[rparmar]

I get so tired of all of these endless "Is this art?" discussions that saturate certain milieu, like those little pollen things you get in Spring. They float through the air and tickle your skin. You brush one away, but another takes its place. They are irritating and apparently made of nothing at all. Just like most discussions about art. "Art is expressing feeling." "Art is anything you call art." Yuck!

These come up here on the forum in many guises, from discussions of whether photo manipulation is valid, to aesthetic rallies around black and white, to arguments over specific forms and their validity. Lately I keep bumping into these, so thought it important to present some sort of a starting point. I welcome further discussion on philosophical and related matters!

Here I present a definition of art that I came up with myself. By that I mean that after decades of interacting with the world and those in it, after thousands of books read and hundreds of art projects initiated, I have now, all by myself (irony alert!) found a suitable definition.

Of course it is not perfect; no definition is. There will be edge cases and apparent violations of the general provisions. And it is not a definition for all times and all places. To the ancients, art might have been "deification through the creation of likenesses". Somewhere else it might instead have been a "ritualistic process that abstracts societal roles and processes". In the eighteenth century it might have been "an expression of individual genius". Or "the skilled expression of universal truths". In the gallery world it might instead be "whatever the curator decides."

I just made all those up. I am sure a dictionary could provide similar definitions and many more. But instead, I've boiled my definition down to four words. For us here in the twenty-first century in the Western world it is appropriate.

Art: Questioning by creating artefacts.

Art has to create something in the world. This differentiates art from philosophy, which questions through language. Though there are many people who create things, only those who are doing so to question (the world, society, themselves) are artists. In other words, the purpose matters. It should also be implicit in the active form utilised in this definition that the process of creation might be more important than the finished piece.

For the purposes of my definition an artefact does not have to be physical, but rather is simply the product of an active agent, e.g.. the artist. Otherwise sound art would be eliminated, and I wouldn't want to do that! And dance is an artefact, even if it is constrained temporally for the duration of the performance (but nothing lasts forever).

Sometimes the purpose of a work is not clear, and so it can be hard to tell if it might be excluded or included. That's not a criticism of the definition, merely a difficulty in application. (I do not wish to eliminate difficulty, only to provide a useful starting point.)

The definition manages to distinguish art from craft and design. The latter do not present a question but rather solutions. The design process is indeed questioning but, if at all successful, its result is not.

Apply this definition to typical cases and see if it works for you. Is Cameron's film "Avatar" art? Is that person down at the market who paints landscapes an artist? Are video games art? Lady Gaga's "Poker Face"? That oil painting by the clever dog?

Have fun. And look out for those seed streamers in the sky. They tickle so. And they have an annoying way of feeling like they are still on your skin, long after you've brushed them off.

[causey]

Not a bad definition, IMO. Neither I'm fond of hearing associations between, on the one hand, art and, on the other hand, feeling, self-expression, personal creativity.
"Questioning" sounds a bit too conceptual, though. Instead, I'd say 'opening'--opening towards worlds within our very world or possibilities of our world to which everyday life is opaque. (Even philosophy *should* be an opening, through language, beyond language--to what 'sustains' language.)

[YarPcola]

Back in the 70s, when I was working on my MFA, I took a "Philosophy of Art" class. It was taught by a philosopher from Edinburgh University in Scotland. After much discussion and reading, he finally proposed that, "in the art community," art is what the art "experts" say it is. A very elitist view to say the least. But since "what is art" changes in relation to the period being looked at, and has changed from period to period, it does seem to be the only consistent definition, weak as it may be.

[RioRico]

Just as John Cage showed that 'music' is whatever you can get people to listen to, to pay attention to, even several minutes of silence; so did Andy Warhol teach us that 'art' is whatever you can put a frame around and induce people to look at (and to purchase, hopefully).

Art is about restraint, limits. Unrestrained imagery is infinite and thus boring. Photography or painting or any other imaging process requires framing a subject. The unframed subject becomes universal, abstract, meaningless with chemical and/or mechanical intervention. If I xerox my butt, is it art?

Photography is like bicycling or snorkeling or grubby sex or spiced cooking. Don't ask me why, it just is. Photography is not like a forest. Photography is a forest. Maybe photography should be a risky endeavour like tightrope walking and seducing porcupines. Maybe stealth photography is risk-avoidance, cowardice. But is photography art?

Art should be risky, blatant, outrageous. If if doesn't shock you it's not art. Maybe it's soothing, unnoticable, wallpaper, muzak. But muzak can be exploited. A chorus softly singing KILL FOR PEACE or I TOUCH MYSELF may have some effect. What images do that? When are your expectations subverted?

When images are ubiquitous the subtle, the subliminal becomes erotic and revolutionary and dangerous. And vice-versa. What surrounds you? Do you choose your immersion? But what's revolutionary about images of dead people, dead animals, dead plants and trees, dead rocks and mountains and planets? What aesthetic drenches your immersion? Are aesthetics irrelevant?

All photography is voyeurism. All photographers and audiences are voyeurs. All imaging is peeping. Every image is a peepshow. Every viewing is a violation. We are all peepers, violators, passive-aggressors. But are we artists?

Photography as performed by humans is a form of meditation. We focus on an object, filter out the noise, take measured breaths, trip the shutter as a tactile ritual. In the timing of the photographic gesture is a silent chant. But is it are?

Worship may be involved. The subject may be the object of worship. The camera may be worshipped by the kamerawerker. The photograph may be worshipped by the sighted. The photographers kneel before the icon's image and offer their obesiences. Burnt offerings sometimes result. But is it art?

Happenstance photography may forego the ritual, leap out of the flow, desecrate the sacrament. Exploit random opportunities like sacrificing spiders underfoot. The unexpected and the impossible are not enough, they're just a start. Are they art?

A random image may not be better than no image at all.

[jct us101]

I think it's actually kind of funny how everyone always tries to define art into their own little prism so that they can get whatever they want in it and they think that people will like it, or that it will go down in history as being something important. What really matters, though, at least in my opinion, is if you like the photo that you've taken. Who cares about anyone else, they don't get why you like it, or what it reminds you of, or the reason that you even took it. They have an abstract view of what you were thinking about it, so they can never really see your reasoning behind it.

I think art is just a way that people try to cover up the fact that they all realize this, but don't want to admit it.

[RioRico]

If not for art or evidence or money, why do we photograph? Why do YOU?

What is the purpose of photography? What is the purpose of life? The purpose of life is to give life a purpose. Photography is the same.

And the meaning of life? And the meaning of photography? Give them meaning. Or, the purpose of life is to be lived, to be used. The purpose of a camera is to be used. How and why do we use photographs? And what is the meaning of a curious dog, of a redwood tree, of an approaching asteroid?

WHY is a photograph? WHY always implies intent. WHY did this happen? implies that a consciousness wanted it to happen. When we ask, WHY is the sky blue? that question implies intent, consciousness - something or someone WANTED a blue sky. A more realistic question is, HOW is the sky blue. Thus any photograph has a HOW, maybe several HOWs. Photographs composed, constructed, captured, manipulated by humans, contain a WHY. Totally automatic or random photos might not contain a WHY.

So WHY are you photographing? That WHY is probably more interesting than HOW. The HOWs of photography can be very simple indeed. A piece of photo paper, an oatmeal carton, a bit of tinfoil pierced by a pin, some chemicals for developing the latent image, that's all that's needed. No hu-hu about technology. We can photograph as simply or as elaborately as we desire.

Photography is a chimera. Photography is a ruse. Photography is old technology. Photography is the news. Photography is a fantasy. Photography is the blues. Something to choose.

Does your photography add to or subtract from the world's sum of human misery, luxury, pain, pleasure? From your own sum of such? Are these questions relevant? Is your photography relevant? Are you?

Physical photographs are musty detritus exuded by photographers like bunny pellets but not usually so round nor small. Electrophotos are virtual spoor stuck to glowing screens. Photos are also recyclable.

Every photo has an edge, an edge, a frame. And whose souls are being stolen by such framing endeavours? The photographer's, the subject's, the audience's, someone's mother's, all of the above? With nature photography, of animate or inanimate subjects - animals, mountains, trees, fishes - whose souls are being stolen? Who gains the souls? Do the souls accumulate or evaporate? Do the souls even notice their theft?

The camera is paradoxical. It links the photographer, the subject, the audience. It also separates them. Putting a camera to one's face and pushing through a crowd is a good way of saying, "Don't talk to me." At least in the Western world. In Guatemala, pulling out a camera evoked polarizing responses, from happiness or even giddiness to open hostility.

And that's why I try to photograph as unobtrusively as possible.

Photography can be approached with a variety of mental-emotional intents: happenstance-fate-Zen, and/or intimacy-interaction-warmth, and/or surveillance-control-frigidity, and/or precision-construction-direction. None need preclude others.

Try to make and digest images like warm low-fat custard.

[rparmar]

Back in the 70s, when I was working on my MFA, I took a "Philosophy of Art" class. It was taught by a philosopher from Edinburgh University in Scotland. After much discussion and reading, he finally proposed that, "in the art community," art is what the art "experts" say it is. A very elitist view to say the least.

I do not use the word elitist as a criticism, since all it means is someone who strives to be better than the average.

However, that is a pathetic definition, by someone who was apparently lucky to get their philosophy degree. Perhaps he should be introduced to the concept of the tautology.

Besides, I covered that definition when I wrote "In the gallery world it might instead be 'whatever the curator decides.'"

Just as John Cage showed that 'music' is whatever you can get people to listen to, to pay attention to, even several minutes of silence

Actually, no, that is a common misconception. The piece was not about silence, but about the quotidian sounds of the concert hall and hence anywhere else. Cage stated that there is no silence and I am with him on that.

Art should be risky, blatant, outrageous. If if doesn't shock you it's not art.

Nope. I make art that is subtle and sometimes almost below the threshold of awareness. Because that is one way to question. Shocking, in comparison, is easy and (often) lazy.

Maybe it's soothing, unnoticable, wallpaper, muzak. But muzak can be exploited. A chorus softly singing KILL FOR PEACE or I TOUCH MYSELF may have some effect.

Stomping on someone's toe might also have an effect. This has nothing necessarily to do with art.

All photography is voyeurism. All photographers and audiences are voyeurs. All imaging is peeping. Every image is a peepshow. Every viewing is a violation.

No. If looking at a photo is voyeurism then why would you not consider the same of looking at a non-photo? Thus everything we look at would become an act of voyeurism and the word would be a synonyn for looking.

Looking is only voyeurism if a private moment has been breached.

WHY is a photograph? WHY always implies intent. WHY did this happen? implies that a consciousness wanted it to happen. When we ask, WHY is the sky blue? that question implies intent, consciousness - something or someone WANTED a blue sky.

Your last example clearly demonstrates that your contention is wrong: Why does not imply that a consciousness wanted something to happen. If I say "Why is this broccoli on my plate?" it could be that I prefer the broccoli to not be on my plate.

So WHY are you photographing? That WHY is probably more interesting than HOW.

I can agree with you there.

Unfortunately I cannot comment on much of the rest of what you wrote because it is full of passages of not very interesting nonsense. And therefore, by definition, it brooks no argument.

[SpecialK]

"Artifact".

Even bad art is art.

[flippedgazelle]

This thread could set a blather record.

[jct us101]

This thread could set a blather record.

It is a little disappointing because considering that although I've put nearly one thousand posts into this forum for the contest, these two guys who started the thread have pretty much beat me in 50 posts.

[Ratmagiclady]

Hey, if you want to ask "What is Art" and not anyone be poetic about it, Rparmar, that's hardly fair. (Interesting definition as you've come up with, yourself. He made sense to *me,(* anyway. Not that I particularly agree with a lot of the assessments , (but would that be art? )

Photography for me has rarely been something I've really aspired to 'high art' about, but it does engage that process. For me it's as much like a performing art (both on my part and subjects') and very similar to writing, maybe more so than like other visual arts.

(it's in the graphy-part, after all. Light-writing. )

[lithos]

Art is opinion.

There you go, beat you by a word.

[jct us101]

Art is opinion.

There you go, beat you by a word.

But everyone doesn't have the same opinion, so you'd have to add your to it, thus making it four words again. Sorry, I know you were really excited to beat rparmar in his definition of art, but I just can't help you here.

[wildman]

Art => meaning

[jct us101]

Art → meaning

Do special characters count as words? I don't really think that your description really actually makes sense either, at least I don't really get it if it does. What do you mean art (arrow) meaning? The point behind art is that everyone can't define it the same as everyone else. Isn't that the real definition of it? Art is what you make it? I'm sure that it might be able to be taken down a few more words, but that is about the most precise and explanatory definition that I can come up with at least right now anyways.