Philosophy Now Forum

Only in the sense that most recorded artists appear to have been paid?
Are you selling it as art? Then yes I guess. How do we know that these cave paintings were 'art'? In yours and AS's view there are no conditions to judge it as such, just ones subjective opinion? We could say they are art by the categories of medium, manner and subject but I thought these in dispute?
I'm not saying that the subjective view where you say they are art is not true, just that there is a communal judgement and its based upon whether someone else will exchange something for it. Why does a forgery get less than an original?
I thought you said it could be? If youare a grocer and you can sell it this way then art it becomes.
Why? It seems as good a name for 'objectivity' as any?
You brought up the critics as example? But if they are not paying for it then I agree it does not.
Nothing, lets see if they can sell them as it. But I'm puzzled as this is exactly your view I thought?

How would you know this?
No, I'm saying that they may well consider it art, as you said, art is the one who says it is. All I'm saying is there is another definition and thats if someone is willing to give up or exchange something of theirs for it. But I could say the childrens work is art as it has a medium, manner and subject.
Don't see why? Its pretty much been the definition of those we call artists since dot.
I think they are not artistic so they are not art, especially since no-one has exchanged anything for them.

Actually what you claimed is that art has to be sold to fulfil sufficient conditions for it to be called art. You are now conceding the point to me objection.

The human race has been making art for as much as 50,000 years. Art did not become an object of sale until rather recently. So your year dot argument is hot air too.

By your rather ridiculous claim, a painting is not art until it is sold. This is self refuting, unless you are saying that art is an act of commercialism- is that what you really want to say? The moment of art is the purchase.
1) For that to be a sufficient criterion, all groceries become art the moment they are bought.
2) For that to be a necessary criterion nothing is art until it is bought, which means no one buys art; they only take it home.


I'm a bit surprised at you. But then I assume that you must be bored to be pursuing such a daft line of argument.

But your point is that art is what you say it is? So if you say your groceries or shit are art then I presume by your standard they are?

My point is that if we are going to have this standard then we all have it. So what may be exchanged is the agreement that your shit is a work of art or not. If you can get another to spend their time taking a look and agrees then there is more than just your standard, there is an intersubjective standard. If not its just your standard and purely subjective.

Me, I'm happy with the old medium, manner and subject criteria but it appears a debatable thing apparently.

Nope - I don't give a rat's arse if a sausage is sold as art, if you call it art, or Roy Strong calls it art. Its art if I think it is art.
I've made that clear all along.
And selling art has NEVER been anyone's standard.

There exists a photograph, taken in June this year, of me riding a plastic-and-steel rodeo bull. I stayed on the beast longer than anyone else at the event.
Does this make it art?
People who have seen this photo say the photographer did a really good job.
Does this make it art?
The event was the wedding of my friend Gabrielle, the sister of the well-known artist Damien Hirst, and the event took place at Damien's farm in Devon.
Does this make it art?
If you were willing to pay five bob for a copy of said photo, would that make it art?

Damien Hurst is not much of an artist in my book.

But apparently I can hold the same position and the one that if someone is willing to exchange something for the work then its more than just a subjective standard, its an intersubjective standard of art. Hence we have a standard for whats good or bad art and a value for it, given your definition of what makes something art or not.

Okay, but I'm just telling you that yours is idiotic. Your standard renders art meaningless.
You can talk about objectivity, subjectivity, and intersubjectivity until you are blue in the face. It does not change the fact that the act of buying a thing does not make a thing 'art". We were talking about necessary and sufficient factors. Buying a thing is neither necessary nor a sufficient quality to make a thing art.
Simply enough, as I have already stated - a thing does not have to be bought to be art, and buying a thing is not enough for it to be art.
For some reason you took exception to that statement, but have not yet managed to crawl your way out of your mistake, excpept by making art meaningless.

Not at all as if you read my posts I amended my point to make it exchange, its you who are fixated upon buying and selling. But upon this point I understand this as a convenient expression of exchange, as in the past artists have just bartered their works for booze and food.

If you are saying that individual preference is the necessary and sufficient factor for something to be art, which I pretty much agree with, then I see no reason why if two or more agree that a same something is art that this is not an intersubjective or objective position? If not why do we appear to agree that some things are great works of art and other things just works of art?

Thank you Chaz! Youmake a much better argument than I ever could. You say more in a few words than it took me pages and pages to say in the "art is" thread.