dare I say it even martial arts. To me this points at a very bare bones approach that is highly abstract. links to specifics can then go to more fleshed out pages for Visual art, Performing art, Art history, Art theory etc (even art of winemaking if needs be). if we dont do this the page will always be being rewritten by people who's area is misrepresented.

Second thing is that i detect a basic miscomunication between those whose interest in art is either, theoretical, historical, appreciative, practical or exploratory. the Viewer, the buyer, the maker, the owner and the sceptic will all have different perspectives on what is of value about art. they are all correct. As an artist i know that my concerns when making are different from when viewing and different again when selling or buying, and then i think about the theory and ontology too. our simple definition must be several. basicly art is both an activity and an object.

  • I am making art
  • Here is some art

and both of those are a discipline, a comodity and an area of study

I am making art

  • how do i do art (everyone does, childrens art, art psychology, art as therapy, experimentation, how to be good)
  • can i learn how others do art (proper terms, disciplines, techniques, creative theory, Hueristics etc)
  • what are the principles and history of doing art - (various approaches, history of process) that i can engage with as an artist.

Here is some art

  • what type is it and how was it done (basic art appreciation stuff)
  • where can i see it, who owns it, how can i get it, (basic museum/collector/tourist stuff)
  • what else is it like, what was its context, what is its form, its content. (art history, artists bio's, schools and movements, ism's, philosophy and most art theory)

there probably are more but i think that should just about satisfy even the martial arts - read it again imagining you are bruce lee. lol (ok for museum read shao-lin temple)

I cant overstate that all this is before we start being specific - its about all art forms together, strip the specifics from your interest and see where it fits on the framework

i hope you get my drift

DavidP 03:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)