• BenLeMan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Yep, that’s another great question. Personally, I like the idea that art is any form of human expression that exists for its own sake. Not in order to be instructive or useful or to make money but simply because the person creating it felt like it (obviously this is an ideal and real life motivations vary).

      More pragmatically, one might ask what art is good for, but since you didn’t, I’m not going to ramble here.

      That said, there is the question I raised in my comment whether the work needs an audience, someone to behold it, in order to fully become art. I believe it does. If you paint a picture in the dark and hide it so nobody ever sees it, I struggle to accept it as art.

      What’s your take on these questions?

      • Left as Center@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        For me it’s just a dictionary trick.

        Old definition was defining Art as transforming nature for the purpose of a human.

        usual definition is something human made that someone finds pretty.

        Contemporary art definition is making something that makes people react / feel. Performance art went all the way to saying that what the artist felt made it art.

        If you hide it on purpose, the hiding itself may be contemporary art (similar to Once upon a time in Shaolin bu Wu Tang Clan). A hidden piece by an unknown artist may be considered art according to the performance art demonstration.

        So… Choose your definition, similar as the sound of a tree falling in an empty forest (is sound a pressure wave or the brain processed signal?)

        Edit: linguists will just say art is whatever sufficient people believe it means.