What is art: anything that portrays “no practical purpose” ( Tom Robbins...)
the mechanical aspect of this, I can find no fault with. art, by definition, portrays no practical purpose, in that the thing (for lack of a better word) that makes an object art, has no purpose being there. a building (which itself obviously has practical use) can be art but only because it has personal elements that are were placed there for reasons other than practical use. paint added to insulate would not make it art but a white paint placed on the exterior simply to make it look more appealing than plain wood or concrete May then place the building in the zone of art. Or maybe not, since the buildings appeal might be included in a part of its practical use. If there's a market for white buildings, then there's a practical financial reason for the addition of the white paint and so again, the building is not yet art. But maybe inhabitants move in and they decide they like the color yellow, then proceed to paint the building that hue, is it art then? Under the properties of this quote, yes, because there is no basis in practicality for the yellow paint to be added, simply a personal preference or aesthetic leaning.
But this new definition that I find little fault with differs a tad bit from my old presumption of what art “is”... at least in the phrasing. Art can still be anything and everything, but the reason that that is, is because anything can be enjoyed for reasons beyond its practical purpose. Take Duchamp for example, with his infamous “Fountain”. The urinal became art because he removed it from it's immediate practical purpose; he decided it would be art and so he made it so. Anything and everything can still be art simply for the reason that people decide it is but the reason for that decision rests in the fact that they see a purpose (an artistic purpose) for an item that contradicts it's practical application.
but that begs to question, is there an exception to this rule, since decoration has the purpose of decorating and so how could a decorative art piece be art if it has a practical purpose? This question ties back into the “white building” analogy; an item made simply for decoration isn't art if that decoration has a purpose beyond just looking pleasant, since pleasantness isn't practical unless it gives something more than just aesthetic appreciation (something more being money), so there I suppose lies a complication in the definition of “purpose” as is used to define “art”... which is why my earlier definition was much simpler; it was much broader, more vague, and easier to defend (since there really is no logical argument for or against it.)
Anyway, I like my original definition, and think it maintains its integrity for that reason, cuz if you can't particularly dispute something then I think that makes it alright. Art is honestly an abstract concept and always will be so I suppose any definition is fitting, and all definitions are write. Art isn't a commodity, though it can be, art isn't beautiful, terrifying, it doesn't elicit an emotional response, but it can and it does and it will and everything… It's an expression of individuality and evidence of conformity; honestly the impact art as a whole has created is god awful in its false complexity but I guess art is an attempt to express something beyond the physical human experience so it's been false since it's creation. Anyway, that doesn't matter.
So my point is art can be everything, and everything can be art.
the mechanical aspect of this, I can find no fault with. art, by definition, portrays no practical purpose, in that the thing (for lack of a better word) that makes an object art, has no purpose being there. a building (which itself obviously has practical use) can be art but only because it has personal elements that are were placed there for reasons other than practical use. paint added to insulate would not make it art but a white paint placed on the exterior simply to make it look more appealing than plain wood or concrete May then place the building in the zone of art. Or maybe not, since the buildings appeal might be included in a part of its practical use. If there's a market for white buildings, then there's a practical financial reason for the addition of the white paint and so again, the building is not yet art. But maybe inhabitants move in and they decide they like the color yellow, then proceed to paint the building that hue, is it art then? Under the properties of this quote, yes, because there is no basis in practicality for the yellow paint to be added, simply a personal preference or aesthetic leaning.
But this new definition that I find little fault with differs a tad bit from my old presumption of what art “is”... at least in the phrasing. Art can still be anything and everything, but the reason that that is, is because anything can be enjoyed for reasons beyond its practical purpose. Take Duchamp for example, with his infamous “Fountain”. The urinal became art because he removed it from it's immediate practical purpose; he decided it would be art and so he made it so. Anything and everything can still be art simply for the reason that people decide it is but the reason for that decision rests in the fact that they see a purpose (an artistic purpose) for an item that contradicts it's practical application.
but that begs to question, is there an exception to this rule, since decoration has the purpose of decorating and so how could a decorative art piece be art if it has a practical purpose? This question ties back into the “white building” analogy; an item made simply for decoration isn't art if that decoration has a purpose beyond just looking pleasant, since pleasantness isn't practical unless it gives something more than just aesthetic appreciation (something more being money), so there I suppose lies a complication in the definition of “purpose” as is used to define “art”... which is why my earlier definition was much simpler; it was much broader, more vague, and easier to defend (since there really is no logical argument for or against it.)
Anyway, I like my original definition, and think it maintains its integrity for that reason, cuz if you can't particularly dispute something then I think that makes it alright. Art is honestly an abstract concept and always will be so I suppose any definition is fitting, and all definitions are write. Art isn't a commodity, though it can be, art isn't beautiful, terrifying, it doesn't elicit an emotional response, but it can and it does and it will and everything… It's an expression of individuality and evidence of conformity; honestly the impact art as a whole has created is god awful in its false complexity but I guess art is an attempt to express something beyond the physical human experience so it's been false since it's creation. Anyway, that doesn't matter.
So my point is art can be everything, and everything can be art.
