Philosophy Now Forum

No particular examples come to mind, but I believe she does.

What do you think?

PhilX

'Art' is by definition what is made by man.

Melchior wrote:'Art' is by definition what is made by man.

You'll be happy to know most definitions agree with you. However we have this:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/

and specifically I'm referring to this:

"(ii) such entities, and traditions devoted to them, might be produced by non-human species, and might exist in other possible worlds"

Exactly how nonhuman it doesn't say. I think mother nature can produce some artwork, even without intention.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: "(ii) such entities, and traditions devoted to them, might be produced by non-human species, and might exist in other possible worlds"

Exactly how nonhuman it doesn't say. I think mother nature can produce some artwork, even without intention.

PhilX

Art means "artifice" - a made thing. It doesn't have to be made by a human; it can be made by any terrestrial or extraterrestrial conscious entity, so long as it is done deliberately. Which is to say: created by anything but nature.

Skip wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote: "(ii) such entities, and traditions devoted to them, might be produced by non-human species, and might exist in other possible worlds"

Exactly how nonhuman it doesn't say. I think mother nature can produce some artwork, even without intention.

PhilX

Art means "artifice" - a made thing. It doesn't have to be made by a human; it can be made by any terrestrial or extraterrestrial conscious entity, so long as it is done deliberately. Which is to say: created by anything but nature.

Correct.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:No particular examples come to mind, but I believe she does.

What do you think?

PhilX

Accepting the pre-urinal conception of art, I would say that a better-than-average sunset beats every art artefact in beauty. Nothing visual can put me in such awe. Except maybe, a female nude body of the right quality.

However, a photography, which, at least conceptually, could be viewed as bringing in a piece of mother nature for preservation, often gets beaten in beauty by a painting of the same object. Especially when it comes to depict the human face. And when I look outside now, there is few paintings as ugly as what I see. At this time of year at this latitude. Nature is, I should say, more boring to look at at an average compared to a decent piece of art. The ads in the subway are the most beautiful objects at the tube stations. But when nature peaks, it leaves all artists behind.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:No particular examples come to mind, but I believe she does.

What do you think?

PhilX

No.
ART is about artifice; artefact.

Etymologically it refers to a skill of practice and learning.

It is either a misunderstanding of nature or an abuse of language to suggest that art emerges from the natural world.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:No particular examples come to mind, but I believe she does.

What do you think?

PhilX

No.
ART is about artifice; artefact.

Etymologically it refers to a skill of practice and learning.

It is either a misunderstanding of nature or an abuse of language to suggest that art emerges from the natural world.

Mankind has arisen from the natural world through evolution. And mankind does art. It would seem therefore that nature has given mankind the skill to do art so I do see nature as the basis for all art.

PhilX

Let me add too that it isn't the artist who determines art, rather it is the discerning public who has the ultimate say in what is and isn't art. But it all comes from nature that gave rise to mankind.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Mankind has arisen from the natural world through evolution. And mankind does art. It would seem therefore that nature has given mankind the skill to do art so I do see nature as the basis for all art.

PhilX

The Big Bang killed Bambi's mother and Bobby Kennedy, but it also built the Eiffel Tower and Apollo 7.

Let me add too that it isn't the artist who determines art, rather it is the discerning public who has the ultimate say in what is and isn't art.

No quantity of discerning public could produce a Pieta by staring at an empty marble pedestal.

Skip said:

"The Big Bang killed Bambi's mother and Bobby Kennedy, but it also built the Eiffel Tower and Apollo 7." Has the BB directly created mankind?

That nature has arranged for mankind to have art skills and be a judge of art I don't doubt. How nature did it is another story.

Skip also said:

"No quantity of discerning public could produce a Pieta by staring at an empty marble pedestal."

I disagree as one may have the imagination, skill and experience to do it to either carve or imagine it.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: That nature has arranged for mankind to have art skills and be a judge of art I don't doubt. How nature did it is another story.

Do you seriously believe in Nature as a conscious entity, with an agenda and the knowledge to carry it out? Nature wanted to make art, so she created a universe, where some random proteins eventually produce lesser conscious entities, which then start drawing on the walls? If this were so, why does Nature need a human intermediary at all? Why not just do the art and dispense with the humans?

"No quantity of discerning public could produce a Pieta by staring at an empty marble pedestal."

I disagree as one may have the imagination, skill and experience to do it to either carve or imagine it.

Huh? Which one can do it? When that one is identified, he is called the artist. All the ones who can't do it (even if they can imagine it, which does not, in fact, result in a work of actual art) go on being the public. That's how we tell the difference.

Look: If you're going to call everything art, why bother having that word at all?

Everything does everything to everything.

However, Nature is not a mother.
That's why it takes so much carnal interaction between humans of two basic body types to create the great and powerful Public that can stare at a box of paints it doesn't know how to make until it turns into a picture they like, so that, after the man who was used by their collective unconscious to perform the trifling task of transferring their desire to canvas has been dead a few centuries, they can auction it off in a orgy of gold-letting, thus bringing Nature's plan to perfect conclusion.

All I can say is, I'd rather spend a day in a beautiful forest than in an art gallery.

Music though. Now that would get my attention. I prefer human art appreciation through my ears.

Dalek Prime wrote:All I can say is, I'd rather spend a day in a beautiful forest than in an art gallery.

Music though. Now that would get my attention. I prefer human art appreciation through my ears.

.

I know what you mean. My dog and I discovered a previously unknown bit of natural woodland within a ten minute drive yesterday. But if i'd spent all day there, i'd want to go to a decent museum the following day. Modern galleries can go and f themselves.
best still - a decent set of bins and a ipod with a bit of Beethoven whilst you enjoy the woods