05 January 2008

Definitions. but should we even define stuff? who cares

Forthwith I will provide the first of my cogent, whilst tentative and potentially (and hopefully, so as to spur debate) contentious, definitions, founded on vast rumination. I do not know if anyone else wonders about such things as defining words or creating the perfect definition for stuff, but I do, and my hope is that people will comment on these and I'll ameliorate them (or belittle the opposing opinion) accordingly. However, considering the number (or lack) of folk who check this site, not to mention how people don't seem to give a shit about shit, my definitions will doubtlessly go unnoticed and unconsidered, left to collect digital dust as forlorn attempts to garner philosophical discussion. 
Note: These definitions involve what these words/concepts mean to ME, not what they mean to most people. If most people think that a canvas upon which someone took a shit is "art," that's unfortunate for them because that's bullshit.
All the same, without further ado,

A work of (visual) art
is a composition which is created with the primary intention of being beautiful or providing a pleasurable or profound emotional resonance through the means of its visual depiction.

Beauty
exudes visual pleasure; the quality of agreeableness to one's sense of sight.

13 comments:

Amateur said...

Whether or not we should define stuff depends on your view of language. One person could look at language artistically, in which case it should be open to various definition and interpretation. Others could see it mathematically, as something having specific set values and rules.

I'd have to say the mathematical view makes the most sense, as it's pretty hard to communicate with someone when everything you say means something different to them. Also, when there's an open definition, the original meaning of the word tends to get lost, and then the word ends up becomming obsolete. But anyways, on to your definitions.

Now I disagree with the first one. Isn't it possible that a work of art could be intended to convey ugliness?

The second one I agree with though. I can see the nobility in looking at beauty as a sentimental 'inner' kind of thing, but then it makes it harder to describe the things that are actually pleasing on the visual level. I think it's better to just reserve the word for the things you see and are able to identify as being incredible purely by optical means.

Alexander said...

No man, I disagree. A lot of people argue that with me, about 'art can be intended to be ugly', but that seems absurd to me. if the purpose of art isn't to create a good effect in the world, why would people make art? to hurt people? if someone makes something to be ugly i don't consider that art.
if you're referring to an anti-aesthetic sort of intent, like punks, i don't think mohawks and weird piercings and shit have to be considered ugly because they have their own unconventional beauty to them.

Amateur said...

I wasn't really thinking of the same thing. I don't mean those punk fashion trends, or 'ugly for the sake of being ugly'. I mean that a work of art could be created to represent aspects of life that are not beautiful, to convey the darker side of the world. A piece of artwork can be inteded to convey emotions such as anger or grief, or they could be made to represent certain events or acts of ugliness, such as war, violence, rape, forms of torment.

I'm not sure all artists stop to think about how their piece of artwork will change the world, or what it will mean to people. I think they just create what they want to create, depending on what influences them and the kinds of things they think about. If someone sees a lot of ugliness in the world, then it might not be their interest to make something that looks pretty. Or perhaps they feel that by pointing out the ugliness in life through a work of art, it will motivate people to make the world more beautiful.

mooshoo variations said...

what do beauty and ugly mean anyway? art's subjective. what's beautiful to some is ugly to others and so on. and do these "definitions" apply to music and others "art forms". are we to say that someone's music sounds bad or ugly and is therefore not art? obviously not. so why make those judgments on someone's visual art or clothing style or whatever.
unfortunately, art can be anything, even "ugly".
and think about it, wouldn't it suck if all art were positive? if that were the case, i'd be more interested in that other thing called making stuff from your ideas, however ugly or beautiful they might be

tutankhamun said...

art is dead. also, this is the best post to this blog yet.

mooshoo variations said...

agreed, art went the way of god years ago, but luckily we're left with jesus bumper stickers and picasso coffee mugs.
"the 60's was a complete waste of time, the ideals were clouded by smoke" or "police cause more problems then they solve", or "all visual art is created with the primary intention of being beautiful"- these are all opinionated statements and not definitions of the 60s or police or visual art.
(as lame as this is) you know how oxford defines "art"- branches of creative activity concerned with the production of imaginative designs, sounds or, ideas.
art is so much more than that to different people, but at least this definition allows for the reader to develop an unbiased opinion as they experience art for themselves. to begin with the notion that all (visual) art is intended to be beautiful...well, i'm probably beating a dead horse at this point. yawn, right.

Alexander said...

My Beautiful Responses
1. Beauty is not subjective; it's objective to each perspective, and there are objectively beautiful things. Everything is subjective and thus everything is objective. Opinions are reality. We believe the world is the way it is and thus it is. God is not dead. If I believe she is real she is. Why does Mr Variations speak of opinions, or "opinionated statements" in such a pejorative manner? Opinions is what I live for, give or take humans and love.
All the same, my definition of beauty never denied the subjective basis of the perception of beauty; it doesn't claim that 'beauty is what is beautiful'; rather, it more so claims 'beauty is what is perceived as visually pleasing'. This allows for the subjectivity he speaks of.

Alexander said...

2. I never said 'art' can not be ugly; I said that it can not be INTENDED to be ugly. Similarly, I never said that art can't be anything but positive; being intended to be beautiful and concerning positive feelings are two very different things. Though all my favourite paintings might be called sad or 'depressing,' they can still absolutely have been meant to be beautiful, as I'm sure they were.
And, again, I insist that art can't be meant to be ugly. that's fucking absurd. so if i take a canvas and shit on it and post it in front of my arch enemy's front door just to hurt her/him, and i call it art, would you accept that? because it's not art at all, it's just idiotic shit, a means to gain pleasure from an other end, a tool; that is, in that case i would merely want to derive pleasure from 'hurting' said enemy. Art needs to be the pleasurable end itself. if it's meant to look bad how the fuck is that visual art? people can CALL such attempts at being clever or "redefining art" or whatever as much as they want but i don't give a shit.
and isn't it really absurd and lazy to decide that, since art is difficult to define and describe, and there are all kinds of idiots who make stupid bullshit that isn't visual at all and call it art, there are thus no objective criteria for something to warrant being considered art?

Alexander said...

3. Art is not 'dead', as it is a concept that is alive and well today and probably will always be thus. If you mean the progressive narrative of art history/contemporary art that we have been taught/has been constructed has reached a stagnant period, that might be the case but it's only because 'art history' has been discussed and taught to 'death' and there's too much of an art historical self consciousness now, I believe.

tutankhamun said...

i agree. & people should forget about the beatles already. burn all your beatles records.

Amateur said...

Well if you mean that the artwork might not necessarily represent something that we think is beautiful, but the piece of art itself is beautiful in it's own way, then I can agree with that. I'm sure, aside from whatever subtle messages and themes that can be portrayed through a work of visual art, the artist really just wants people to want to look at it in the first place.

Alexander said...

but the artist shouldn't mostly just want attention, and if she does, in my (said) opinion, then she is not an artist. that is, if she's only making a painting, for instance, to get attention, the 'art' is acting a vehicle to reach something else, rather than providing pleasure in itself.

Amateur said...

Well, no, certainly she isn't trying to draw attention to herself, but perhaps to something else, to whatever it is she is portraying in her artwork.