What everything is about or... literature as it is not.

[Penforhire]

My definition of art is reasonably simple but certainly not scientific. Something is art, to me, if it intentionally evokes some connotation beyond its literal presentation or denotation. If a pipe is just a pipe then it isn't art.

I see no way to define art objectively. Even if you wire up my brain and categorize my responses to objects (paintings, statues, literature, songs, ...) they may not apply to any other person's responses to the same objects.

[DixieGal]

Art and literature must affect society in order to be fine art or great literature, imo.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

I see no way to define art objectively. Even if you wire up my brain and categorize my responses to objects (paintings, statues, literature, songs, ...) they may not apply to any other person's responses to the same objects.

One needn't define art objectively, i.e. agree on what art is and isn't, in order to make an objective study of art. For example, one might discover that there is an "art" area of the brain which, when stimulated, causes us to appreciate something as art, but whose stimulation was different between individuals, hence leading to disagreement about what counted as art. I'm not suggesting that there really is an "art" area of the brain, just pointing out that there doesn't need to be a right answer about what art is in order to make an objective study of our experience of art. Similarly with morality - there need be no woo in morality, it can be objectively studied, even though there is not one right answer about what constitutes morality (or even what a moral question is).

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Consider that we still don't know how memories are stored and recalled, we don't know how the electrochemical signals transmitted by neurons actually form and maintain thoughts and memories, we don't know what triggers specific intellectual or emotional responses, and we don't know if all brains process concrete or abstract data the same way.

The most we can do is make broad generalizations, ie, "Whatever it is that happens, it mostly happens here."

Until we understand those fundamental questions, we cannot understand how art is processed by the brain. You have to know how the processor in a television works, before you can expect to shoot signals at it and get a coherent image on its screen.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by DixieGal

Art and literature must affect society in order to be fine art or great literature, imo.

In what way? In a general sense, Angry Birds has affected society... "Two and a Half Men" has affected society... Snookie has affected society...

[HomeInMyShoes]

^Hmmm. I don't think affect is the way I would describe it. I would describe art, in any format or medium or however you want to describe it, as that which makes one look at the world in a different way. Real art evokes ideas and thought. It's a bit of a pretentious viewpoint on my part, but not every painting is art. This doesn't necessarily mean that I de-value what someone has painted, but a simple landscape does not usually make me think differently about my world, it may, but it doesn’t necessarily need to do that. I would classify that as a painting. The question of whether I hang something on my wall can be separate from the question of whether I believe something is art or not. For the question posed here, whether we believe something to be art in written form or not is separate question to the one that asks would we read this and buy this? I probably wouldn’t read this authors work, but it might be art. I might think that Marcel Duchamps and Andrew Wyeth were great artists, but I’d probably only hang a Wyeth in my home even though Duchamps makes me question things more and brings out what art is to me.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Until we understand those fundamental questions, we cannot understand how art is processed by the brain. You have to know how the processor in a television works, before you can expect to shoot signals at it and get a coherent image on its screen.

You don't need to understand everything before you can say anything. There are plenty of objective studies of human behaviour that tell us valuable things - even some about our behaviours in relation to art.

[kennyc]

I may not know art, but I know what I like.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I may not know art, but I know what I like.

He was the one with the big hair who could hit the high notes.

Anyway, art is what you like

[kennyc]

Exactly, not that short guitar player....

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I may not know art, but I know what I like.

I paraphrase this as: there's a difference between understanding a piece and actually paying money for it.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

I would describe art, in any format or medium or however you want to describe it, as that which makes one look at the world in a different way. Real art evokes ideas and thought.

When I was in middle school, blacklight posters had this effect on me.

Also, paintings on black velvet of dogs playing poker. A trenchant comment on the human condition, thought I.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

You don't need to understand everything before you can say anything. There are plenty of objective studies of human behaviour that tell us valuable things - even some about our behaviours in relation to art.

Sure... but you were talking about how the mechanics of the brain reacts to art... and I contend that we don't know enough about what the brain does with objective data to determine how it handles subjective data.

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

Anyway, art is what you like

Is it? If I say that I don't like Picasso's cubism period, does his work cease to be art?

But wait... even though I don't like the work, I can objectively see what he was trying to accomplish. So, is it art now? Or does the fact that I can only react to it objectively take the art out of it?

I can say the same things about poems: I can appreciate the rhyme and meter, the metaphor and the simplicity; but they don't move me. I have no emotional response to them. So are they not art?

But wait... I like The Fairly Oddparents' "Pixie Rap," and Jim Carrey's rendition of "Cuban Pete" from The Mask. So are they art?

I was repulsed enough by Giger's Alien to have nightmares. Is that art?

I think the painting "The End" is just stoopid. Is it not art?

Some people say art evokes memories. So does making myself a cup of iced tea. So is that act art?

Some say art evokes emotions. So does my swerving my car to avoid a reckless driver. Is that act art?

My point is: Art is simply too nebulous and personal to actually define... which may be the best definition of art there is.

[Native]

Art and morality are truth to self and have nothing to do with observers. At least until the artist gets hungry.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

My point is: Art is simply too nebulous and personal to actually define... which may be the best definition of art there is.

Art is a socially constructed category, that is to say there is not an objective "right answer" to be discovered about what art is - we get to (collectively) decide. However, there is a lot of commonality across individuals and cultures in how they respond to the various things we call art, and we can reasonably study those responses. Also, we choose definitions that are useful to us - in some particular context - and call that art. Without making such definitions we'd struggle to talk to one another about anything.

So, I'd agree that we shouldn't seek to mandate a definition, or think that we have the only answer. However, that doesnt mean that attempts to understand what art is, why we make it, how people respond to it etc. are impractical or without value - quite the opposite.