Can art be evaluated? (no spam)

[fable]

We have another ongoing thread, which spawned this one. Since this is getting in the way, amd the discussion is so lively, I decided to move it over, starting with the last pair of posts. First, from C Elegans:

I will only add that I think you're engaging in the Law of the Excluded Middle: either a person with the most "knowledge" is the final arbiter on, well, something, or there is no knowledge, and no arbiter possible. There's a large land to explore there between the two, and a lot of interesting sights to see.

Exactly, that's closely related to the term "false dichotomy" which I used above.

For those who are not familiar with this:

"The fallacy of false dichotomy is committed when the arguer claims that his conclusion is one of only two options, when in fact there are other possibilities. The arguer then goes on to show that the 'only other option' is clearly outrageous, and so his preferred conclusion must be embraced."

Ie I don't like that art so esotheric so it's only available to a small group of elite people, therefore art is everything that anyone thinks it is.

I trust my own discernment on what art is. If an art critic says that planescape torment is art I don't gawk in awe and say "and so it is written...planescape torment is art".

In fact art only has meaning to an individuals perception. Perhaps there is no art. That is fine.

In effect art is personal to me and not a social convention.

What if art critics told you that dog crap was art? They could say that they had studied the topic for years and that it was definitely true. They could even describe what 'ism' or movement it was.

I reject this notion of art as a social convention.

Reminds me of the dead poets society where they tore out the pages of the book defining art as the defined as the level of skill necessary to create the work x the effect on society. Bah@!

This is an excellent example of rhethorics using both the "false dichotomy/Excluded Middle" fallacy and the "strawman" fallacy. You argue by taking extreme examples that none in this thread have ever suggested or supported. Then you attack your own extreme examples, and present your own opinions as the alternative.

You closer at your arguments, you state that you trust only you own discernment. From this follows that you actually view yourself and your understanding of art as better and superior that anyone else's. Thus, King Lear, David, Guernica and Shostakovitch's 10th symphony is not art if you don't think it is. You can discard the greatest work of art, that has had the highest value for most people, for societies, for history, for the world heritage, as "not art" just because you don't personally like it. In my opinion @Claudius, that's an amazingly arrogant opinion.

By saying that art is something completely subjective that can only be defined by the opinion of a single individual, you have removed all of the meaning and purpose art has at social, political and historical level. You simply don't recognise that art can be greater than the personal opinions and perceptions of one individual. There is a universal level where art can change a whole society or a whole generation, but this you simply ignore. And you also ignore the great artist's talent and mastery of the enormously difficult skill to reach out and communicate an abstract message by symbols that can be understood by a large variety of different people to such an extent so this communication can alter them. I know you always talk about your religion, but you should realise that your personal opinions and frames of reference is not a rule and norm for 6 billion people.

Regarding computer games in general, I think their characteristics as a media makes the qualify as art easily, in the same as as film does. This is however merely theoretical. Computer games still have several steps to take to be art, there are several missing factors, but it could be included if one wanted. In the same way as I don't view "Rambo" as art, I don't view PS:T as art, but if someone defines "Rambo" as art (rather than "entertainment", which I view as a separate category from art), I would argue that that position would have to include PS:T as art, too.
However, from what little I know about video games, I think that if there is any computer game that really could qualify as art, it is not PS:T but Ico and Shadow of the Colossus.

[fable]

Next, from Claudius:

C Elegans,

What I have discovered is that I in fact have a different opinion from you. Is that Ok with you? I realize that fable wanted to close discussion on this but since you respond to me then I will reply back. In my view you can have different meanings to art: a conventional meaning of the mandala of artworks accepted by generations and a community as you mention. Also pre-dating (and in fact outside of time and space) this (cave paintings) you have the actual act of art itself which is beyond concepts and is just the natural expression of the artist. The caveman drew a animal on the wall because they were moved to do it - art. The first is conditional phenomenon and is stamped by the 3 marks of conditioned existence: non-self, impermanence, and unsatisfactory. These 3 marks mean it is an unreliable refuge. Therefore it is nothing to worry over. The second (the act of art) could be the actual heart nature of the artist which is lasting, self (or non-other), and satisfactory also known as buddha nature.

So I guess I am interested in art as an expression of your awareness but I am not interested in the conditional phenomenon art (well at least not as a refuge).

Thank you. And I would like to say that I like video games and I hope that people enjoy them. But it should be a spontaneous recognition of the games quality. In other words if people respond to games in a positive light then so be it but I am not going to be upset if some people do not like them. It would be foolish for me to try and control their opinions.

[fable]

Claudius, a quick point:

intings) you have the actual act of art itself which is beyond concepts and is just the natural expression of the artist. The caveman drew a animal on the wall because they were moved to do it - art.

There is no "natural expression of the artist" in the cave paintings you refer to. They show a definite style and adherence to conventions in line drawing, object formation, depictions of motion, etc. You want "natural" art? No such animal. Or as Lawrence Olivier, the great actor, once said about sincerity, "Nothing is more important on stage than sincerity. And once you can fake that, you've got it made." In other words, the most spontaneous seeming art achieves that through the careful application of, well, art.

[Claudius]

No. Real art is spontaneous. Its a state of mind, fable. If art is not an expression of the human heart then it is conditioned phenomenon which is marked by the 3 stamps: impermanent, non-self, and unsatisfactory. And thus not a reliable refuge.

Examples of spontaneous art...well art. But for a specific example calligraphy.

It can be evaluated in the same sense as preferences in weather.

By the way thank you for moving the posts fable. I felt uncomfortable either continuing to roam in the other thread in a direction outside the OPs intent and yet I didn't want to leave you or C Elagans hanging. Beliefs are interesting aren't they? I am glad we have this discussion!

PS even cavemen were imprisoned by conditional thinking...I was going out on a limb to show something that I think I failed in doing!

[fable]

No. Real art is spontaneous. Its a state of mind, fable. If art is not an expression of the human heart then it is conditioned phenomenon which is marked by the 3 stamps: impermanent, non-self, and unsatisfactory. And thus not a reliable refuge.

If art is a state of mind, and we agree in advance of discussion that everything exists solely in the mind, then all discussion is meaningless. Noumenal existence has no need for conversation, even when it is clouded with illusion. Especially when it is clouded with illusion.

Examples of spontaneous art...well art. But for a specific example calligraphy.

Caligraphy requires years of training, of practicing technique and drawing what has been done for ages. It is among the sternest and most authoritarian of artistic disciplines. Like your remark about cave painitings, the facts simply don't bear this out. No art is spontaneous. If it were, it wouldn't be art. By definition. Unless, of course, you want to do away with the defintion, in which case, art can mean whatever we want it to. But then, conversation at that point becomes meaningless.

This art is not spontaneous. Can you give us an art that is?

By the way thank you for moving the posts fable. I felt uncomfortable either continuing to roam in the other thread in a direction outside the OPs intent and yet I didn't want to leave you or C Elagans hanging. Beliefs are interesting aren't they? I am glad we have this discussion!

I'm glad you agree to the move. I'm enjoyng the conversation, myself.

PS even cavemen were imprisoned by conditional thinking...I was going out on a limb to show something that I think I failed in doing!

There is no imprisonment save whaever prison we acknowledge for ourselves.

[Claudius]

spontaneous does not mean no training. Why do you think that? Is that the meaning of spontaneous?

I think my attempt at communication is being misunderstood. That is all. Ok. :laugh:

In fact in order for anything to be spontaneous it has exactly the level of training that it does have. A 5 year old finger painter is spontaneous. A 90 year old painter is spontaneous. Potentially. Spontaneity requires the proper balance. Its about freshness. That is what art is...

Regarding imprisonment: if you don't recognize the reality it is still there (imprisonment).

[fable]

In fact in order for anything to be spontaneous it has exactly the level of training that it does have. A 5 year old finger painter is spontaneous. A 90 year old painter is spontaneous. Potentially. Spontaneity requires the proper balance. Its about freshness. That is what art is...

That is part of art, I agree, but art is tension, and the tension arises between spontaneity and chaos that exists in a framework of rules and order. Without the former, it is mathematics. Without the latter, it is dissipation.

Please provide an example of an art that is spontaneous without rules.

Regarding imprisonment: if you don't recognize the reality it is still there (imprisonment).

There is imprisonment, and then, there's imprisonment. There is imprisonment that is a refusal to see a prison for what it is. There is imprisonment that's a denial of illusionary prison, which is every prison: no imprisonment, at all. And then, there's imprisonment that looks at reality, and laughs. Go play with a ball, and stop thinking! I mean it!

[Claudius]

Well I know that you mean well and that you are not simply playing devils advocate!

I am not either. The rule is that you do as you see fit. Always. The imprisonment is when you think a rule is absolute when in fact it is always submissive to clarity, openness, and sensitivity.

The only absolute is that there are no absolutes. Personally I think the difference in viewpoint stems to my relationships and general acceptance of the teachings of buddha. You have not gone there so I don't blame you for believing the dreamlike arisings of your mind are real.

Its stirring that you suggest playing with a ball as that is beyond thinking. But my vision is exactly direct experience. My discipline consists of sitting formless meditation, walking meditation, and daily awareness. Never is the instruction to divorce oneself from direct experience. Nonetheless we communicate through words and though our experience is non-conceptual (how do you know that you are alive close your eyes) nonetheless we can point back to our wordless experience through the use of words. Finger pointing at the moon.

Edit: I was thinking that maybe the confusion is that it seems I am saying you wouldn't follow any rules or information while composing art. I agree that you would refer to rules, theory etc (composition, color, etc). If you were a begininning artist you might have a book you picked up at the store that you are leafing through. But a necessary compenent is the aliveness of the artist. The freshness of the moment. The awareness. In some sense you always have that but in another sense there are times when an artist is more connected to that than others. The essence of their aliveness is always there but the processes of consciousness that link them in to that are unstable and so it seems that freshness itself is inconstant. This is just my opinion.

Edit 2: I have reconsidered what you (Fable) said about imprisonment. I think you just told me that if a prison is based upon delusions then if you realize the prison is delusion then it is not there. Yes! Thats what I think too. But of course if you believe in and invest in the prison. Spellbound. Then it appears as if there. I've also been thinking about rules and I guess it depends how you use rules. You can use them to free yourself or to imprison yourself. It depends on the heart and stability and spaciousness that you are allowing to be present within those rules systems.

[Moonbiter]

If art is a state of mind, and we agree in advance of discussion that everything exists solely in the mind, then all discussion is meaningless. Noumenal existence has no need for conversation, even when it is clouded with illusion. Especially when it is clouded with illusion.

I think this calls for at least one more thread. We need threads debating debating techniques, if we even need debates and conversation, and in the end if we even need SYM.:laugh::mischief:

Seriously, one of the (few) things that I've learned is not to get involved in debates about art. That's one debate you can't win, because it IMHO touches on a part of an individuals "humanity/soul/empathy" for lack of better words, that can't be learned, shackled, controlled, manipulated or defined. One person's pile of cold vomit can be the next person's Mona Lisa, and in my book, after many years of banging my head against the wall in self-centered frustration, that's perfectly fine by me. There's an old saying that goes something like "I don't know Art, but I know what I like." It's a bit of a (forgotten) cliche, but IMO it's pretty straight to the point. If you as an individual think it's art then fine, it's art. Can it be evaluated? Who's gonna do that? Art is IMHO not a competition, it's a state of mind. So why should it be evaluated at all?

Here's a good, true (I can document this) story to fuel the debate and underline my point: In Oslo we have an annual exhibit called "Høstutstillingen." This means "The Autumn Exhibit" in English. It was originally started in 1882 as a revolt by the contemporary artist of the day against the conservative middle-upper class and their definition of art. It is today a bit of a joke, as it has become the exact same thing it originally sought to abolish: A media where "art knowitallbetterthanyou's" can ponce around feeling intellectually superior to the "plebs." The last time I visited it I suddenly saw nine piles of sand on the ground on the second floor, each the size of a small anthill. At first I thought it was down to bad housekeeping, until I discovered the signs that said "Pile of Sand Nr.1-9, please don't disturb the exhibition." Yes, it's that kind of thing. The downfall of "Høstutstillingen" came in 1979. After debating, pontificating, poncing around, having HUGE rows and generally making arses of themselves for a week, the jury (the people who evaluate art, remember..) awarded the first prize of the exhibition to an old, rusty, defunct radiator, that turned out to be part of the building.... I kid you not. The fallout in the media was staggering, and "Høstutstillingen" has been nothing but a coctail party joke ever since, except for the hardcase "contemporary artist" who still insists on keeping it alive, on governement funding, I might add.

Nine jurors who felt they had the right/knowledge/taste/spirit/geist/empathy to evaluate art, gives the most coveted prize amongst contemporary Norwegian artists at the time to a piece of defunct plumbing.... I think the janitor should have had it.

Is it art? Fine by me. I think those old 19th century radiators are a thing of beauty.

My one kroner;-

(PS: Did I set up some crappy precedent for further debate according to the debating rules by posting this? Let me know.)

[Lady Dragonfly]

Interesting story... :laugh:

One person's pile of cold vomit can be the next person's Mona Lisa, and in my book, after many years of banging my head against the wall in self-centered frustration, that's perfectly fine by me.

I guess it's called subjective interpretation of aesthetic experience, or something equally nonsensical.

Can it be evaluated? Who's gonna do that?

I'll tell you who - vast hordes of appraisers, brokers, art market dealers and other merchants peddling the pathetic pieces of crap produced by more or less inept or delusional (or both) artists (preferably died of unnatural causes), after the above mentioned pieces were sufficiently hyped up by so called art critics. Conjured "names" end up in the posh art galleries, intellectual snobs pretend they "understand" and "feel", and some customers (investors) eventually pay a pretty penny for the commodified "artwork".
Such as White Center by Mark Rothko, which was sold for whooping $72.8 million at Sotheby's:

NGA | Mark Rothko | Classic Paintings 2a

This was my small spontaneous axiological contribution to this discussion.

[Xandax]

I do not see why art couldn't be evaluated, ranked, classified and ordered - like most anything else in existence.
To me - the label of art is not subjective, and most arguments (pro and con) I see actually defines that label with attributes - the appreciation of, and whether or not you like it, however, that is purely subjective, just as it is with likeing of books, movies, games, music and so on.
I am not personally versed enough in that world to even start defining what is art is however, and what is not - although

So yeah, I would think art can be evaluated.

[dragon wench]

I've been considering replying to this thread, but Moonbiter pretty much just summed what I would have written, minus the extremely entertaining story...Sadly I'm not surprised at all... a radiator... a symbolic "je ne sais quoi" of fading 19th/20th century society.. ROFL!
I can just imagine the pretentious commentary... *gag*

Seriously, putting aside the self-important critics, society belles and beaus, and their assorted ilk, art really cannot be assessed. I personally find a lot of post-modern art to be about as creative and appealing as the proverbial dog's breakfast, for example.. But, it resonates a great deal for others. Really, there's no way to say who's right here.. (and yes, I'm quite aware of the irony embedded in the preceding lines )
All I know is that I respond to art much like I do to music or poetry.. at a deep, visceral, emotional level. Sometimes I can't really explain what it is I like about a certain piece, it simply speaks to me.
How can you evaluate something as subjective as that?

[Claudius]

I do not see why art couldn't be evaluated, ranked, classified and ordered - like most anything else in existence.
To me - the label of art is not subjective, and most arguments (pro and con) I see actually defines that label with attributes - the appreciation of, and whether or not you like it, however, that is purely subjective, just as it is with likeing of books, movies, games, music and so on.
I am not personally versed enough in that world to even start defining what is art is however, and what is not - although

So yeah, I would think art can be evaluated.

I think I will agree with this statement. Art CAN be evaluated. But just because a large group of people over a long time say something it does not mean that it means more than my own personal EVALUATION of art.

It is like you can go to the beach and where the sand is wet you can draw a line in the sand. That is like defining what art is. Then the wave comes in and the line isn't there anymore. Impermanent, Divisible into infinite parts of which none that is the final (non-self), unsatisfactory (as a refuge to align your being with).

So for me what is art? It is the awareness of the artist. As long as you have a mind you would always have art in that sense of meaning and so this is a refuge. So what happens to the mind after you die? Karma means that you continue to be entangled with samsara. What happens when you are enlightened Buddha and you die. There is the sutra where Buddha is asked this question and he replies with a counterquestion asking what happens when a fire is not fed with fuel. Where does it go: north, south, east, west? I leave that openended but in the sutra it was said that the question does not apply. When the conditions sustaining the fire are removed the fire is also no longer there.

[VonDondu]

I think that art can be defined (somewhat vaguely) as well as evaluated. For example, it is easy to distinguish an artistic painting--which is literally a canvas coated with paint--from, say, a painted barn, which is also an object coated with paint, but which lacks the defining characteristics of an artistic painting. That means there must be something special about art.

So what are those defining characteristics? I'm not an expert and I've never written much about art, but I'll give it a shot:

1) It is intended to be art.

2) It is identifiable as art because it follows a tradition, a style, or a mode of expression that is associated with art.

3) Our perception allows us to identify it as art.

4) Turning toward more concrete characteristics, a work of art normally has a composition, whether it is regular or irregular and whether it is conventional or unconventional. In other words, there is a conscious element of design or technique.

5) While art can certainly serve more than one purpose, on a fundamental level it is an end in itself.

6) A work of art that is intended to represent something nonetheless exists in its own right with its own characteristics, e.g., a special arrangement of paint on a canvas. In other words, not only is it a representation of something, it is also a work of art in itself.

Those are simply thoughts off the top of my head at 4:00am in the morning.

The trouble with trying to define "art" is that there are so many styles and so many different forms. Art is sort of like a language that evolves as it is created, perceived, thought about, talked about, repeated, modified, and changed by people who want to "break the mold".

As an analogy, think about what a "play" is. There is no Platonic form for a play. Plays did not always exist, and the way that plays are written and performed has changed over the years. The first plays were primitive by modern standards, and styles and tastes have certainly varied from one culture and/or one time period to the next.

Your own experiences with plays also change the way you think about plays. The first time you see a play, you don't know what to expect, and you might not understand what a play is supposed to be. But after you read or watch hundreds or thousands of plays, you become (dare I say it?) more sophisticated. Your tastes change, you begin to recognize patterns, and you have a large well of experience to draw upon as you evaluate each new play you see or read. Art is much the same.

If art cannot be evaluated, and if all professional critics deserve to be ignored, then we might as well say the same thing about anyone who reviews books, computer games, architecture, figure skating, dancing, music, movies, and anything else you can think of.


Back to the nature of art: Not only is our perception of the world reflected in art, but art itself also influences the way we perceive the world. Over time, art will change, and so will the way we perceive art. The way we perceive the world itself can also change. And when our perception changes, we look for new things or new meanings in new (and old) works of art. We evolve just as art evolves.

If you don't believe me, then take a life drawing class sometime. When we see an object, normally our brain registers the image and we have an idea in our minds about what the object is. From there, we cease to think about the image itself because we're thinking about our idea of the thing we're looking at. But if you want to draw a picture of it, then you have to interrupt that process and concentrate on the image itself and its physical characteristics, such as shade and shadow, color, size, perspective, etc. And then you have to make decisions about how you want to represent it. You might choose to emphasize a certain feature or characteristic, or might choose to change the way it looks by the way you decide to frame it and compose the various elements on your canvas (or sketchbook or whatever). In any case, you're looking at it in a different way than you ever did before.

Human faces were particularly problematic for me, due to the way that our brains index facial features starting at a very early age. We have trouble remembering what the faces of people from unfamiliar ethnic groups look like because we don't have a "catalog" in our minds by which we can recognize them. If you weren't surrounded by Asian people when you were growing up and you try to analyze the bone structure of an Asian face, it just doesn't make sense at first. In the first place, the recognition processes that are at work in your brain weren't meant to analyze those features; they were meant to call up thoughts and memories and so forth when you see a person. Second of all, the shapes and proportions are unfamiliar, and you have to fight the impulse to draw them the same way you would draw faces you are familiar with (which is what your mind tries to make you do at first).

There are other, more significant ways that our perception of the world can change. For example, what do you think when you see a woman. There are all possible sorts of sexual or sexist overtones. The way that art can change our perceptions is by confronting that or by framing the subject in a new perspective tnat changes the way we see it. Art has a lot of give and take.

I have offered opinions about art in previous messages, and I don't feel like trying to explain them again at the moment. (I'm too exhausted.) But I think I made them fairly clear before.

[Millieway]

I read this topic yesterday and I am glad to see how some of the things I wanted to bring up have been brought up.

But may I have a link to the original discussion. I would just like to grasp the context of these quotes. Normally, it wouldn’t be a problem for me to find the context - considering how usernames have been mentioned and an option to perform a search with; ‘find posts made by this member’ exists - but considering the nature of this topic I would say it is generally good manners to add the link.




Hopefully, I am not beating the dead horse:

Based on these two paragraphs. So, in order for something to become “art” it must first survive time and become recognised by the general public. We got King Lear, David, Guernica and Shostakovich’s 10th symphony and it is art because it is recognised as art. In other words, for example, there are people who would say without a slightest doubt that Shostakovich’s 10th symphony is art without even having heard of it themselves just because it has achieved the status of art.

But without people making individual choices on what is art, I do see how it would be possible to come up with anything new. Because something revolutionizing on the area of art is most likely going to violate the previous norms of art, let it be ones of technique, style or themes. And if the artist himself cannot have the amazingly arrogant opinion of defining his work as art, how could he show his work to anyone as art?

And in fact it is also amazingly arrogant opinion not to call something as art, simply because we can always say the work has not reached the level appreciation it should have. And people are doing these arrogant claims all the time, seemingly to no end. Because the matter actually comes down to how much weight your opinion has, or how well you can back it up with reasons and convince others to side with your opinion.

spontaneous does not mean no training. Why do you think that? Is that the meaning of spontaneous?

Spontaneous:
1. adjective - Happening or arising without apparent external cause; self-generated.
2. adjective - Arising from a natural inclination or impulse and not from external incitement or constraint.
3. adjective - Unconstrained and unstudied in manner or behaviour.
4. adjective - Growing without cultivation or human labour.

With your definition for real art, it seems the old, rusty, defunct radiator is indeed spontaneous real art. After all, a part of the building did become a spontaneously a rewarded work of art.

Interesting story... :laugh:
I'll tell you who - vast hordes of appraisers, brokers, art market dealers and other merchants peddling the pathetic pieces of crap produced by more or less inept or delusional (or both) artists (preferably died of unnatural causes), after the above mentioned pieces were sufficiently hyped up by so called art critics. Conjured "names" end up in the posh art galleries, intellectual snobs pretend they "understand" and "feel", and some customers (investors) eventually pay a pretty penny for the commodified "artwork".
Such as White Center by Mark Rothko, which was sold for whooping $72.8 million at Sotheby's:

NGA | Mark Rothko | Classic Paintings 2a

This was my small spontaneous axiological contribution to this discussion.

I’ve always liked the works of Mark Rothko. Cannot you see, cannot you realize the beauty which he has created by using blocks of colours and soft edges? But I do like his works, I could hang one of the works on my walls if I ever collect enough pennies. And I suppose it is a bit ironic how your opinions do not really differ all that much from Mark Rothko’s. And how he was trying to makes his works as dark and disgusting as possible, and with the mural commission for the Four Season hotel he especially hoped to ruin the appetites of people who dined there.
He withdrew himself of the commission.



As for can art be evaluated?
A silly question. It can because it has been. Money makes art. Art makes money. Either way, it is nearly impossible for art to exist without money.

And, to evaluate art, all you need to do is to check the if it is authentic and let the price tag grown.

[C Elegans]

Since my first reply to Claudius in the other thread is relevant to the topic, I post parts of it here, too:

[quote="Claudius]
art is in the eye of the beholder [/quote]

[quote=Claudius]
I still think art is in the eye of the beholder! Not in ivory towers.[/quote"]

Commenting on your above statement could potentially lead to very long discussion about the definition and universality of art, and it would probably also lead into aestethics and even epistemology. I don't wish that dicussion, but I still must say that I don't understand your statement.

The first part, "art is in the eye of the beholder" sounds like a version of dadaism (I've always loved Marchel Duchamp) or, a version of the typical relativist postmodernist attitude which makes all words and concepts meaningless since nothing can be defined at all. Simply put, if everything is art, nothing is art. If you have no critera, everything qualifies just because one person thinks so. Is that what you mean?

The second part, I don't understand either. English it not my native language, but I understand "Ivory tower" to denote something esotheric, elitist and exclusive.

So if I understand you right, you are saying "everything is art if somebody thinks so, art is not elitist". This statement however, is a false dichotomy putting up two things as if they were oppsites. If art is "in the eye of the beholder" it gets extremely exclusive since you may then have art that only one person in the universe understands as art. Furthermore, if everything is art depending on personal taste and opinion, that is not opposite to art being exclusive or elitist. I can't connect the two, to me it's like you are saying "everything in the world can be black, so while is elitist".

I think art, like all other words and concepts, should have a defined meaning, otherwise language is meaningless and useless for any sort of communication between people.

As for my definiton of art, I go roughly with the intentionally organised sensory stimuli created by humans with the intention of expressing something. The quality of art should be judged according to a set of variables, among the the skill demanded to produce the piece, the degree of novelty, the degree of impact on the field of art and influence in other areas ie politics, society, development etc, whether it is genre creating or genre defining etc, etc.

[C Elegans]

Your position makes less and less sense to me, Claudius. First, you stated that art is in the eye of the beholder. Then you stated that art is not in ivory towers. Then you stated that art is not science. And now you state what "real art" is, according to you opinion.

No. Real art is spontaneous. Its a state of mind, fable. If art is not an expression of the human heart then it is conditioned phenomenon which is marked by the 3 stamps: impermanent, non-self, and unsatisfactory. And thus not a reliable refuge.

Examples of spontaneous art...well art. But for a specific example calligraphy.

Can you describe what you mean by "spontaneous"? Merriam-Webster's online dictonary gives the following meanings to "spontaneous":

1 : proceeding from natural feeling or native tendency without external constraint
2 : arising from a momentary impulse
3 : controlled and directed internally : self-acting <spontaneous movement characteristic of living things>
4 : produced without being planted or without human labor : indigenous
5 : developing or occurring without apparent external influence, force, cause, or treatment
6 : not apparently contrived or manipulated : natural

None if these seems to fit in very well neither for calligraphy, nor for many other forms of art or particular artists. I happen to know a great Japanese calligraphy master. For every work she makes, she will practise the same characters, the same way, a thousand times before she makes what is meant to be the actual piece of art. The poems she calligraphs, are written in beforehand, not by her but by her husband. The creation of each calligraphy piece is thus not spontanous at all, it is quick, but that's not the same thing. Because it must be quick, it is practised over and over again in preparation.

To take another example, let's look at how Michelangelo (and many other renaissance masters) worked. They would often make detailed studies of parts of their paintings long, long before making the actual painting. They would experiment with compositions and proportions, often making hundreds of detail sketches before deciding how the final work would look. The great frescoes by artists like Michelangelo or Raphael, were usually first drawn on the dry underlayer. So do you mean that Michelangelo, Raphael, Da Vinci and Botticelli did not create art, because you say so?

Furthermore, I don't understand how you first can state that "art is in the eye of the beholder" and then state that "art is not in ivory towers" and "real art is spontaneous". Sounds like you are contradicting yourself here, if art is in the eye of the beholder, I guess ivory towers have eyes too? And what about people who think the opposite of you, that real art is not spontaneous at all? Are their eyes less worth than yours? I cannot make any sense of your opinions, and I also fail to see how you descriptions of your religious beliefs are relevant to the question of how to define or evaluate art? It sounds too me like you are mixing up art that you personally like with art. To use your own analogy, like if you think weather you don't like is not weather just because you personally don't like it.

[fable]

The only absolute is that there are no absolutes. Personally I think the difference in viewpoint stems to my relationships and general acceptance of the teachings of buddha. You have not gone there so I don't blame you for believing the dreamlike arisings of your mind are real.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard this same kind of well-intentioned lecture given to me by earnest acolytes of different religious persuasions, assuring me that they understand why my senses/soul/beliefs/understanding/karma are so problematic, and that it really isn't my fault. I haven't reached Their Level, after all.

The only problem with this thesis is that invariably each of them poses a clarity which lies in contradiction to the others, intentionally or not. Well, two problems. The second is that I think they're all, without exception full of **** on this point. In a friendly sort of way, of course. Because they have achieved baptism/enlightenment/the way/nirvana/whatever by fitting into the universal rules as they understand them, and I have yet to understand or follow those same rules.

But it seems to me that it isn't the right suit of universal rules you wear that determines whether you make the cut. It's whether you understand what they are made of, and that they fit exactly to you. Tailors who suggest you must be chopped up to fit the rules, now--I'm not too sure about that.

But back to our subject:

Believing that art is completely subjective and can't be discussed with reference to any critical system is just your game. It is fine if you wish to play it in your mind, because minds are wonderful stuff capable of such great things as the Internet, automobiles, and Slinky. And it is fun to play! But please, do not tell me so insistently that through the grace and wisdom of your mind, you know there is no way to determine how one piece of art is better than another. You can run into a wall all you like and tell me it is unreal, and that's fine, if you enjoy it. But I will still notice the bruises and blood on your scalp, no matter how you deny it. And I can demonstrate aspects of several artforms that are objectively measureable, which help to establish the quality of a particular work. This is no great accomplishment. I only bring it up because you have first denied it can be done, and it *is* done, all the time, meeting verifiable criteria. And if the only reason you say it can't be done is because your version of Buddhism calls it mind and therefore it doesn't matter, then it's your head, and your wall.

[C Elegans]

[QUOTE=Claudius]In my view you can have different meanings to art: a conventional meaning of the mandala of artworks accepted by generations and a community as you mention. Also pre-dating (and in fact outside of time and space) this (cave paintings) you have the actual act of art itself which is beyond concepts and is just the natural expression of the artist. The caveman drew a animal on the wall because they were moved to do it - art.

So I guess I am interested in art as an expression of your awareness but I am not interested in the conditional phenomenon art (well at least not as a refuge).
[/QUOTE]

Why do you think your art type 1 is less an expression of awareness than art type 2? And why do you believe prehistorical art would be more "actual art itself", "beyond concepts" and "just the natural expression of the artist"?

I have studied prehistorical art at several continents, and I think it's a very romanticised and naive idea to believe that this art is more "natural" or more "spontaneous" just because it's older. Have you for instance studied Australian and European rock painting? Have you noticed the enormous amount of skill required to make paintings like those in Lascaux, Altamira or Ubirr? Not to mention the preparations and the time it must have taken to make them.

Do you listen to contemporary experimental improvision jazz? That is far more spontanous than our cave paintings. At the same time, contemporary improvision jazz is one of the most esotheric musical styles you can find. It's usually accepted as an artform by the intellectual establishment, but it reaches out to few people. So which is art according to your definition? The spontanous free-form musician who is accepted by the ivory tower-people, or the non-spontaneous prehistoric man who carefully prepared and planned his paintings of important animals?

[Aztaroth]

Damn, this took me a while to read through.

It's probably ridiculous of me to do so, but I feel it is my duty as an artist to respond here.

It is my firm belief that art itself is not in the eye of the beholder, but the value of it is. Any fool can pick up a brush, throw paint on a canvas, and call it art. It is their right as creators to call it that, but that doesn't make it good.

The problem, and the source of most debate over art, is when critics (both professional and amateur) try to find meaning in pointless art. Paint splattered on a canvas *could* represent the emotions of the artists, a whirl of colours *could* be the artist's deep commentary on the chaos of society, but ultimately artists just want to make money, and if someone thinks their frustrated doodles are deep masterpieces, they'll accept it.

Have you ever heard an artist explain what their painting means? Do you honestly believe they set out to create that meaning? I, for one, do not. I don't evaluate art based on it's alleged emotional depth; but on the level of skill involved in it's creation. I can respect an artist who's reached the very top of the ladder with inane, "emotional" pieces, but not for their art.

As far as contemporary artists go, I have much more respect for, say, a poor comic book artist than for a rich and famous minimalist. My uncle's wife is of the latter category, though her fame is restricted to Sweden. Many of her pieces are simple geometric shapes on enourmous canvas. Others are simple geometric shapes on small canvas. One of her paintings, a large, blue triangle represents the Virgin Mary. Another, a large black dot on a white background, I don't even know. Her art is apparently appreciated by many, and I recall a critic saying that if you don't get it immediately, there's no point in explaining, as you never will.

As and artist, this attitude can send me into bouts of rage. It takes a considerably greater level of skill to create the art I regularily do, than a large black dot on white canvas. Yet most any art critic would value the dot over a random dude with a sword. I find it unfair and idiotic.

Don't misunderstand, even something that simple has a certain aesthetical beauty to it. I'm saying the level of skill involved is vastly inferior. And I, personally, value art based on skill.