Toward a Definition of Art and Bonsai as Art

[Anonymous User]

I would differ in that there need not be an attempt or intent to create art for the object to be art. Earlier, in response to Attila's comment about intent I simply responded with "Cave Paintings."

Some of these invoke all the responses mentioned in this thread, many are indeed considered as being art, some with animals show artistic talent that is amazing in that even then, artistic principles are apparent.

The point with using such as an example is that it is highly doubtful that these primitive artists had any intent what-so-ever to create "art."

To take this a little further, does an artist actually set down with the intent to create art? I don't think so, the artist sets down to create, period. With talent what the artists creates can be art, but the intent is not enough to guarantee an artistic outcome.


Will

 

[grouper52]

Sorry about the double post last night this website was acting up on me. Also later I’ll finish my cp when I get time but just quickly before I go. This debate reminds me of the old story of the blind men and the elephant. www.rec-room.org/Activities/stories/elephant.html I know it’s just another metaphor and not a 10 page article with a lot of words that I get lost in. And I know that art is not an elephant and heaven forbid that I’m suggesting any of you are blind. It’s just my personal view on how I’ve been watching you all describe art. Now I will put on my bullet proof vest and helmet because I will probably be shot down over enemy lines and have to make my way back to my lurkers corner where I think I’m suppose to stay. Have a good-day all.

Sadje,

Glad you see that you came back and offered more, even after my touch-in-cheek insult over your first post on this thread.

Your story about the elephant and the six blind men is a good one, and although it points out a weakness in human nature, it is incomplete - it also points the way to overcoming that weakness, which is what we are doing here, but the story leaves that part out.

My attempt at a definition of Art was based on a combination of methods first set out by the Classical Greek philosophers. Plato wrote philosophical dialogues largely based on his teacher Socrates, who was disturbed by the meaningless arguements over some of the conceptual "Elephants" parading around Athens, abstract concepts such as "The Good", "Justice", "Courage", "Piety", etc. His method was, through discussion, to try to arrive at a definition of these concepts that applied to Every instance of the word, and Only to the word. It is hard to do, and often he did not succeed, but even the effort was helpful in moving the discussions onto common ground, so that when people talked about these things they were all talking about roughly the same thing. That's what we are trying to do here. Since we are not clairvoyant, and cannot read each other's minds, the only way we can get an idea from our mind to someone else's is to communicate it in some way, and language, though less than ideal for this job, is often the best tool we have. So we discuss it, as we are doing here, so that when someone talks about Art we all have some general idea what is in his/her mind.

I used Aristotle's techniques to arrive at a Socratic/Platonic Every-and-Only definition of Art. I think it captures the Every side well, but we are still trying to refine the Only side by haggling out the type of "Inspiration" that Art inspires but that pornography or propaganda or other activities are not meant to produce. If the six blind men, staying there by the side of the elephant and demonstrating their point of view, thinking about and calmly discussing their points of view, they might easily come to a better understanding, in spite of their blindness. This curiosity, this ability to think, this ability to get an idea from one mind to another through the use of language - these are all ALSO human nature and human capabilities, cynically left out of the story unfortunately, and if we use these capabilities well we can learn much, and save ourselves a great deal of needless arguement.

Thanks for sparking these thoughts, and please continue to give us your input. No need to lurk.

grouper52

 

[Anonymous User]

If the six blind men, staying there by the side of the elephant and demonstrating their point of view, thinking about and calmly discussing their points of view, they might easily come to a better understanding, in spite of their blindness. This curiosity, this ability to think, this ability to get an idea from one mind to another through the use of language - these are all ALSO human nature and human capabilities, cynically left out of the story unfortunately, and if we use these capabilities well we can learn much, and save ourselves a great deal of needless arguement.

Well said and well worth repeating.

The story of the elephant reminds us all that each of us may have a different concept of the whole, only by communicating and working together can we fit all the pieces together and see the bigger picture that we all mistake as being the single piece we do see.



Will

 

[Attila Soos]

Hi Chris, On Attila's post that you quoted I don't think he referred to a "positive" emotional response. Just a emotional response that would encompass what you cited.

If you really think about it though, inspiring fear, anger, or disgust could be construed as a positive response depending on your point of view. When the image was created by the artist his intention was to evoke those emotions...in his/her eyes, that would be a very positive emotional response.

That's right. The emotional response I am referring to encompasses the entire range of human emotions.

it would only define art as that which you like.

By no means is the emotional response something that applies exclusively to me. Humans, in general, have this response.

 

[Attila Soos]

I would differ in that there need not be an attempt or intent to create art for the object to be art. Earlier, in response to Attila's comment about intent I simply responded with "Cave Paintings."

Some of these invoke all the responses mentioned in this thread, many are indeed considered as being art, some with animals show artistic talent that is amazing in that even then, artistic principles are apparent.

The point with using such as an example is that it is highly doubtful that these primitive artists had any intent what-so-ever to create "art."

If there need to be no intent, than we can assume that one can create great art just by accident.
This may be sometimes the case, but I, as a bonsai artist, cannot realistically expect that I will create masterpiece after masterpiece all by accident. My intent to create art has to be there, or nothing will happen.

To take this a little further, does an artist actually set down with the intent to create art? I don't think so, the artist sets down to create, period.

Of course an artist will start out his work with the intent to create art.
What do you think Michelangelo was intending to do when started David? We all agree that he was intending to create a sculpture (sculpture is an art form).

Artist sit down to create......what? Painting, sculpture, music.....they are all art forms. And they know exactly what they are doing: they carefully studied all the tricks and techniques of their trades to create the desired effect. They don't just sit down to create from thin air, but based on decades of studies and learning.

With talent what the artists creates can be art, but the intent is not enough to guarantee an artistic outcome.

That's right. The intent is no guarantee. That's why we need to separate the intent from the outcome. One can have all the artist's vision and imagination, but may lack all the skills to actually create art.

 

[Attila Soos]

Some of these invoke all the responses mentioned in this thread, many are indeed considered as being art, some with animals show artistic talent that is amazing in that even then, artistic principles are apparent.

The point with using such as an example is that it is highly doubtful that these primitive artists had any intent what-so-ever to create "art."

Cave paintings were not created for artistic purposes.
They are NOT art, in the strict sense. The overwhelming majority of researchers agree that they were created not for enjoyment, but for religious/spiritual purposes. Of couse, the creator can apply artistic principles inherent in human perception, such as sense of perspective, proportion, ect. , but this can be said about any object that we create for practical purposes.

Of course, anyone can wake up in the morning and call the cave paintings Art. Just like one can call the songbirds singer artists. Why not, they have a rhytm, a melody, etc - all artistic principles in the art of music. And the birds of paradise of Borneo are the best dancer artists, with their intricate mating dances.

 

[Anonymous User]

Cave paintings were not created for artistic purposes.
They are NOT art, in the strict sense. The overwhelming majority of researchers agree that they were created not for enjoyment, but for religious/spiritual purposes. Of couse, the creator can apply artistic principles inherent in human perception, such as sense of perspective, proportion, ect. , but this can be said about any object that we create for practical purposes.

Of course, anyone can wake up in the morning and call the cave paintings Art. Just like one can call the songbirds singer artists. Why not, they have a rhytm, a melody, etc - all artistic principles in the art of music. And the birds of paradise of Borneo are the best dancer artists, with their intricate mating dances.

Ah, this is the base of my statements, you say that the cave paintings are not art and yet they qualify when weighed against the definitions offered here so far. They invoke an emotional response from the viewer, which those having stood in front of them can attest to. Viewing them certainly causes an emotional reaction and the images echo within the viewer for a very long time after viewing, they move the soul.

Your claim then is that they are not art simply because they were not intended to be art? You stated that "The overwhelming majority of researchers agree that they were created not for enjoyment, but for religious/spiritual purposes" and yet most of the renaissance art we so enjoy was based on "religious/spiritual purposes" and by your definition, none would qualify as art either.

We differ here. You believe that the great artists set out to create art, I believe that the great artists set out only to create, they can't help themselves, it is a need they must fulfill, they set out to release the creative spark of talent that is within them, they would continue to do so even if nothing they created ever qualified as art. Art is a result, a by product, if you will, of the talent within them.


Will

 

[Chris Johnston]

I would differ in that there need not be an attempt or intent to create art for the object to be art. Earlier, in response to Attila's comment about intent I simply responded with "Cave Paintings."

Some of these invoke all the responses mentioned in this thread, many are indeed considered as being art, some with animals show artistic talent that is amazing in that even then, artistic principles are apparent.

The point with using such as an example is that it is highly doubtful that these primitive artists had any intent what-so-ever to create "art."

To take this a little further, does an artist actually set down with the intent to create art? I don't think so, the artist sets down to create, period. With talent what the artists creates can be art, but the intent is not enough to guarantee an artistic outcome.


Will

I think your fascination with the mystical "talent" is a little far-fetched. Talented artists create a lot of things, and some are better than others. Any artist can point to what they think is their best or most important work. The honest ones can also point out work they think does not rise to their standards.

Artists do sit down to create, but I would guarantee that most artists do set out to create art. They aren't making ashtrays or Ford bumpers!

 

[Chris Johnston]

Ah, this is the base of my statements, you say that the cave paintings are not art and yet they qualify when weighed against the definitions offered here so far. They invoke an emotional response from the viewer, which those having stood in front of them can attest to. Viewing them certainly causes an emotional reaction and the images echo within the viewer for a very long time after viewing, they move the soul.

Your claim then is that they are not art simply because they were not intended to be art? You stated that "The overwhelming majority of researchers agree that they were created not for enjoyment, but for religious/spiritual purposes" and yet most of the renaissance art we so enjoy was based on "religious/spiritual purposes" and by your definition, none would qualify as art either.

We differ here. You believe that the great artists set out to create art, I believe that the great artists set out only to create, they can't help themselves, it is a need they must fulfill, they set out to release the creative spark of talent that is within them, they would continue to do so even if nothing they created ever qualified as art. Art is a result, a by product, if you will, of the talent within them.


Will

I think this is barking waaaaay up the wrong tree. "Accidental art?" Can you show me a single example of a piece of good or great art created by someone accidentally? Is this where you want this to go?

 

[Anonymous User]

If there need to be no intent, than we can assume that one can create great art just by accident.

Not by accident but not purposely either, as I mentioned above, art may very well be a by product of talent and drive. I have contact information at my fingertips for 20 or so of the greatest bonsai artists of out time, Attila why don't you write a simple question as to how the create art, on purpose or as a by product of their passion ans I'll send it to all of them, the answers should be interesting.

It seems that no one is willing to put forth a definition of art of their own for disection, even those who claimed they could...I'll put one out there for discussion, my own, based on my own thoughts on the matter. This covers the how and the what.

Art is the creative and talented use of learned skills to create an image that affects the viewer on emotional, intellectual, or spiritual levels. Images that invoke combinations of the above levels are the most successful as art and can be considered high art as oppossed to those that invoke only a single level, which can be considered low art.


Will

 

[grouper52]

Concerning the arguments about whether intent is a necessary part of the definition, I would suggest that without this intent we would have to include anything produced by nature, or an animal, or by accident, as Art, and I think most people would not consider these things Art, even though a bird's song or a spider's web or a sunset or a mountain view can evoke similar inspiring emotions through their forms. I believe Art is confined to being a human endeavor, and one with intent. The accidental patterns an infant's feces leave in a diaper may resemble a modern painting, but I do not believe anyone would seriously suggest that the child has produced Art. Some would also, of course, argue that the modern painter has not produced Art, but I believe this to be more of a Good Art vs Bad Art argument than a serious challenge to the basic definition. Obviously the painter set out to create something that would evoke a certain emotional, aesthetic response, perhaps only for himself alone, but still there was the intent, which was lacking for the child.

I also think it is a false argument to assume that a work of art is confined, in its purpose, to the production of this inspiring response. I believe, for instance, that a work of art can also have the added purposes and intentions found in pornography, propaganda, and religious instruction, just as a work of Art also can have utilitarian purposes. The idea that a definition must fulfill the "Only" criteria, means that ONLY Art has this intent to inspire in an aesthetic way, but NOT that Art can ONLY evoke that inspiration. Some Art can also be pornographic, but not all pornography will be Art. Some Art can also be propaganda, but not all propaganda will be Art. Some Art can also be religious, but not all religious illustrations will be Art. Some Art will take the form of bonsai stands, but not all bonsai stands will be art. These instances all have other purposes as well, but are ONLY Art if they also seek to inspire in the aesthetic way that Art does. A fine point, but I think one that clears up another layer of confusion.

 

[Tachigi]

They aren't making ashtrays or Ford bumpers!

LOL....am I missing something here..or.. is this a comparison to cave wall paintings?

 

[Attila Soos]

Viewing them certainly causes an emotional reaction and the images echo within the viewer for a very long time after viewing, they move the soul.

So does the viewing of a sunset. Or the viewing of an ancient tree. All the above can cause strong emotional reactions from the viewers.

My children's drawings cause strong emotional response from me, my wife, and all the rest of my extended family. I guess this makes my son a very prolific artist.

 

[Attila Soos]

great artists set out only to create,

Will, this statement makes no sense. The act of creating must have a subject. There is no such thing as creating, without knowing what to create. A great bonsai artist create bonsai. A great painter creates paintings. Musicians create music.

Talent, urge, passion, it's all there, of course. They can't help themselves, sure. But they know what they are creating and how to create it.

What is so hard about understanding that in order to create great bonsai, you must have the intent, the talent, and the skills to do it?

 

[Chris Johnston]

Not by accident but not purposely either, as I mentioned above, art may very well be a by product of talent and drive. I have contact information at my fingertips for 20 or so of the greatest bonsai artists of out time, Attila why don't you write a simple question as to how the create art, on purpose or as a by product of their passion ans I'll send it to all of them, the answers should be interesting.

It seems that no one is willing to put forth a definition of art of their own for disection, even those who claimed they could...I'll put one out there for discussion, my own, based on my own thoughts on the matter. This covers the how and the what.

Art is the creative and talented use of learned skills to create an image that affects the viewer on emotional, intellectual, or spiritual levels. Images that invoke combinations of the above levels are the most successful as art and can be considered high art as oppossed to those that invoke only a single level, which can be considered low art.


Will

This from the guy who steadfastly refused ever to take a stand. Nice that we have been able to help you formulate a definition of sorts. Don't thank me. I was only trying to help.

As to your definition, one could easily argue that the three levels you mention are so wrapped up in each other that they leave little differentiation. For instance, for my money, there is no difference between the emotional and the "spiritual." I also find a bit of fault with your differentiation between high art and low art. I think this is another attempt to set someone, perhaps yourself, as the arbiter of what is high bonsai art and what is low bonsai art, as well as what is bonsai kitsch.

 

[Anonymous User]

What is so hard about understanding that in order to create great bonsai, you must have the intent, the talent, and the skills to do it?

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about art. Everyone has the intent to create great bonsai, that is a given and that is what they set out to do, only a few of these will be art. I don't set down to create art, I set down to create a great bonsai, if the community sees it as art, all the better.

Since we have already admitted that art can happen without intent, it is not mandatory in creating art, so it should not be part of any definition of such.


Let me rephrase my definition....

Art is a by product of the creative and talented use of learned skills which produces an image that affects the viewer on emotional, intellectual, or spiritual level. Images that invoke combinations of the above levels are the most successful as art and can be considered high art as oppossed to those that invoke only a single level, which can be considered low art.

 

[Attila Soos]

Well, we are now getting somewhere.

Will's definition is very similar to Grouper52's:

Visual art is defined as a human activity that creates a visual form for the purpose of evoking an inspiring emotional response in viewers.

An object of such visual art would then be the form created.

Will said:

Everyone has the intent to create great bonsai, that is a given and that is what they set out to do, only a few of these will be art.

...and that's why I find it very useful to separate art as activity from art as product.

If I am a bonsai artist, and I am dead set to create bonsai art, than, regardless of the result, my activity of bonsai creation can be called art. If 6 out of 10 bonsai created can be called great, then I created 6 artistic trees and 4 failures. Remember that in this case, the art is not a by-product. My intention was all along to create artistic bonsai. I succeeded 6 times and failed 4 times.

So, 6 of the trees can be called art, and 4 not. But my activity was "art" all 10 times, since I was doing the same thing in each case, and with the same purpose. I just didn't succeed every time.

 

[grouper52]

Since we have already admitted that art can happen without intent, it is not mandatory in creating art, so it should not be part of any definition of such.

I don't know which "we" you are refering to here, Will, but at least a few of us folks here seem far from admitting such, and I believe our arguments along those lines are cogent and have not been successfully refuted.

 

[grouper52]

So, 6 of the trees can be called art, and 4 not. But my activity was "art" all 10 times, since I was doing the same thing in each case, and with the same purpose. I just didn't succeed every time.

To clarify further, I would not call the trees art, but would suggest we reserve that term for the activity. I suggest, so as not to muddy the waters by using the same term for both the activity and the product of that activity, that the trees be referred to as objects/pieces/works of art.

And I would say that ALL trees created with an artistic intent, as per the definition, are ojects/pieces/works of art, whether or not they are good or bad examples of the art, which is another question. If my wife cooks me a meal, it is still a meal whether it turns out to be well-cooked or not.

That Will wants the AoB site to deal only with the upper echelon of the very best examples of the art (activity), and thereby to promote excellence in the art (activity) and the products of that art, is, I think, a very worthwhile desire and undertaking, and he has done a great job. But I think, also, that the very basic definition of art that I have proposed, which is neutral as to the success or failure of the art (activity) to produce excellence in its products, is at odds with the notion that only the best works of an art can be called works of art. "Artistic Excellence in Bonsai", or some such, sounds more awkward than "Art of Bonsai", so I understand the wish to keep the name, but I disagree with the idea that seems to be behind the name, that lesser products of the art (activity) cannot also be called works of art, rather than simply less excellent ones.

 

[Bill S]

Let me pose a question to lower this to my intelectually challanged mind. Will if someone sits at an easel and slaps paint around for a while, then puts it out on display and both of us walk into his shop and see it, you love it, it makes you cry even, I just stand there and wonder what you are thinking, it's just paint splattered on canvas, is it art?? No name paint slinger, Joe Schmo, you and I.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, by the above statements it's art for one, a drop cloth for another, same result of infinate answers. There is no definition because artists in general have a tendency to dismiss those of a different ilk as wannabes and hacks. I will listen to Louis Armstrongs "What a beautiful World" and cry, the closest I come to an explanation is that is it brings strong wonderful memories of my Mom, this is every time even, if I try to stiffle it ( I have since stopped trying - who cares, I loved my Mom). I don't think that anyone could say that song and artist are not art/worthy, but I am sure someone will, hell I watch people driven by an artist or song/music that I wonder what is wrong with you it's noise. Am I wrong to dismiss William Hung as not belonging in the art world.



All my questions are in earnest, my poke in your eye is too, just wanted to vent my ire regarding your previous remark in a thread I won't revisit. Because I don't think enough of the subject to spend hours to years to study does not make me intellectually challanged, and because you and others did, definately does not make you better than me. If you disagree, join me in my world, but be warned it'll hurt your sorry ego. There, definately no inuendo's ( none the first time either) just honest questions.

My definition is quite simple - A representation of the artists thoughts/vision, good bad or indifferent.
I think it's the only way you fit in all the different thoughts and accepted "artworks". Trouble is, that definition leaves out elitism, which to me has a tendency to go hand in hand with "Art".

Grouper I disagree as well for I believe there needs to be intent.

De DeDe - Not the mind of Mensa, but the mind of Mencia. Although I do qualify.