Art

[Belinda]

Laypersons have been known to say, “I don’t know what good art is, but I know it when I see it.”

Can this be true? Can the untrained eye recognize fine art? Can the ordinary viewer tell more than what he likes or dislikes?

I doubt it. The idiom whatever it is (theatre, religion, two dimensional paintings and drawings, musical forms, novels etc) has to be learned.

Belinda,

What you say is quite true about structure, but it cannot be said about the appreciation of the beauty of form. One has an innate intelligence when it comes to the beauty of form. All through the beauty of form depends upon the quality of structure, the form of structure also has its own beauty and like you said, requires more knowledge in its creation and appreciation. Where it is said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it depends on the form and structure of the appreciation of the subject, for it is the order and meaning of the subject which is to be bestowed upon the article/object of art.

We seek patterns /meanings, therefore I agree with you. A sufficiently creative person happening upon some mysterious analogy, some found object, and given enough time and energy, will try to make sense of it. He will ask if it's man-made, or how the wilderness came to form it as it is, what it may be used for etc.Such a person will allocate form to the object even if he has to analyse it to do so. I own such an object, a small piece of windfall wood that I picked up from a woodland decades ago, I simply like and value it.
If I may put this in my own words, I agree with you that we impose meaning on an anomaly before we impose form on it.

[popeye1945]

"We seek patterns /meanings, therefore I agree with you. A sufficiently creative person happening upon some mysterious analogy, some found object, and given enough time and energy, will try to make sense of it. He will ask if it's man-made, or how the wilderness came to form it as it is, what it may be used for etc.Such a person will allocate form to the object even if he has to analyse it to do so. I own such an object, a small piece of windfall wood that I picked up from a woodland decades ago, I simply like and value it.
If I may put this in my own words, I agree with you that we impose meaning on an anomaly before we impose form on it.
[/quote]

Belinda.
I suppose we impose form in the sense that all of apparent reality is a biological readout and before readout is vibration. There is however no innate meaning to object, but only what a conscious subject bestows upon it. Biology is the measure of all things, not infallible, but when our senses are mistaken, we would call it an illusion. Shapes can be pleasing without any apparent function other than the pleasure we take in them, with some thought we might decern its physical history, but its only meaning would be the pleasure that we take in them.

[Belinda]

"We seek patterns /meanings, therefore I agree with you. A sufficiently creative person happening upon some mysterious analogy, some found object, and given enough time and energy, will try to make sense of it. He will ask if it's man-made, or how the wilderness came to form it as it is, what it may be used for etc.Such a person will allocate form to the object even if he has to analyse it to do so. I own such an object, a small piece of windfall wood that I picked up from a woodland decades ago, I simply like and value it.
If I may put this in my own words, I agree with you that we impose meaning on an anomaly before we impose form on it.

Belinda.
I suppose we impose form in the sense that all of apparent reality is a biological readout and before readout is vibration. There is however no innate meaning to object, but only what a conscious subject bestows upon it. Biology is the measure of all things, not infallible, but when our senses are mistaken, we would call it an illusion. Shapes can be pleasing without any apparent function other than the pleasure we take in them, with some thought we might decern its physical history, but its only meaning would be the pleasure that we take in them.
[/quote]

I am with you so far. However I want to add to your "There is however no innate meaning to object, but only what a conscious subject bestows upon it."
by the claim that all conscious subjects have meaning for themselves quite apart from what they mean to other conscious subjects. I think I owe that idea to Sartre.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10 ... 3095456283

[popeye1945]

Belinda.
I suppose we impose form in the sense that all of apparent reality is a biological readout and before readout is vibration. There is however no innate meaning to object, but only what a conscious subject bestows upon it. Biology is the measure of all things, not infallible, but when our senses are mistaken, we would call it an illusion. Shapes can be pleasing without any apparent function other than the pleasure we take in them, with some thought we might decern its physical history, but its only meaning would be the pleasure that we take in them.
[/quote]

"I am with you so far. However I want to add to your "There is however no innate meaning to object, but only what a conscious subject bestows upon it."
by the claim that all conscious subjects have meaning for themselves quite apart from what they mean to other conscious subjects. I think I owe that idea to Sartre.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10 ... 3095456283
[/quote]

Belinda,

One's body is part of the physical world. It is out there as a representation and through it, one comes to know the physical world on a subjective level. So, the body is the idea of the mind, for it is only the mind that can have an idea, have meaning, which it can then bestow upon the physical world. It is the changing of the physical body by the stimulus of the outer world that informs us of our apparent reality. In other words, apparent reality is our biological readout of stimulus received/sensed.

[Walker]

Laypersons have been known to say, “I don’t know what good art is, but I know it when I see it.”

Can this be true? Can the untrained eye recognize fine art? Can the ordinary viewer tell more than what he likes or dislikes?

Abstract expressionism is diminished by the static nature of a painting. Cezanne comes to mind as one who explored the way colors recede and advance in a static painting, creating motion with mind.

However, motion such as in this link enhances natural, abstract expressionism within its natural realm, which is the reality of change.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgm58cbu0kw
(No sound)

[nemos]

An artist should be a good craftsman so that the idea is reflected in the material. But is a good craftsman an artist, in that sense, is a perfect reproduction a work of art?

[LuckyR]

An artist should be a good craftsman so that the idea is reflected in the material. But is a good craftsman an artist, in that sense, is a perfect reproduction a work of art?

You are describing the difference between an artist and an artisan. So the copier is an artisan (not an artist) and the reproduction is not (original) art.

[nemos]

You are describing the difference between an artist and an artisan. So the copier is an artisan (not an artist) and the reproduction is not (original) art.

Can a musician who plays compositions composed by others be called an artist, or just a craftsman?

[Walker]

An artist should be a good craftsman so that the idea is reflected in the material. But is a good craftsman an artist, in that sense, is a perfect reproduction a work of art?

It depends upon what the craftsman is perfectly reproducing, don't you think?

A story comes to mind, I think Annie Dillard told it in more detail in her brilliant work, Pilgrim At Tinker Creek. I recommend it as an experience of artful, narrative English. Quite a few others do too, she won prizes of admiration.
She tells about a man who was caught altering a painting in a museum, and he turned out to be Picasso adding to one of his own paintings. The moral of the story? If Picasso can't be finished with a project, how can any artist say a work is complete and perfectly reproduces the inner vision?

Well, if a mere craftsman wants to get paid he better find a way to say finis! perhaps with a bit of aplomb, even though both artist and craftsman need the income. Well, maybe Picasso didn't need to say it since everything Picasso touched eventually turned into gold.

Dillard's art form is writing and she said to say it all now or you'll lose it later ... as Picasso must have learned.

[Walker]

The Young Painter, Picasso

[LuckyR]

You are describing the difference between an artist and an artisan. So the copier is an artisan (not an artist) and the reproduction is not (original) art.

Can a musician who plays compositions composed by others be called an artist, or just a craftsman?

Can be either. Take vocalists. Singing karaoke is artisanship, interpreting a standard your own way is artistic.

[nemos]

... Singing karaoke is artisanship, interpreting a standard your own way is artistic.

Not everyone who picks up a hammer is a blacksmith, meaning a craftsman. A craftsman relies on skill to achieve an intended result, not one that depends on luck. Also, not everyone who sings is a singer, I'm for karaoke.
I'm just curious, what makes art, like music, to art? Or is anything, that can formally be considered as music, poetry or some other form of art, art?

[LuckyR]

... Singing karaoke is artisanship, interpreting a standard your own way is artistic.

Not everyone who picks up a hammer is a blacksmith, meaning a craftsman. A craftsman relies on skill to achieve an intended result, not one that depends on luck. Also, not everyone who sings is a singer, I'm for karaoke.
I'm just curious, what makes art, like music, to art? Or is anything, that can formally be considered as music, poetry or some other form of art, art?

Everyone who sings is, in fact, a singer (by definition). You probably mean: a proficient singer or professional singer.

What makes music "art" isn't the notes nor the sound. It's the emotional effect or impact on an audience member. Therefore in the absence of an audience to appreciate it, the Mona Lisa isn't art.

[nemos]

... It's the emotional effect or impact on an audience member...

So it can be said that art is a means of expression to address someone through feelings and emotions, and as a response to such an address there should also be a reaction through feelings and emotions so that such an address could be considered successful.
This could be a good starting point for further discussions about art.
For instance:

The work was created technically, but without an emotional appeal, even if the "viewer" had one for reasons only known to him?
Or if the artist created work only for himself, without trying to appeal to anyone else?
Or if a person with a distinctly artistic inner world was too lazy to learn the craft, and therefore his works are not always able to win the heart of the "viewer".

[nemos]

I thought here about such a thing as technical juggling in art. When the headline is to draw attention with something effective, but not to convey an emotional message.
Let's say music with a dull rhythm, which cannot be endured for a long time, in a clear mind, and intoxication is the only way to protect the mind, if there is no way to leave.
Or maybe the artist simply demonstrates his virtuosity by evoking general excitement, still without any emotional message.
If it is still art, then what about other manifestations of virtuosity - in crafts (bartender juggling with dishes), in sports, and similar - all of this can evoke emotional excitement in the audience - would it also be a form of art?