Originally posted by DeepThoughtMay we try this:
The point of the intersubjective agreement is that it requires more than one person. So a significant minority thinking it was would be sufficient, but just one person wouldn't be enough - agreement with oneself is not agreement.
Suppose I find a plant that nobody eats because they find it to be unpleasantly sour, and perhaps my DNA has a mutation, because I find it to be pleasantly sweet.
Does it taste sweet, or sour?
Is it sweet or sour?
Is it pleasant to eat, or unpleasant to eat?
I think that finding a work to be art, is analogous to this. A difference is that some things I find to be art, like Picasso's Guernica, I do not find to be pleasant.
Originally posted by JS357Sour - your nervous system would be interpreting sour tastes as sweet. There is a recognised medical condition where they perceive sounds as having colour and so forth, whose name escapes me, and this sounds like it is on that spectrum.
May we try this:
Suppose I find a plant that nobody eats because they find it to be unpleasantly sour, and perhaps my DNA has a mutation, because I find it to be pleasantly sweet.
Does it taste sweet, or sour?
[b]Is it sweet or sour?
Is it pleasant to eat, or unpleasant to eat?
I think that finding a work to be art, is analogous to this. A ...[text shortened]... nce is that some things I find to be art, like Picasso's Guernica, I do not find to be pleasant.[/b]
I think that in the case of art. and assuming normal sensory perception, either more than one person needs to agree it is art, or intersubjective agreement is not necessary for it to be art.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI'd say a thing is art to those who consider it art, and only to them, whether there are no such people, one such person, some number of persons, or every person. For "art" I think we could substitute "sweet" or "sour" but could we substitute "round" or "evil"?
Sour - your nervous system would be interpreting sour tastes as sweet. There is a recognised medical condition where they perceive sounds as having colour and so forth, whose name escapes me, and this sounds like it is on that spectrum.
I think that in the case of art. and assuming normal sensory perception, either more than one person needs to agree it is art, or intersubjective agreement is not necessary for it to be art.
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59I can consider something to be art, by that definition, while not actively viewing (experiencing) it, but it makes sense to expect myself to have viewed it at some time. But yes to the second part. It can flip depending on the rewards. You may have a different opinion of what makes something art. Rather than merely say something makes no sense, why not help the thread progress, by stating your opinion of what does make sense? Otherwise you might be considered lazy, which you are not.
So "art" is not "art" unless someone is viewing it?
And it flips between being art and not being art depending
on whether the viewer is rewarded by contemplating it?
That makes no sense.
Originally posted by JS357I posted my definition - with its obvious flaws - a way back:-
I can consider something to be art, by that definition, while not actively viewing (experiencing) it, but it makes sense to expect myself to have viewed it at some time. But yes to the second part. It can flip depending on the rewards. You may have a different opinion of what makes something art. Rather than merely say something makes no sense, why not help th ...[text shortened]... your opinion of what does make sense? Otherwise you might be considered lazy, which you are not.
21st October I posted.
My own position is that if one person considers something art then art it is!
(Of course I am left in a difficult position when that person dies!!!)
23rd Oct you broadly agreed
I'd say a thing is art to those who consider it art, and only to them, whether there are no such people, one such person, some number of persons, or every person. For "art" I think we could substitute "sweet" or "sour" but could we substitute "round" or "evil"?
THANKS FOR NOT THINKING ME LAZY ! 😀
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by Suziannei think this is a nice description for 'good' art, but not for all art. there is plenty of art that does not reward contemplation but is still art.
I had this interesting "aha" moment when I read your post.
This is an amazing definition. I think it captures the essence of art perfectly.
1 edit
Originally posted by stellspalfieThe "reward of contemplation" need not be positive.
i think this is a nice description for 'good' art, but not for all art. there is plenty of art that does not reward contemplation but is still art.
You can, after having "contemplated" an art object, feel revulsion, shock or even anger as a "reward".
The difference between "good art" and "the other kind" is definitely in the eye of the beholder.
I like the original definition. The word "reward" may be misleading to some, but it is (imho) intended to convey "something happens when you contemplate it".
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by CalJusti 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.
The "reward of contemplation" need not be positive.
You can, after having "contemplated" an art object, feel revulsion, shock or even anger as a "reward".
The difference between "good art" and "the other kind" is definitely in the eye of the beholder.