Valentina

Let me begin with the disclaimer that I know almost nothing about art, aesthetics, or philosophy. So this definition is news to me. It's interesting, though. I like how it opens up the possibility that bowers could, indeed, be "art."

I may not know anything about philosophy, but I do know a number of people who consider themselves "artists."

C'mon, let's be honest here: People who create "art" (as most people understand it) generally do so with the express intention of creating art. They work hard to become better at their art form, no matter what it is. The stuff that hangs in museums wasn't created by people who just randomly picked up a brush one day and "accidentally" created an important painting with absolutely no intent do realize an artistic vision (i.e. to create art), even if they were not quite pompous enough to utter the phrase "Today I shall make art."

In many cases, yes. Sure, the responses would vary with medium. So what? The common denominator in most cases would be that the object (or performance) was created in order to convey some creative vision, some idea, some feeling. All the interviews I've read in which assorted painters, sculptors, choreographers, poets, composers, filmmakers, and other creative souls have discussed their work would seem to corroborate this notion.

Am I crazy to think this? Like I said, I know very little about this subject. Please enlighten me if I'm way off track, or missing some big part of the picture here.

Hm. Well, I sort of think that whether you consciously say to yourself, "Today I am going to create art" or "Today I will work on perfecting my craft" is really just a matter of semantics. The latter is, I agree, a more common conscious thought among artists, but the ultimate goal of "perfecting one's craft" is, in many cases, to create art. I was thinking more about visual art when I made the statements about intent, though.

Maybe the medium does make a difference though: I'm not sure I'd categorize a masterful novel or a finely crafted short story as "art." (Would anyone?) I'd say they were the creations of a writer who had mastered the craft of writing. And I know that the clumsy, plodding short stories produced by many aspiring but untalented writers are definitely not art, no matter what the intent of the creator!

I've studied dance pretty seriously. But I don't think dancers are "artists" in the same way that choreographers are. Choreographers generally do have the intent to create "art"--in this case, that usually means a series of movements that expresses/provokes some idea or emotion. Same with musicians vs. composers/songwriters. In both cases, one is an artist and the other more a craftsperson. Does that make any sense at all? Maybe I'm wrong...Just because you're interpreting someone else's creation doesn't necessarily mean that you aren't also trying to convey your own artistic vision...Or does it?

Not surprisingly, I've also argued the question of whether or not stripping can--at least in some cases--be considered 'art'. I'm undecided on that one, but I think intent might come into play.


So, roachboy, I'm curious: Feeling as you do about intent, do you believe that non-humans can create art? Would you classify bowerbirds' bowers as art?