Well I don't find much utility in this particular definition; the function of art may not be known precisely, but it surely has to do with things such as conveying some communication of the interestingness of life from one human to another.
I encourage my kids to make art when feelings too strong for words are gripping them (and as a general practice in learning how to deal with the cussedness of materiality) I put up art to shape a location into an expression of my particularity and appreciation of life. The forms become art to the creator and the audience insofar as they fulfill some function in the brains of those folks. Thanks, Chris Austin-Lane Sent from a cell phone On Sep 7, 2012, at 6:52, Edgar Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Bill and Merle, > > If I must, my definition of art, as a long time art dealer among other > things, is a work in which the form rather than the function is emphasized. > > From my site at http://EdgarLOwen.info > > ORIGINS: The concept of art is a human invention, therefore it is possible to > define art in any way one chooses, just so long as the definition is useful > and applied consistently. I offer a definition based in human perception that > I believe useful and quite general. In my view, art has to do with the > distinction of form and function. Art concentrates on the form of things, and > details of form such as symmetry and balance that elicit experiences such as > that of beauty. Beauty has traditionally been the experiential goal of art, > but more recently this has been extended to other responses such as disgust, > shock, and other emotions. Nevertheless what is constant in art is the > concern with form as opposed to function. (I'm including color here since > form is often rendered with color as in painting.) > > Now everything has form, so art can be seen wherever one looks, if one looks > at the form rather than the thing itself. Eg. the beauty of a horse's form as > it gallops, as opposed to it being a flesh and blood beast of burden. One > could restrict the definition to a product of human creation, but I would > rather just refer to that as 'human art'. We wish to avoid the problem of not > seeing art in the creations of weaver or bower birds, or in the beauty of > nature. After all, it is common usage to refer to beautiful form of whatever > origin as art. > > So what is human art then? Human art is an object primarily created for its > form, rather than any attendant function. A painting is pure form, that is > its only function. So something that is divorced from function is art, since > we must consider only its form. Therefore a toilet in an art gallery becomes > art because we cannot pee in it. It is isolated from its function so that we > are forced to consider only its form. Therefore art is form divorced from > function, or an object whose primary function is to display its form. > > > CRITIQUE: Now the question of what is 'good' art versus 'bad' art is another > question entirely. I have my doubts about the toilet in the art gallery being > 'good' art, nevertheless I can certainly admire the form of a beautiful > toilet. Recall that the 'artist' who submitted the toilet to the gallery did > not actually create its form, therefore he might be said to have pointed out > its artistic merit, but certainly was not the actual artist who created it. > On the other hand by placing the toilet in the gallery we are forced to > confront its function in an abstract way, we are forced to consider the > function, and all its attendant meaning to us, in a purely formal sense > independent of any participation in that function. While this can be > interesting and might in some cases have merit, I still find it rather > unconvincing as art. Perhaps those who have strong issues with peeing may > disagree? > > Picasso defined art as 'lies that tell the truth'. That's a pretty good > definition, even though I don't consider Picasso much of an artist. > > Edgar > > > > >> Merle and Edgar, >> >> Before I chuck it in for the night I thought I'd go to Merle's suggested >> Source of all Truth - the dictionary. >> >> Here are the definitions of 'art' and 'engineering' copied from >> Merriam-Webster Online. I trust you'll accept these definitions without >> smearing them with labels of 'outlandish', 'emotional' or (heaven forbid) >> 'illogical'. >> >> My [I-told-you-so-comments] are in brackets. >> >> Definition of ART [Please note the absence of any mention of 'logic', >> 'structure' or 'purpose'] >> 1 >> : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation >> 2 >> a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural: LIBERAL >> ARTSb archaic : LEARNING, SCHOLARSHIP >> 3 >> : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill >> 4 >> a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the >> production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced >> >> Definition of ENGINEERING [Please note the emphasis on 'science' and >> 'mathematics' (which are based on 'logic' and assume 'structure'), and >> 'purpose' ("...useful to people") >> 1 >> : the activities or function of an engineer >> 2 >> a : the application of science and mathematics by which the properties of >> matter and the sources of energy in nature are made useful to people >> >> So, what's next? More 'third eye' suggestions? >> >> ...Bill! >> >> --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote: >> > >> > Merle, >> > >> > My remarks were not outlandish nor emotional or illogical. >> > >> > My remarks were my opinion based on my experience. >> > >> > What 'facts' do you think I should check? Should I have checked someone >> > else's opinion before I expressed mine? >> > >> > ...Bill! >> > >> > --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > rubbish bill >> > > .i would not say that to cezanne, mondrian kandinsky etc .,,just a few >> > > artists. >> > > ..check cubist theories might give you some insight >> > > .please check facts before making outlandish one off remarks that are >> > > highly emotional and totally illogical..merle >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Logic plays a big part in engineering, not art...Bill! >> > > >> > > --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Â bill..artists can be logical too... logic plays a big part in my >> > > > art...merle >> > > >> > >> > > > >
