Victor Pross Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 However, your question is misleading.Jeff,My question isn't misleading at all. It's a simple question that is being sidestepped.But for even more clarity:Cognitive: Is it a work of art the neighbor bought and hung on the wall or is it house paint, an insect, a bologna sandwich or a TV set?Normative: Is the subject of the painting a proper one for a "work of art" in the sense of having some kind of beauty or spiritual (or emotional) value that becomes evident in contemplating it?Is that less "misleading"?MichaelMichael and Jeff, play nice! :turned: Okay, sorry, I wanted to make sure, Michael. To answer: No, it is not art. It is not even abstract painting. It is a design. So are the other samples that Dragonfly posted. I know my answer will inflame people, but this is my answer to a "yes" or "no" question. Now, do you want to know why I think a woman can be president? Apple Tree - 1912 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Victor,Whew!Thanks.We don't agree, but I am not inflamed. I tried to be but it just wouldn't come. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danneskjold Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Ok, that was my fault because "misleading" was a bad choice of words. My apologies. What I was trying to say is that the question isn't true to the situation because a title can be used to help a viewer find meaning in the painting. For instance, I seem to remember a piece of art called "Resolve" by Jonathan. The picture without the title would not have portrayed the meaning of the painting as well as it does with it. To answer your question, something is art whether or not I recognize it as such. So knowing what I do about it, I would have to say if I had seen it without the title I probably would not have considered it art at first. If I looked at it I may have seen the tree though, so I really don't know. However, regardless of whether or not I would consider it art, I do consider it art knowing what I know. Does that answer your question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Pross Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 (edited) Victor,Whew!Thanks.We don't agree, but I am not inflamed. I tried to be but it just wouldn't come. MichaelMichael, Why is it design and not art or abstract painting? I will expand on my answer later--after Ellen does become inflamed. Right now, I have a commission to complete, and if I turn anything in like the 'apple tree' --my career is over. Now, it is time to turn to my art, but I will take breaks. -Victor Edited January 14, 2007 by Victor Pross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Jeff,Try something. Stare at that painting for a few minutes in the quiet without thinking "tree." Clear your mind. Let the visual connections and cognitive connections come as they will and don't force them.See what happens.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danneskjold Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Looks like an ocean with a tall building in the background. Why does it matter what it looks like if its not a tree if it's supposed to be a tree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Pross Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 (edited) Michael, I know where you are going with this exercise and it is wonderful. I could do the same with cloud formations. You know, as a child I would stare up at the clouds and see figures and formations everywhere, and that’s because I have a highly astute imagination. That doesn’t make the clouds art—even if they were caused by man. Why—WHY—must we confer the status of ‘art’ on these things? -Victoredit: M, but you have been inflamed before, no? C' mon, give me that much! Edited January 14, 2007 by Victor Pross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 If an object is created by man for the sole purpose of esthetics it is, by definition, art.From freedictionary.com:"The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium."Why must everyone's definition of beauty conform to Victor Pross's definition of beauty? Or are you trying to prove that everything you don't approve of in the world of art was created by unconscious people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Pross Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 (edited) If an object is created by man for the sole purpose of esthetics it is, by definition, art.From freedictionary.com:"The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium."Why must everyone's definition of beauty conform to Victor Pross's definition of beauty? Or are you trying to prove that everything you don't approve of in the world of art was created by unconscious people?Mikee, It is a common mistake to think that the vital source of pleasure in art is beauty. In this view, art presents “beauty for its own sake." If one were to view, say, a painting—a beautiful painting—merely as a visibly pleasing ‘object’, with no awareness of its meaning, one would not fully experience it as art. What matters here is not merely the abstraction “beauty” or "color" of the painted image but, more fundamentally, what it communicates of the artist’s thoughts and feelings about the thing represented—his “metaphysical value judgments.” THIS is the heart of it. [Of this, I have said much already.] How beautiful a painting looks is a secondary consideration, if it is at all. Beauty may very well be a fundamental criterion if one is entering a pageant to be a contestant for Miss America, sure, but it is not a defining characteristic of art. There is a lot of disturbing images in art history and this art is not invalidated because of the grim themes that take place in the work. If we are to define art, we must—as philosophers—focus on the basic attributes of its original referents. At OL, we have been taken off that path, as has been done in the artworld in general. In short, “art” does not mean “beauty” –although there is a lot of beautiful art. -Victor Edited January 14, 2007 by Victor Pross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danneskjold Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Who says the dictionary's idea is the right one? There are many things that I am willing to trust the dictionary's definition for, and many times I am not concerned as to the adequacy of the definition because I am sure it is at least mostly correct. In area of philosophy, on the other hand, I would prefer an exact definition. Besides by your definition almost anything can be art.Besides, what do you have wrong with Rand's definition if you have no problem with the dictionary's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Victor,"It is a common mistake to think that the vital source of pleasure in art is beauty."I suppose our next step is to get into a 1000 post thread about the meaning of "beauty", and what is "beautiful". I'm afraid I'm beginning to regard your ramblings as a sort of "mental virus".Jeff,We have a common language. This means words have accepted meanings which the majority uses to communicate with each other. We can discuss conceptual things without arguing semantics. I can't think of an example where Ayn Rand tried to change the meanings of words. In fact, she complained about people who engaged in propaganda by changing the meaning of common words over time. Such as the word "liberal".Take the word "epistemology": the philosophical theory of knowledge. We could discuss and contrast objectivism and mysticism. But we wouldn't claim that mysticism was not an epistemology, we would simply point out that it's the wrong one. Otherwise we would be in danger of people eventually not having any idea what the hell we're talking about and writing us off as crackpots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 I haven't read this whole thread, but regarding definitions, Peikoff addressed the issue of a philosophy-specific definition vs. a more general one, and he said that in many cases we need two. So, "art" might properly refer to the general human field of art (which would include things Objectivists would classify as non-art or anti-art). It might also refer to works that fit the proper conception of art. An example I think he used was the concept "morality". This might refer to the scientific concept that Objectivists use, or the more general field that includes religion. He mentioned that one fallacy altruists often engage in is to equate altruism with morality as such, and I think he added that we as Objectivists shouldn't make the same mistake.Also, the dictionary is full of words with multiple senses. It's of course not a problem as long as the context is clear as to which sense is meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 (edited) [From post #51] [....] To answer: No, it is not art. It is not even abstract painting. It is a design. So are the other samples that Dragonfly posted. I know my answer will inflame people, but this is my answer to a "yes" or "no" question. Now, do you want to know why I think a woman can be president? Apple Tree - 1912[From post #54] Why is it design and not art or abstract painting? I will expand on my answer later--after Ellen does become inflamed. Right now, I have a commission to complete, and if I turn anything in like the 'apple tree' --my career is over. [....]Ellen is pleased that you finally answered the question. "No" is the answer I figure you would have given without hesitating if that painting had been shown to you as a stand-alone work and sans title and if your young friend Jeff hadn't meanwhile piped up (post #23) confidently predicting that you'd call it art.___ Edited January 15, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Pross Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 [From post #51] [....] To answer: No, it is not art. It is not even abstract painting. It is a design. So are the other samples that Dragonfly posted. I know my answer will inflame people, but this is my answer to a "yes" or "no" question. Now, do you want to know why I think a woman can be president? Apple Tree - 1912[From post #54] Why is it design and not art or abstract painting? I will expand on my answer later--after Ellen does become inflamed. Right now, I have a commission to complete, and if I turn anything in like the 'apple tree' --my career is over. [....]Ellen is pleased that you finally answered the question. "No" is the answer I figure you would have given without hesitating if that painting had been shown to you as a stand-alone work and sans title and if your young friend Jeff hadn't meanwhile piped up (post #23) confidently predicting that you'd call it art.___Jeff is a smart young man, not my mouth-peice. We are, in the end, 'stand-alone' individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 A quick comment about design and art (which I expect will be of interest to Dragonfly if not to anyone else): I think that there's no sharp borderline between design and art. But to the extent I place a divider, it's on the existence of or breaks in symmetry. The "Apple Tree" painting is not symmetrical on any axis. Nor are any of the James Siena works which Dragonfly posted in the "Art and Subobjectivity" thread. Nor are any of Escher's tilings. Escher's tilings give a first-glance impression of being symmetric, but if they're carefully examined, breaks in the symmetry will be found. I heard/saw a lecture on this subject, at the 2003 Symmetry Conference I attended in Budapest, given by Doris Schattschneider. She's written extensively on Escher. She displayed several of his tilings both in the original and as re-done to have perfect symmetry. The perfectly symmetric ones ineffably lacked the enticing fascination of the originals.Ellen__ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danneskjold Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Does nobody else see the tree? In any case if you want to say there's no tree there then there's no art there either. Happy?Aside from that, Victor's right. Him and I have disagreed on plenty of other threads. This is just one topic where we are like-minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Does nobody else see the tree?I see a tree-ish shape, but not the same one you do. You describe an upside-down tree. I can discern the upside-down shape you're talking about once you point it out, but I don't think I would have seen that had you not pointed it out. The tree-ish shape I see is a branching from the bottom of the canvas; it's an abstracted form continuing the progression of the form from the previous two paintings. I doubt I'd have seen quite that form if I'd first seen the painting in isolation instead of as third in a series. Nevertheless, I would have felt an understanding of why it was called "Apple Tree."Ellen___ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 It occurred to me to wonder if Torres and Kamhi classify Escher's tilings as art; but upon looking in their index, I found no entry for Escher.ES__ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now