If I wrote a novel and decided it was a great work of art, does that it mean it was? Or, are some views worth more than others: other writers, critics or the general public. I think I know the answer, but from what @steveTu says, if I say so, then it is.
On that basis, if I sketched a plant and called it art, it WOULD be. However, unlikely to be art in anyone else's opinion, so on that basis, I COULDN'T consider it art.
That's the point isn't it? There are peoples opinions more important than others, when deciding whether something is art. Therefore, Tracey Emin's unmade bed was art, because people people with "knowledge" said it was. Subjective, certainly, but it means there are criteria.
How can you lie there and think of England When you don't even know who's in the team
Bluejayway How do you determine if an artist is being serious or not? And how do you determine if a child could do it? Is your judgement on these matters better than everyone else's?
If I wrote a novel and decided it was a great work of art, does that it mean it was? Or, are some views worth more than others: other writers, critics or the general public. I think I know the answer, but from what @steveTu says, if I say so, then it is.
Maybe i'm rubbish at explaining... I didn't say that your novel was 'art' to anyone else than someone who sees it as art. As the definition of art is subjective, the person who experiences the art decides BOTH whether they think it's art and whether they (if they do think it's art) think it's any good. I have never said that by you claiming your novel is art that it is then classed as art for everyone. You may see it is art, I may not. My decision, your decision.
But - did you read the link to the story about Spotify - a group had put a few tracks of 'nothing' on spotify as music to fall asleep to. They earned money from it. Who decides if that is art? That isn't new - other people have recorded albums of no sound. Art? If you can't define something - how on earth can you have an expert in it?
Is AI art art? - No one can answer, because they can't define art in the first place. Read Dove's link to The Definition of Art - and it's her link - and understand the problems trying to define it without it being totally subjective.
That's the point isn't it? There are peoples opinions more important than others, when deciding whether something is art. Therefore, Tracey Emin's unmade bed was art, because people people with "knowledge" said it was. Subjective, certainly, but it means there are criteria.
What are those criteria @Punkdoc? - define art for me.
Edited to add:
I would agree that 'experts' have more knowledge of what they are experts in. BUT if the expert is in a subjective thing - ie any art, their expertise is limited isn't it (they may know about the background of the artist, the techniques used, the materials, the who,what,where,when and hows....)? IE anything that the observer feels,thinks etc about the thing observed is in them - and no matter what an 'expert' says the observer is the only person who knows what they perceive - which may be at odds with the expert. Similarly then, if the thing called 'art' is based on subjectivity in its definition, then an expert's expertise is limited by the same constraints isn't it? They can say 'I think that's art and I've studied art for decades' - but really that's no different to the same expert saying they think that piece of artwork is good or bad. You may want to take that opinion on board, but another expert may disagree as what they both see as art is different because their definitions of what is art differ.
If anything, literally ANYTHING, can be art, if the creator wishes to define it as such, then maybe we are looking at the issue from the wrong perspective.
Perhaps EVERYTHING ought to be defined as art from the outset. Then, and only then, different aspects of this world could be undefined as art.
God made this world for his pleasure, and art is precisely that - something created for the creator's pleasure (even those things created by the original creator's creations).
Thus that makes us all, works of art. Even that piece of pottery, or scribble, becomes art. Of course, that still leaves us with the problem of what and how do we undefine as art.
@Alan Clark2 in Liverpool Well, in my humble opinion, if an artist has what I see as genuine talent - by that I mean they can paint a recognisable portrait or landscape - then they are being "serious". If they as adults are painting random coloured blobs that don't look like anything, the sort of thing a young child would paint, then they are having us all on. If somebody "sees" something in the random coloured blobs then ..well it's beyond me. Likewise with piles of bricks etc - if they are arranged in such a way that there's a definable and recognisable shape then maybe that's art. If they are just placed in a straight line then that's talentless. In my opinion.
Posts
However, unlikely to be art in anyone else's opinion, so on that basis, I COULDN'T consider it art.
There are peoples opinions more important than others, when deciding whether something is art.
Therefore, Tracey Emin's unmade bed was art, because people people with "knowledge" said it was. Subjective, certainly, but it means there are criteria.
When you don't even know who's in the team
S.Yorkshire/Derbyshire border
Perhaps EVERYTHING ought to be defined as art from the outset. Then, and only then, different aspects of this world could be undefined as art.
God made this world for his pleasure, and art is precisely that - something created for the creator's pleasure (even those things created by the original creator's creations).
Thus that makes us all, works of art. Even that piece of pottery, or scribble, becomes art. Of course, that still leaves us with the problem of what and how do we undefine as art.