Originally posted by stellspalfie
i agree, it does not need to be positive. my point is that it does not need to cause any emotional response to be defined as art. causing an emotional response or rewarding contemplation are hallmarks of good art, but not things that define art. art is defined by the intent of the artist, it has nothing to do with the thoughts and feelings of the viewer.

Does art need an artist?

What if a million monkeys on a million typewriters after a million years produced Hamlet?

What if a Jackson Pollock was created by a 2 year-old knocking over some tins of paint?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Does art need an artist?

What if a million monkeys on a million typewriters after a million years produced Hamlet?

What if a Jackson Pollock was created by a 2 year-old knocking over some tins of paint?

it would be luck and have no intent, so i do not think it would be art. it would be an aesthetically pleasing object, not art. as far as i am concerned art is all about the intent of the artist.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
it would be luck and have no intent, so i do not think it would be art. it would be an aesthetically pleasing object, not art. as far as i am concerned art is all about the intent of the artist.

So two identical works (say Hamlet)
one written by Shakespeare
one written by a thousand chimps

one is art and one is not?
even though they are indistinguishable?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
So two identical works (say Hamlet)
one written by Shakespeare
one written by a thousand chimps

one is art and one is not?
even though they are indistinguishable?

yes, absolutely. the chimp play is just a lucky bunch of words (there is a caveat to this, i think i explained it earlier in the thread).

Originally posted by stellspalfie
yes, absolutely. the chimp play is just a lucky bunch of words (there is a caveat to this, i think i explained it earlier in the thread).

OK.
Your definition of art is not dependent on content or
the observer then.
Solely on the artist and intent.

What if the work of Hamlet I proposed was discovered
and nobody knew whether it was the work of
Shakespeare or monkeys. How could you tell if it was art?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
OK.
Your definition of art is not dependent on content or
the observer then.
Solely on the artist and intent.

What if the work of Hamlet I proposed was discovered
and nobody knew whether it was the work of
Shakespeare or monkeys. How could you tell if it was art?

its not always possible to know for sure, we would have to take an educated guess. the monkey situation would be so unlikely that it would be perfectly reasonable to assume it was shakespeare.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
its not always possible to know for sure, we would have to take an educated guess. the monkey situation would be so unlikely that it would be perfectly reasonable to assume it was shakespeare.

Well that's kinda my point - the content counts. We don't need to know who/what created it.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Well that's kinda my point - the content counts. We don't need to know who/what created it.

you have created a situation (a good one) where the variables dictate that due to a lack of information we need to formulate a decision on how we decide if something is art. given the situation you presented i concede that the content is probably the best way.......although in your scenario we still do not know for sure if its art or not.
the only way art is known to be art without doubt is in the mind of the artist. which for me makes intent waaaaay more important than content.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you have created a situation (a good one) where the variables dictate that due to a lack of information we need to formulate a decision on how we decide if something is art. given the situation you presented i concede that the content is probably the best way.......although in your scenario we still do not know for sure if its art or not.
the only way ...[text shortened]... ubt is in the mind of the artist. which for me makes intent waaaaay more important than content.

We are very close to agreement! 🙂
My contention is that art can be defined by anyone.
If one person considers something art then art it is.
(Often that of course will be the artist)

There are several flaws with my definition. Here are just two.
1. If the person who considers the object art dies does the work of art cease to be art?
2. If something was created in 1950 but is only considered art by someone born in 1960 - when did it become "art"?

Tricky!