Mantus

A man walks into a modern art gallery. He comes across on particular piece and is quite moved by all that it represents and means to him. A moment latter a janitor walks up to the exhibit and says, “oh I am sorry I left my bucket and mop behind” as he proceeds to carry the work of art to the janitor closet.

A far-fetched story? Not at all, it can really happen for a reason; art has no agreed upon definition. As such, anything could be interpreted as art. Though there is a further incentive for this to happen. It has to do with the location. A gallery is a place where one expects to find art. Therefore when one enters a gallery and sees something on exhibit one assumes that it is art. It is doubtful that that if that same man would think a bucket and mop to be art if he saw them in the hall of an office building.

There are other concepts that do not have clear definitions. Some are not all that vague. Love for example isn’t totally defined yet we all know that love is a positive feeling, for example one can never confuse it with hate or sadness. On the other hand there are other terms that are so loosely defined that their definitions seem to imply something that does not have a definition. The obvious one that comes to mind is god. So I reach the following conclusion:

God is art and the whole world is the gallery.

The definition of god is so ambiguous and elusive that we are often encouraged to create our own. Then we are told that god can be found anywhere in the world, including in ourselves. Provided these two facts it is not a surprise that so many people find god.

I hear proofs of god all the time, all of them are unique. A person sees a vision, has a spiritual experience and gets lucky in life; to him that is a sign of god for god gave him such good luck. Another person has a terrible life, gets cancer and is on her deathbed; to her this is proof of god for if life is so cruel something better must exist afterwards to create balance. Two contradicting description of the same being, neither being wrong because there is no definition to begin with. Add our ability for faith and we are set to discover god if we only look for him.


P.S. With how many threads we have on the subject perhaps we should just call this the “discussions of god” forum.

Cheers.

CSflim

Sad, but true.

__________________

ARTelevision

IMO, our belief in words - or more precisely, the way in which we confuse language and experience - is the biggest problem we have as far as our thinking goes.

__________________
create evolution

ni42

why is this sad? philosophy is the search for meaning in our lives. and a large segment of the world belive that god has something to do with this. i would be surprised to find little discustion about god in the philosophy forum. it comes down to what you see on the wall of plato's cave i guess.

__________________
- 42 -

chavos

very true, mantus. our search for, and sense of, the aesthetic mirrors our relationship with the divine. most importantly...for the person(s) who feel it, it is real in most every sense of the word. their reaction is only appropriate if it is to something more complex than simply the patterns on the canvas. its also highly subjective, and hard to share. i won't tell you what kind of art to appriciate, but niether will i let you tell me that monet didn't make art.

CSflim

Because there is so much more to philiosophy than wondering "does God ever get bored?" and other such nonsense. Perhaps we do need a "Tilted Religion" forum.

__________________

Mantus

Words are a burden and a necessity. We define objects by their interaction with other objects. Definitions are necessary because they allow us to communicate our experiences and help expand the knowledge of others. They also allow us to test our model of the universe against other people’s models. So we must live with words until we can find a better way to share experience.


Well I suppose that I will tell you that Monet did not make art. Now don’t real back at the statement just let me explain myself first. Suppose that you never knew of the word “art”. If you saw The Seine at Argenteuil , you would describe it as a beautiful old exquisite painting. At the heart of it what you see is a paining. A paining is defined as a man-made composition made by applying paints to a surface. The other qualities such as exquisite, old and beautiful modify and sharpen the definition.

Now suppose that one would call that Monet a beautiful old exquisite painting and work of art. What did the term “art” reveal about the painting? Nothing, because art has no definition.

So when I happen to say that a Monet is not art, I am not contradicting myself by denying any property the painting might have because art does not describe any properties.

To give an example, lets create a word and not give it a definition. Let this word be “girb”. If I claim that a Monet has girb I would not be revealing any quality about the Monet. If I on the other hand say that a Picasso has no girb, I would not be denying any qualities that might exist.

So why does everybody use the word “art” to describe paintings, sculptures, music, writing, etc? Every one uses it, because every one else uses it. If enough people call something art, I suppose that it really does become art, but nobody knows why its art because art is not defined. Yet when one hears the whole world state that Monet is art it is pretty hard to deny the fact even though nobody knows what makes Monet art. So all that we know of art, is that it is a word yet it defines nothing in existance. Yet every one uses it as if it does. Strange, no?

If an emotional response is all that is necessary to define art then that is fine, but unfortunately it will qualify pretty much anything as art. For example: both a painting of a sunset and the sunset itself would qualify as art. Even mudane objects like a cup would become art. Go ahead try it, focus on any object before you, try to really understand and feel it and I guarantee you that you will get some form of emotional response. If this does become an accepted definition I will have no qualms with it, accept that I would have to re-write my argument above. Until that is happens though art remains a good example of an undefined word.


Cheers

:::OshnSoul:::

And, also a new song by Pink:
God is a DJ
life is a dancefloor
Love is the rhythm
You are the music
If God is a DJ
Life is a dance floor
You get what you're given
It's all how you use it

chavos

Ah, but it does. Art encompass the reaction to a created image or object. Yes, it would qualify a great deal of things as art. Yes, it would be subjective, and non-logical. I'm quite fine with that...i don't see a need for everything to be governed by logic. I know i as a human being am not...and all the richer for it.

Mantus

If every one has their own definition of the word “art” then saying art does not communicate the definition. If some one tells me that they see art I would have to ask them what they mean. Some could answer that it is something which triggers emotion. Other people will tell me that art is an object that is beautiful, has an idea or conveys meaning, shows skills or intelligence, the list goes on. Some definitions will overlap others wont. The point is that the word “art” doesn’t convey anything if everyone has to say what they mean after they use the word.

To reverse the point; if some one does not know what my own definition of art then they cannot state that I was wrong in saying that “Monet is not art”.

I wonder if what I am saying is valid. A definition is a statement conveying fundamental character. I don’t believe it has to be accepted by a group of people to be valid. Yet if definitions are not standardized then communication would be impossible. I am stumped.

chavos

i think you hit upon something, mantus.

Definitions of abstracts tend to be personal, hard to convey, and non-authoritative. But, they are the best we have to talk about powerful and amorphus topics.