DebraAnn Kasimakis 16 Nov 2006

What about "art trouve'"?

Wendy Bandurski-Miller 16 Nov 2006

4. Effect.

it has to touch/educate/upset/move/enrage/strike with awe/.......the audience in some way...

THAT is art...... it connects.

Carson Collins 16 Nov 2006

We seem to have lost sight of the higher function of art: that is, to awaken and heal the soul. This is never talked about. Instead, critics treat art as if it were a game of intellectual one-upsmanship or mere clever entertainment, thus "transforming", as Kandinsky said, "the life of the universe into an evil, useless game."

Dan Ault 16 Nov 2006

Yes, art can educate, connect, effect, heal the soul, but you are making qualitative evaluations. Before that comes definition.

And art trouve does fit these criteria. The concept relates to intention and the object becomes art through the artist's declaration.

Wendy Bandurski-Miller 16 Nov 2006

definining by its very nature involves language and therefore is qualitative already........

why you say 'before' is interesting.

i am not sure why ...

you want to 'quantify?' art?

*edit spelling eeeekk

Dan Ault 16 Nov 2006

I'm not trying to 'qualitify' anything.

Deciding whether someting is or isn't a work of art comes before you begin to consider the quality of the work.

Dan Ault 16 Nov 2006

Unless, of course you're implying that everything is art and nothing is not art.

Wendy Bandurski-Miller 16 Nov 2006

no i was not thinking that! it is patently too broad.

but i was thinking to combine intent with communication AND aesthetics in a visual form...... with self. art ALWAYS has something of the artist within......

tony murray 16 Nov 2006

I honestly have touble with your definition,but I don't know why.

I'll give it more thought.

Can the "audience" be an audience of one?

I have art in my head that I have not yet made tangible. And yet to me it is already a completed work. How would that apply?

I don't have too much trouble with the first premis, however it seems a tad narrow to me.

Dan Ault 16 Nov 2006

Not all artists seek to leave themselves visible in their art. You will have a hard time finding one similar intention among all artists who are creating work.

Concepts that remain in the artist's head never become art.

Carson Collins 17 Nov 2006

"art: noun: 1.the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance."

I've never seen a definition of "art" that did not include the logical fallacy of "begging the question" (in which that which is being argued is somehow already assumed) - BECAUSE THERE ARE NO UNIVERSALLY AGREED-UPON AESTHETIC VALUES.

If anyone in this forum manages to define "art", IMHO they will be the first person in history to do it!

Dan Ault 17 Nov 2006

My definition of art isn't trying to define aesthic values or values of any other kind.

As I stated earlier, before you begin the process of judging the merit (or lack of) for a piece you must first determine if it is indeed a work of art. These criteria are designed to be all inclusive for all works of art, but exclude things in the world that, although beautiful, harmonious, thought-provoking, creative, or trendy, are not art.

I'm not trying to be a wise-ass or step on anybody's toes here. I just think that a lot of the vagueness that turns people off about art comes from the fact that artists themselves sometimes aren't sure what art is. Since this is a forum for discussing art and art related issues it would be helpful if we understood each other more precisely.

Wendy Bandurski-Miller 17 Nov 2006

to a point I agree that to discuss is helpful......

i am not sure precise is needed as artists to discuss art......

surely the discussion is more important than the starting point?

(yes i know you aint being a wise ass).....well 'yet' ...... ;) (that WAS a joke)

i think definitions are overrated.

DebraAnn Kasimakis 17 Nov 2006

Mmmhmmm.

I think there is so much merit in being able to see art......in nature. Art Trouve'.......it just happens sometimes. The ability to "SEE" it.

Don't you think that is an important part of observation? That's what "art" is all about....seeing, expressing, being able to.

So many times others say to me.....I see it in my mind.....I can't put it on paper or show others.....It is because: they don't have the ability to "draw" (strange)...or they can't turn a thought/vision into tangible image.....No?

Now-a-days....you don't really have to be able to draw....because of the computer & graphics(I love that idea.... even if I don't know how to use the stuff....yet).

I can...."draw" (for all the good it's ever done me.....). I take it for granted...when describing something....hard to imagine, I just draw it for the explanation......LOL

The picture is worth 10,000 words.

But, still, you have to be able to "see" the art in something. I love Art Trouve.....it is everywhere.....LOL

Dan Ault 17 Nov 2006

I understand that what I am putting forth here makes many of you uncomfortable. Defining terms is something that one does in a scientific venue.

However, I think part of the uneasiness is the dread of being pigeon-holed. I understand that, and I also hate to be lumped into catagories that I feel are unneccessary and limiting. But having a simple statement that defines the scope of the subject is not just a starting point it ensures that we are talking about the same thing.

The first criteria that I mentioned ensures that we all agree that not everything is art. But it doesn't set any limits to what kind of art is acceptable or best.

Also, as I stated earlier, I believe that Art Trouve fits this definition because the artist has an existing aesthetic concept and finds objects that fit. By declaring existing objects to be works of art the artist is fulfilling the second criteria.

Patrick Miller 17 Nov 2006

Do all observers in the audience have to be in agreement? Out of 100 people, what if 20 say it isn't art? Moreover, what if only one says it is?

Great question....but it is a bit of a labrynth of thought. I'll be sure to put this one where it belongs in my mental filing system.

Right before..."What is the meaning of life". ...and right after...."Why am I here".

I believe that to use scientific methods to quantify anything so ambiguous is folly from the starting gun. The first rule of science is to form a question, then develop a metric or series of metrics by which a solution can be recognized from the experimental data.

What is the metric being used for this?

DebraAnn Kasimakis 17 Nov 2006

Ah-h-h-h-, Patrick....you are acting so..."Indigo".................LOL

Dan Ault 17 Nov 2006

The opinions of the audience have no bearing on whether something is defined as a work of art. The important factor for qualifying something as a work of art is that it is presented to an audience.

The opinions of the audience can play a role in determining the value of the artwork, but not in defining it.

Patrick Miller 17 Nov 2006

OK...clears that up enough....but,

I still think that looking at concepts such as beauty, love, hate, art etc through such black and white eyes is folly.

For example:

In order to be truly in love with someone the following must exist before hand....

1. You must both have intentions to form a union.

2. you must both have........

You get the idea? Some things go beyond breaking them down into discernable rules....in effect "dumbing it down" for the people who don't get it. Maybe they never will?....or never should.

This is our own little secret club....if you don't get it....join another.

tony murray 17 Nov 2006

O.K. I thunked about this s'more.

Your definition is fantastic and wonderful. And I would never use it myself!