A rose is a rose, is a rose, is a rose...
If it is a full, sweet smelling deep red rose, then it is truly art.
But if it is wind blown and ratty looking...well, it's still a rose.
Carl Jarvis
On 1/11/16, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I was quite surprised when I became the recipient of so much hostility
just because I offered an objective and succinct explanation of art and
I was astounded at the latest accusation that somehow I have been
derogating art, but it has caused me to do some introspection. I really
do not think it accomplishes anything but confusion when it is insisted
on that art must be defined by some subjective reaction to it and that
it it be assumed that everyone have the same subjective emotional
reaction to it, but I have said that I like some art too and by saying
that I suppose I am expressing a subjective emotional reaction of my
own. The vast majority of art elicits no emotion in me at all. I am
neutral about it. There is not a lot of art that I actually dislike
though. Even when it comes to poetry I only dislike it insofar as I
don't understand it and I think that as a means of communication it is
terrible. I had not really thought of poetry as art until this
discussion when I realized that it did meet my objective definition of
art. Now that I realize that it is art I can say that insofar as it is
art I am neutral toward poetry too. But I am left with the art I like
and that includes some paintings that I saw before losing my eyesight
and it includes music. So my introspection came when I asked myself
exactly what subjective emotional experience was I having when I observe
a piece of art that I say that I like. It seems that the answer is that
I am experiencing the same feeling that I experience when I say that I
am entertained by something. So if subjective feeling is so important to
all of you in defining art what do you think of defining it as
synonymous with entertainment? If we did that it would include a lot of
things that I have always thought of as being excluded from the realm of
art. For one thing, it would include that kind of dense fictional prose
that I most commonly hear called art, but that I think is just plain
boring. Even if it doesn't entertain me I have never doubted that it
entertains some people, most likely the ones who call it art. A
definition like that would, of course, include all other fiction and a
whole lot of nonfiction too. It would include television and radio
programming and it would include festivals, fairs and carnivals too.
That is, if it entertains it is art. There might be some question about
whether it would have to include only human created entertainment
though. Earlier I excluded patterns that occur in nature as art because
they were not human created and no one calls patterns in nature art.
People do, however, find it entertaining to go on hikes and nature walks
though and if I am stretching the definition of art to mean just
entertainment then that seems to be stretching it even further, way
further. Now, I am reluctant to make the word art synonymous with
entertainment. I am reluctant, for one thing, because it is another
manner of letting a single word mean more and more and like I have said
before, the more you allow a word to mean the vaguer it becomes until it
means everything and then it means nothing. For another thing, allowing
art to be the same thing as entertainment would include a very many
things that almost no one ever calls art, notwithstanding the fact that
I have heard phrases like the performing arts. I don't know why it
upsets so many of you to simply and succinctly say that art consists of
things upon which humans have imbued patterns, but I do wonder if this
suggested expanded definition would be more acceptable.
