If you’re going to argue that way, you can invalidate any attempt anyone might make to define anything whatever, by saying, “Who are you do presume to define what other people can’t?” And in that case no one can ever define anything. I reject any argument that so sweepingly invalidates the human mind.
If you think there is something wrong with my definition, if you think that it excludes some things that clearly are art or includes some things that clearly are not art, then say so. I’m not infallible; I may be wrong. But if all you have is “Maybe you’re wrong” and “Who do you think you are anyway?” then I give both of those zero weight.
Well, so stop. I didn’t set out to have this huge messy discussion; I thought I was making a simple, straightforward comment referring back to the original thread from which this thread sprang. And then I found you and lots of other people arguing with me. . . .
You (a moderator) have decided that instead of telling you that art is subjective, other posters should in fact just either not post or ignore what you have said.
I never asked to be a moderator in the first place; and if being a moderator means I am not allowed to state my own views on anything, then I repudiate it.
And you don’t seem to be doing very well at ceasing to contribute to the derailment of the original thread, for which I do apologize to Benkyo.
I have no intention of trying to invalidate your very good attempt at a definition. As much as I could say that the “hello boys” wonderbra advert was intended to stimulate awareness of aesthetic merit - yet wouldn’t really be considered art then throw it all out, it would just be cheeky.
The point I was making is that you appointed yourself judge and jury for this idea of defining art here when people weren’t considering themselves on trial - or if they were, weren’t aware of the guidelines and framework of rules you had decided to apply to either pass or entirely demerit.
Below we have the approximate, generalised wording I had suggested, really as an attempt to move the conversation on and back to the actual topic of this thread, without feeling it was going to be judged and picked apart against unspecified criteria; and we have your formalised definition that you wrote in full knowledge of what you would apply.
There really isn’t much difference in them. The only significant difference is that I didn’t specify that the conceptual work had the express primary purpose of aesthetic appreciation and the accompanying emotional response.
Your response was essentially that other things are pretty too unintentionally so that definition’s no good.
A lot of bickering and frustration could have been avoided by simply framing it as, ‘close but no cigar’ I feel this is too open, but with a little editing by specifying the primary purpose it’s pretty much good
If I ask you what is six times nine, and you say “forty-two,” you are mistaken no matter how strongly you feel that that’s the right answer.
And my initial condition was, “If there is an objective criterion for what is art” (and note that I explicitly acknowledged that Shakyjk might not believe that) then someone’s feelings about it might be wrong. That’s perfectly parallel to saying that someone’s feelings about arithmetic might be wrong (arithmetic being quite objective). It seems to me that you are so intensely rejecting my initial supposition that you are not even able to entertain it as a hypothesis and consider what follows from it; you do not even acknowledge that I presented it as a hypothetical. I’m sorry, but that seems pretty dogmatic to me.
I do think that aesthetic appreciation being the primary purpose is vital. But I hadn’t quite pinned that down to where I could state it.
I did leave out the “conceptual work” part, but that probably should be included. Ayn Rand’s definition, “The selective re-creation of reality in accordance with the artist’s metaphysical value judgments,” certainly seems to require a conceptual element. On the other hand, I’m not quite sure in what sense instrumental music is conceptual (and I find Rand’s discussion of instrumental music unsatisfying—as, I should acknowledge, she did as well).
I’m sorry to have presented this in such a way as to provoke you. Your approach to this whole subject has been singularly helpful. I don’t suppose it’s any help if I say that “I think that’s an inadequate definition” was not an attack on you, but a response to a specific proposal of yours in what I take to be a common endeavor to better grasp the concept of art?
Let me say that I have no objection to that. I was initially focused on your statement that you were returning to the previous thread; I brought up something I had wanted to say on that thread. It seemed odd to me that this was coming up now under “board games,” but I didn’t think that was your central topic. My mistake.
I don’t myself have any idea how to do any of that moderatorial stuff, or I would oblige you.
The original topic and the derailment have quite a bit of overlap. I can take a swag at sorting the two into two camps, but it likely will leave both conversations disjointed.
No worries. I did see where you were coming from with that comment and I also agree that specifying that primary purpose is important to get as close as you can to a clear definition. It was the conclusion and framing of it that I was taking issue with, as you don’t find many people who take kindly to having their contribution being dismissed entirely.
A more constructive, co-operative approach would have not only gotten to a satisfying conclusion quicker, but avoided raising tensions
It’s easy to criticise and throw out other opinions that don’t exactly match our own, but a bit of give and take makes a huge difference.
I hope my comments throughout have come across as the constructive intent I’ve been meaning.
For the sake of clarity, we were looking at “feelings” from two different definitions. I from the position of affect, and I think you from the position of belief. I retract my statement about it being insultingly dismissive. I will still say that someone’s emotional reaction to something as art is not something that can be wrong. If I am struck by something as art, then for me, it is art. It doesn’t have to be art to anyone else for that to matter or be true to me, or anyone else.
Well, I’d be lying if I said that you didn’t have my back up, but that doesn’t exactly help anyone does it?
For what it’s worth; in my work I write and audit work instructions, risk assessments, procedures etc and precision of language is important to me too.
I do also have to plough through legal regulations and codes of practice to ensure we comply to them as well - and if we applied that level of detail and definition to everything it would be an incredibly dull world to live on.
