Art and Subobjectivity

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

Rest assured that I will never ask you to make an abstract painting.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Strawman, we are not talking about judgement of art, we are talking about its definition.

You can't have one without the other. The way you define art reflects the way how you judge art, it is in fact a rationalization of your subjective judgment.

[Danneskjold]

On the contrary, I judge art by how aesthetically pleasing it is to me. How much my senses appreciate what I am seeing. My senses are independent of my rationality (although not vice versa) because my senses pickup on reality, which exists. So, no, I do not judge art by my definition of it. I do not judge fun by my definition of it either.

[Dragonfly]

On the contrary, I judge art by how aesthetically pleasing it is to me. How much my senses appreciate what I am seeing. My senses are independent of my rationality (although not vice versa) because my senses pickup on reality, which exists. So, no, I do not judge art by my definition of it. I do not judge fun by my definition of it either.

It's the other way around: you choose your definition by your judgment of art. If you don't like abstract art, you choose a definition which excludes abstract art.

[Jonathan]

Victor wrote,

There is a movement, which has been prevailing in academia for a long time which teaches that art is indefinable, inexplicable, and beyond evaluation. These ideas are preached like unquestioned dogma in our schools, museums, and in the press. Whether you buy the point of view I have expressed above or not, you should ask yourself whether this "Art is all good/Everything is art/Art is whatever anyone says it is" philosophy has ever been verified to you or whether it was just repeated over and over or put forth in an menacing manner where the implication was that if you didn't accept it you must be some “unenlightened philistine.”

This subjectivist philosophy [i’m calling an ace an ace] has damaged the art world tremendously. It has removed the teaching of actual skills from the educational system. It has dried up most markets for actual art [note here I didn’t say ‘good art’ I said actual art.] It has created a self-sustaining, self-congratulatory, anti-intellectual segment of society dedicated to the obliteration of art. These ideas stunt the development of young artists, poison public discourse on art, obscure an accurate history of the arts, and worse--keep excellent works of art off museum walls and tossed to the basement. Perhaps one of my paintings and Johhathan’s ‘Resolve’ will best next in line for the basement].

Today, finger painting and piles of trash—even excrement--are given press coverage and immense amounts of museum space---while radiant masterpieces are kept in the basement. This is the danger you encounter when philosophy has failed to provide a rational definition of ART, every thing is tossed into the pot—including a urinal and the kitchen sink. In short, the movement to eliminate art, to confuse the public and to re-write art history is very damaging.

Jeff, I encourage you to continue to openly challenging these bad ideas—that is the only way that we can trounce the demolition of the art world and start the rejuvenation of the arts. Of course this means variance, of course it means hurt feelings, of course it means facing up to error, and of course it will mean that careers based on those false ideas will be put at risk--but it is also the right thing to do and I am determined to fight for improvement. It's well worth the trouble to keep on rocking the boat. I intend to continue to rock even harder

Victor,

Here you're talking about certain movements, attitudes and philosophies which, I agree, tend to suck (I don't think the same attitudes suck any less when displayed by Objectivists). But I was talking about abstract art itself, not some of the theories and snottiness associated with it. I was talking about the kind of art which was inspired not by a desire to poison minds, stunt development and obliterate art, but by a man looking at paintings of haystacks and realizing that they had an overwhelming power over him despite the fact that he didn't recognize the objects depicted. I was talking about the view that most fans of visual art bring to appreciating not only abstract art, but realistic still lifes or landscapes as well -- that of feeling the visual compositions as wholes, as expressive arrangements whose power to express has nothing to do with the specific objects depicted, as something that is as close as one can get to a visual equivalent of music, and not as idealized depictions of heroic fruit qua fruit or haystacks qua haystacks.

Best,

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

I was talking about the view that most fans of visual art bring to appreciating not only abstract art, but realistic still lifes or landscapes as well -- that of feeling the visual compositions as wholes, as expressive arrangements whose power to express has nothing to do with the specific objects depicted, as something that is as close as one can get to a visual equivalent of music, and not as idealized depictions of heroic fruit qua fruit or haystacks qua haystacks.

Best,

J

Somewhere I read this comment. I don't remember where or who said it, but it's remained with me as being right:

"The function of art isn't representational even when it uses representational means."

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

On the contrary, I judge art by how aesthetically pleasing it is to me. How much my senses appreciate what I am seeing. My senses are independent of my rationality (although not vice versa) because my senses pickup on reality, which exists. So, no, I do not judge art by my definition of it. I do not judge fun by my definition of it either.

It's the other way around: you choose your definition by your judgment of art. If you don't like abstract art, you choose a definition which excludes abstract art.

Dragonfly,

This is a circular inversion: “It's the other way around: you choose your definition by your judgment of art. If you don't like abstract art, you choose a definition which excludes abstract art.”

How in hell does one choose a definition by their judgment of art—when they would have to know what “art” means in the first place?! [And to identify it when they come across it??]

So this is what you are saying: one comes across art—knowing it is 'art' a prior—and then one smacks a definition on it and THEN they judge it. And in this order? Oy. Yeah, right.

-Victor-

Edited January 4, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Danneskjold]

What you are essentially saying there, along with what Victor said, is that you cannot define things because if you try you have a bias, and if you have a bias it's wrong. Using that logic we cannot define anything.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Dragonfly wrote:

"It's the other way around: you choose your definition by your judgment of art. If you don't like abstract art, you choose a definition which excludes abstract art."

If I might attempt to translate -- if I get it wrong, I expect Dragonfly will let me know -- I think what he's getting at is something which I agree with: that in forming a definition of art -- I mean supposing one is forming a definition on one's own rather than adopting a definition from someone else -- one first asks, what are those existents which I think of as being art? Then one asks, what definition would encompass the characteristics those existents have in common? If one doesn't respond to what's called "abstract art," then one might form a definition according to which "abstract art" is disqualified as being art.

Ellen

___

[Dragonfly]

How in hell does one choose a definition by their judgment of art—when they would have to know what “art” means in the first place?! [And to identify it when they come across it??]

Oh, come on. You don't have to know a formal definition of something to know what that something is. Long before someone told you that "art is a selective recreation of blah blah blah..", you had already a notion of what art is, having learned that by osmosis: things like paintings, drawings, sculptures, that what you find in museums and in art shops, etc. So you came to a heuristic understanding of what art is, without any formal definition. Now you probably didn't like some of what you saw in museums, even to the point that you'd say "this is not art!", without being able to prove that, it was just a gut feeling. At a later stage, you wanted to rationalize your feelings about art or you found someone who presented a rationalization that you liked, and only then you could refer to a formal definition that reflected the preferences you had already formed long before. Now you have a definition with which you can "prove" your own preferences, but this is a typical case of rationalizing: you use that definition while it fits the biases you already had, not while one can be prove objectively that this is the only correct definition.

[Dragonfly]

What you are essentially saying there, along with what Victor said, is that you cannot define things because if you try you have a bias, and if you have a bias it's wrong. Using that logic we cannot define anything.

Of course not. We can perfectly define things like "earth", "water", "cockroach", while we can give objective definitions of such things that everyone will agree with. Not so with a subjective notion as art, there is no objective way to define exactly what things are art and what things are not art. What one person wants to include in the definition of art, another one wants to reject, and there is no objective way to decide, it's a matter of personal preference.

[Dragonfly]

Ellen, I didn't know a translation was needed, but you hit the nail on the head.

[Danneskjold]

What you are essentially saying there, along with what Victor said, is that you cannot define things because if you try you have a bias, and if you have a bias it's wrong. Using that logic we cannot define anything.

Of course not. We can perfectly define things like "earth", "water", "cockroach", while we can give objective definitions of such things that everyone will agree with. Not so with a subjective notion as art, there is no objective way to define exactly what things are art and what things are not art. What one person wants to include in the definition of art, another one wants to reject, and there is no objective way to decide, it's a matter of personal preference.

Earth, water, and cockroach are all concepts. Art is a concept as well, a concept has a definition. If you do not define art then it does not have an identity and therefore cannot exist. So I, for one, will continue to attempt to define art. Also, definitions cannot be subjective. There can be different concepts of the same word with different definitions, but do not mistake differing concepts with a singular concept having a subjective definition. A definition cannot be subjective because it is a contradiction in terms. The latin root of the word definition (correct me if I'm wrong) is the same as finite (although I do not claim to be absolutely sure what that root is). If something is finite than it has a limited number. There is no limit on the number of subjective definitions. A word can have multiple definitions only if they have the same practical application, in which case one definition equals A. The first definition's practical use equals the other definition. Using the transitive property the other definition equals A as well. There we have A=A, the Law of Identity.

The other way that a word can have multiple definitions is if the words convey different concepts. A word that conveys two concepts is for practical purposes two different words. Because of this there are two different words and two different identities. The use of the two concepts is determined by context.

I will use punch as an example. Starting with two sentences to set up context:

I will punch her. This will be the word "punch" that I refer to as A.

There was a bowl of punch. This will be the word "punch" that I refer to as B.

The concept of A equals A itself. The concept of A is identified by its definition which is (as pulled from Dictionary.com)

a thrusting blow, esp. with the fist.

The concept of A is synonomous with its definition. In other words the concept of A equals the definition of A. Using the transitive property we can then show that A, the word "punch", equals A, the definition of "punch".

The concept of B equals B itself. The concept of B is identified by its definition which is (as pulled from Dictionary.com)

a beverage of two or more fruit juices, sugar, and water, sometimes carbonated.

The concept of A is synonomous with its definition. In other words the concept B equals the definition of B. Using the transitive property we can then show that B, the word "punch", equals B, the definition of "punch".

So, the difference comes because the concept of A, because its definition is the definition of A, is not synonomous and does not equal the definition of B. Because in this case A does not equal B, A and B do not share an identity and therefore are not the same word.

So, here we have established that words with single concepts only have one definition, and that words with multiple concepts have concepts representing what are, for practical purposes, different words. Because in order to exist something must have an identity, and identities are represented with definitions, then we see that art must have a definition in order to have an identity. If it does not have a definition, nothing defines it. If nothing defines it, it does not have an identity and therefore does not exist. So either we define art or it does not exist.

If you open up art to be a concept with none recognized as the only one then it is no different than opening up anything else to the same standard. In fact it would be a contradiction to not do so because that word is no different than any other once you strip it of its concept.

To put it simply, your argument boils down to that there is no such thing as art. To reiterate this is because you either do not define art, in which case it has no identity and cannot exist, or the definition of art is subjective, which is a contradiction and therefore cannot be correct. So, define it or eliminate it.

Edited January 4, 2007 by Jeff Kremer

[Dragonfly]

Person 1 gives a definition D1 of art, person 2 gives a definition D2 of art. The definitions may overlap, but there are also differences. How do you decide which one is the correct definition?

[Danneskjold]

Person 1 gives a definition D1 of art, person 2 gives a definition D2 of art. The definitions may overlap, but there are also differences. How do you decide which one is the correct definition?

Difficulties in finding a definition have no bearing on the requirement of one. Use logic to determine which one is correct. I suppose it would be a similar process to defining "earth" "water" or "cockroach". I will write more later but I have to go to school.

[Victor Pross]

Dragonfly: Oh, come on. You don't have to know a formal definition of something to know what that something is.

That is, by your own standard, until someone comes along and disagrees with what you are appreciating as art and says ‘but that is a cockroach! It is not art!' It is here that your mind becomes paralyzed I suppose? It’s all subjective, remember?

[Danneskjold]

So, to come up with a definition of something that is highly subjective you start by eliminating things that are already defined. The way I have heard it phrased (I think by Rand although I am not sure) is the same way species are named with their genus and so far down the line. So based on that you would start by avoiding overlaps whenever possible. For instance, a hammer is not a work of art. A hammer is a tool, same with a wrench, and any other of the numerous things that fall under the definition of the concept of tool. These things do not need to be further identified in a large group because they already belong to one. A hammer, I suppose, could be a work of art if it was so designed, but that would be the exception and not the rule.

Second, you accept whatever is agreed upon that does not overlap into another group, and adjust statements slightly accordingly. I cannot give a full outline of how I would choose, because I personally am content with Rand's until a problem comes up. So far I do not see one.

[Dragonfly]

That is, by your own standard, until someone comes along and disagrees with what you are appreciating as art and says ‘but that is a cockroach! It is not art!' It is here that your mind becomes paralyzed I suppose? It’s all subjective, remember?

Why should my mind become paralyzed? I have my own opinion, but I don't pretend that it has universal value. De gustibus non est disputandum. The fact that there are different definitions of art is an indication that the choice is subjective. Or can you prove that only one of them is correct?

[Dragonfly]

Second, you accept whatever is agreed upon that does not overlap into another group, and adjust statements slightly accordingly. I cannot give a full outline of how I would choose, because I personally am content with Rand's until a problem comes up. So far I do not see one.

Well, take for example something painted on canvas, is that art?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A very generic definition of art that includes all art is something like the following: "an object or performance made by and for human beings solely for the purpose of contemplation." As contemplation is the purpose, I have no problem with "metaphysical value judgments" or "selective recreation of reality." For instance, even the worst abstract painting exhibits both. This is what I call the cognitive level of definition.

Even under certain circumstance, a cockroach can be an artwork. But there has to be some element present of human involvement in the overall use of the cockroach and intent of contemplation.

What the art represents for contemplating is another issue. Here we involve the normative. This is one of the few areas where Rand was vague due to using the same language for two different types of concepts. As the discussion is about painting, I shall focus on this. Here are Rand's words from The Romanic Manifesto, "Art and Cognition":

(p. 45-46)

... consider the nature of the major branches of art, and of the specific physical media they employ.

Literature re-creates reality by means of language—Painting, by means of color on a two-dimensional surface...

p. 47

The so-called visual arts (painting, sculpture, architecture) produce concrete, perceptually available entities and make them convey an abstract, conceptual meaning.

Notice that in all these examples, Rand is using "painting" to mean a branch of art defined by medium, paint on a two-dimensional canvas (what she called "species"). Of course, her classic definition of art is used as basis ("selective recreation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgment").

In that same essay, Rand then discusses modern art. Her definition subtly shifts from the cognitive meaning of art (her original definition) to the normative one, and suddenly includes integration as the standard of value. She introduces the idea of modern art through a term she coined: "anti-art." At this point, she is no longer talking about art as a human activity, but instead, art from what is good under Objectivism (meaning that it includes integration).

Here is how she describes the "metaphysical value judgment" included in modern art (and notice that she still uses the word "art" in the phrase "modern art.")"

p. 76-77

Disintegration is the keynote and goal of modern art—the disintegration of man's conceptual faculty, and the retrogression of an adult mind to the state of a mewling infant.

To reduce man's consciousness to the level of sensations, with no capacity to integrate them, is the intention behind the reducing of language to grunts, of literature to "moods," of painting to smears, of sculpture to slabs, of music to noise.

Even taking her description at face value (and I do not), you could label this "bad art," or "disgusting art" or any other negative term for art, but it is still art according to Rand's original definition. Like I said, Rand called it "anti-art."

Rand's hatred of it wells up so much that she tries to deny the very existence of it on a cognitive level by confusing the cognitive with the normative. This attitude is peppered throughout the essay, but it is particularly clear at the end.

p. 78

A work of art is a specific entity which possesses a specific nature. If it does not, it is not a work of art.

...

"Something in a frame hung on a wall" is not a definition of painting."

...

There is no place for whim in any human activity—if it is to be regarded as human.

Here she is no longer talking about the human activity of art on display all over the world, which she acknowledges is "in the plate-glass windows of art galleries, on the walls of fashionable restaurants and of multibillion-dollar business offices, in the glossy pages of popular magazines, in the technological radiance of movie and television screens," albeit in the form of a "psychological process" illustrating the equivalent of "brutes smashing a computer," (p. 76), but instead about Objectivist art and the Objectivist view of the essential nature of "human." She is even trying to emphasize her hatred of modern art to the point of removing anything whim-based from the realm of the human (even though the worst of whim-based modern art still would be a valid "selective recreation of reality according to a metaphysical value judgment").

It is clear to me that "art" can be defined cognitively to include all art. To be defined normatively, it needs to be attached to a system of thought. Or it can be defined normatively in purely subjective terms. All of those are valid definitions, too, with the proper qualifications. The error comes in trying to substitute a normative definition of art for the cognitive one.

Then tempers fly and confusion reigns.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

I’m sorry to find myself in disagreement with you over this issue as well.

Yours is one of those arguments that appear to carry considerable weight at first glance but crumbles on a closer inspection. I must say that this differentiating between the “normative” and “cognitive” portions of art is very clever, but there are a few problems that I have with this.

First of all, your entire argument is founded on a feasible deficiency or inadequacy of Rand’s formal definition of art as offered in The Romantic Manifesto and it is presented to establish a case for “abstract art.” The thing of it is this: the case for or against “abstract art”--as art--is not contingent on the writings of Ayn Rand.

Examining the problem outside the scope of Rand or Objectivism, therefore, you have failed to make your point. The issue of establishing abstract art as art is still not proven. After all, alleging a difficulty on the side of Rand is not the removal of the obstacle that has been made against abstract art.

It is still my contention that “abstract art” is not art—cognitively or normatively.

If we approach this problem by first investigating the word “art” itself--and leave aside the “selective recreation of reality” or the “metaphysical value judgments” that Rand spoke of, you will find that “abstract art” crumbles.

In its original and broadest sense, the term art (derived from the Latin ars, artis) dates back to antiquity and it is synonymous with the Greek term techne—which refers to the concept “skill” or “technique”.*(1.1) Like all concepts, this idea -- art -- did not occur in a vacuum as if it were some cerebral construct divorced from real experience.*(1.2) The term has a long genesis dating back to the ancient Greek concept of “mimetic arts.”*(1.3) It developed out of long tradition of surveying similarities between the existing art forms as well as differences between them and other products and activities*(1.4)—and the idea of “skill” is primary to the conception of art and it is embedded in the term.*(1.5) The abandonment of objective representation in the visual arts was the most profound of modernism’s departures from this tradition.*(1.6) This is art history 101.

Question: where do we find “technique” or “skill” in abstract art? Let’s take the cognitive approach first, shall we? Just how—speaking objectively—and in view of the origins of the concept ‘art’—is abstract art, art?

A second problem I have with your argument is this: you present your case for abstract art as if it were a pestilence only to Ayn Rand and Objectivism. As a member of the art community and a long time student of art, I can tell you that this battle is ubiquitous in the entire art world the world over—even in places where Rand’s ideas are not known, lo and behold! Did you know this?

You also present your own laudable definition of art as “an object or performance made by and for human beings solely for the purpose of contemplation.” I rather like the beginning of the definition—“an object or performance made by and for human beings” but I was a little disappointed by the “solely for the purpose of contemplation”—because it lets everything under the sun into the mental file folder that are definitions, including urinals and animal dung which are presented in galleries for “contemplation.” The problem here, of course, is that anything can be presented as art and we fall into the problem of the subjectivity of concepts where the “everything is art” notion is false on its face and, let it be said, this does not bode well for an Objectivist.

Still, let me ask you another question: Would you call urinals and animal dung--presented “for contemplation”--as art?

Lastly, would you say that abstract “art,” [damn those scare quotes, huh?] as created by chimps or elephants, is art?

When answering, keep this in mind: For modernists, "abstract" means "non-representational" or "non-figurative"…and “non-objective.”

Victor

***

NOTE FROM ADMINISTRATOR:

For the original identification, please see here.

* Plagiarized from What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand by Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi. The original passage reads as follows:

(1.1) (p. 2)

In its original and broadest sense, the term

art

(derived from the Latin

ars

,

artis

) dates back to antiquity. Synonymous with the Greek term

technê

, it refers to the concept of “skill,” "discipline," or “technique.”

(1.2) (p. 2)

Like all concepts, this concept of

art

did not arise in a vacuum. It was not a mental construct divorced from real experience...

(1.3) (p. 2)

... it has a long genesis dating back to the ancient Greek concept of the “mimetic (or imitative) arts.”

(1.4) (p. 2)

... but developed out of a long tradition of observing similarities between the existing art forms, as well as differences between them and other human products and activities.

(1.5) (p. 2)

This idea of “skill” is fundamental to the concept of

art

and is implicit in all the legitimate uses of the term.

(1.6) (p. 133)

... the abandonment of objective representation in the visual arts was perhaps the most profound of modernism’s many departures from tradition.

OL extends its deepest apologies to Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi.

Edited July 29, 2007 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1. Yours is one of those arguments that appear to carry considerable weight at first glance but crumbles on a closer inspection.

2. The problem here, of course, is that anything can be presented as art and we fall into the problem of the subjectivity of concepts where the “everything is art” notion is false on its face and, let it be said, this does not bode well for an Objectivist.

3. Still, let me ask you another question: Would you call urinals and animal dung--presented “for contemplation”--as art?

4. Lastly, would you say that abstract “art,” [damn those scare quotes, huh?] as created by chimps or elephants, is art?

Victor,

I will answer this selectively.

Point 1. Here is some advice on rhetoric. I see you often make declarations of this nature at the start (saying in dramatic or highfalutin terms that someone's position has been shown to be conclusively wrong on examination, or similar) and then fall flat on the reasoning. But regardless of whether you are right or wrong, it is far better style to make the case, then make the value judgment. I suggest putting this kind of dramatic combative stuff at the end. Or better yet, don't even include it as it pushes an exchange of ideas into a competitive discussion where winning the argument becomes the point instead of increasing wisdom (which is what I always prefer). But you judge. For the record, I fail to see anywhere my argument "crumbled."

Point 2. I am not sure you completely understand the difference between cognitive abstractions and normative ones. This is a touchy area with some Objectivists with whom I have had discussions because Rand practically only dealt with the differences in The Romantic Manifesto. They know this is a very weak point with her theory and they will hold no truck with what they perceive as any implied criticism of Rand. I personally think something so basic should have been included in ITOE, since this work was presented as the "Objectivist theory of concepts." The categories of cognitive and normative abstractions (concepts) cut right into ethics, too, so they are very important.

Your statement is a bit of a jumble of several ideas, but I will only address one point. For the record, anything can be presented as an artwork and be used as one by humanity if it is created for and by human beings and its purpose is contemplation. A category of work is characterized by what is done with it and the reason it is done.

Art (painting for the time being so as to stay simple and consistent with the previous posts) is exhibited in special display spaces like galleries, museums, halls, etc. People go there to contemplate it. So long as people produce it and consume it like that, it is cognitively "art." It is so characterized to distinguish it from construction work, cooking, sports, manufacturing, etc., meaning other human activities and products. (Here I go needing to be master of the obvious again.) Normatively, much art is not art according to Objectivism because it does not present integration and volition as values or even organizing principles. So some art is seen as a fraud. But by stating this, we are making a value judgment, not an simple identification. Thus we are making a normative statement, not merely a cognitive one. (Please note that the normative always includes the cognitive, but not vice-versa.)

Both definitions are correct (as I stated earlier) but they need to be qualified--or at least understood--as to which concept is meant, the cognitive or normative, if misunderstandings are to be avoided. I personally don't like it when the same word is used for two concepts like this. It constantly leads to confusion. But our language is our language. It is up to us to learn it correctly.

Point 3. Cognitively I consider those items (urinals and dung) as parts of works of art since they are within compositions made by man. These compositions are used by mankind as art. They even meet the metaphysical value judgment condition. Normatively I most emphatically do not consider them as art (and not just from Objectivist principles, either). Also, subjectively I do not. I would neither produce nor consume such stuff as art.

But cognitively, the urinal is not simply a utility item or the dung simply waste as they are in other contexts. They are used for contemplation, thus they are art. If these products are purchased, they are sold and taxed as "art works," not as a urinal or fertilizer.

Point 4. There is a special category of specialty or quirky display items that resemble art, but this category is not really art. It includes works made by animals, works "channeled by spirits" to people in a trance, works automatically generated by computers, etc. We can call these works "imitation of art" or something like that. But the fact is that they are not made by human beings for human beings for the purpose of contemplation. They are novelty items for entertainment (diversion or fun or something to prompt conversation instead of contemplation).

I want to make a special note about architecture (which I will be discussing when I get to Roger's microcosm essay). Architecture is a hybrid form. The art part is the part made for contemplation. A construction is an entity that weds both art and utility. It is wrong to consider utility, such as the place for stoves and refrigerators, stairs, doors, roof, etc., as art. The shape and/or pattern of these spaces and items taken together might be art, but they in themselves are not. They are items that serve a function. So it is perfectly possible to have art as one component in a bi-functional or multi-functional entity.

Michael

[Danneskjold]

an object or performance made by and for human beings solely for the purpose of contemplation.

Ok, a pretty good definition. I do, however, have some qualms.

1. I would suggest saying "made by and for the human mind" instead of "for human beings". That would eliminate the problem of me defining my involuntary bodily function as art.

2. This definition encompasses almost nothing. Something is very rarely made solely for any one reason at all. An obvious example of this would be a painting hung in a home because the colors complement that of the walls. The purpose is not contemplation the purpose is fashion.

3.

But cognitively, the urinal is not simply a utility item or the dung simply waste as they are in other contexts. They are used for contemplation, thus they are art. If these products are purchased, they are sold and taxed as "art works," not as a urinal or fertilizer.

You seem to stray from the "solely" word, or at the least consider certain functions an extension upon contemplation. Under the same standards we can include mules, any animal born in a zoo (neither of which would exist in nature without humans), scientific journals, all forms of advertising, the actions taken by humans in everyday life, and even intangibles such as ideas.

4. Your definition ignores creativity as a part of art.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

These are good questions.

1. I would suggest saying "made by and for the human mind" instead of "for human beings". That would eliminate the problem of me defining my involuntary bodily function as art.

Anything made for contemplation is made for the human mind.

2. This definition encompasses almost nothing. Something is very rarely made solely for any one reason at all. An obvious example of this would be a painting hung in a home because the colors complement that of the walls. The purpose is not contemplation the purpose is fashion.

While I agree that very few things in life have solely one use, the reason for their existence usually does. For instance, a house is shelter. It also serves for other things, but shelter is the reason it came into existence. The same goes for artwork. Cavemen painted on cave walls for a very primitive form of contemplation--certainly not for fashion. Art can be used for decoration, but that is not its defining purpose.

3. Under the same standards we can include mules, any animal born in a zoo (neither of which would exist in nature without humans), scientific journals, all forms of advertising, the actions taken by humans in everyday life, and even intangibles such as ideas.

I don't get you here. Man does not make a composition for contemplation with living creatures. We have ornamental fish in aquariums, but these do not represent "metaphysical value judgments" of an artist. As a cognitive definition, mine actually needs to incorporate in the "contemplation" part the things Rand mentioned in hers--"selective recreation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments" (but without the normative confusion of limiting the category of activity--art--to what one school of thought considers to be good). Also, technical literature is made for sharing information, not contemplating the "metaphysical value judgments" of the actual magazine as an end in itself. The nature of an artwork is that it is an end in itself. Man makes it to contemplate it as a complete entity.

4. Your definition ignores creativity as a part of art.

I suppose I could have said "created and made by and for human beings." Creating was implied in this context, as opposed to making, say, a pair of shoes through mass production from a mold. But I have no qualms about adding the word.

I think you will enjoy The Romantic Manifesto when you get to it. If you can sort through the bombastic condemnatory rhetoric peppered throughout and separate the often vague line between the cognitive and the normative concepts, it is brilliant.

Michael

[Danneskjold]

Jeff,

These are good questions.

1. I would suggest saying "made by and for the human mind" instead of "for human beings". That would eliminate the problem of me defining my involuntary bodily function as art.

Anything made for contemplation is made for the human mind.

I look at this and realized that I blundered in the way I represented what I was trying to fix by only using "for human beings" from your definition. My intention was to accentuate that it must be made by the mind, not by involuntary functions of the body.

2. This definition encompasses almost nothing. Something is very rarely made solely for any one reason at all. An obvious example of this would be a painting hung in a home because the colors complement that of the walls. The purpose is not contemplation the purpose is fashion.

While I agree that very few things in life have solely one use, the reason for their existence usually does. For instance, a house is shelter. It also serves for other things, but shelter is the reason it came into existence. The same goes for artwork. Cavemen painted on cave walls for a very primitive form of contemplation--certainly not for fashion. Art can be used for decoration, but that is not its defining purpose.

Ok, I can agree with that.

3. Under the same standards we can include mules, any animal born in a zoo (neither of which would exist in nature without humans), scientific journals, all forms of advertising, the actions taken by humans in everyday life, and even intangibles such as ideas.

I don't get you here. Man does not make a composition for contemplation with living creatures. We have ornamental fish in aquariums, but these do not represent "metaphysical value judgments" of an artist. As a cognitive definition, mine actually needs to incorporate in the "contemplation" part the things Rand mentioned in hers--"selective recreation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments" (but without the normative confusion of limiting the category of activity--art--to what one school of thought considers to be good). Also, technical literature is made for sharing information, not contemplating the "metaphysical value judgments" of the actual magazine as an end in itself. The nature of an artwork is that it is an end in itself. Man makes it to contemplate it as a complete entity.

"An object or performance made by and for human beings solely for the purpose of contemplation." was your or original definition. Now, I am not sure about whether an animal would be defined as a thing or not, but I would say that that if an animal is a thing, then one that came into existence due to humans and exhibited in a zoo would fit your definition. Why? Because it owes it existence to humans and people drop by a zoo to look at, think about, and generally be entertained by it all the time.

4. Your definition ignores creativity as a part of art.

I suppose I could have said "created and made by and for human beings." Creating was implied in this context, as opposed to making, say, a pair of shoes through mass production from a mold. But I have no qualms about adding the word.

My intention here was more pointed towards creativity as in a new idea, not so much as in the creation of something in the sense that it was made. Creativity is accounted for in Rand's definition by the use of the phrase "selective recreation" which implies that something is created differently than before.