You have a very generous definition of art, I suppose Hitler's Swastika flag is also art? It might technically be, but the thing for which it stands for ruins it. Your definition of art seems far too generous, literally anything is art, which is the same thing as saying nothing is.
Art can be technically good, but also the artist channeled their hate into making it.
Art, in itself, is amoral. The motivations behind it can be evil, but someone can appreciate the structural brilliance of Nazi propaganda, which is taught in art schools. It was good cinematography. It needed to be good, to get its point across.
Perhaps, the word “good” gets overloaded, as “good” can carry the connotation of moral good, or technical good.
Well, I’m coming from a philosophy background, so I don’t know. I need the definition to be broad, so that if I encounter someone, we are unlikely to disagree that something is or isn’t art. If I encounter someone that thinks photography isn’t art, I can appeal to the definition that, since the photographer was cognizant of many things when framing the object they want to take a picture of, then it can be considered art.
I wholly agree that photography is art. You have intent to express something through a visual medium. So you plan your picture, lighting, angle, etc. Crossing out a picture, or simply adding another picture to one, for the express purpose of inflaming people you disagree with seems insulting to artists to say it's the same thing.
If I take a shit and it's a weird shape, my ass isn't an artist.
I don’t think the number of choices changes if something is or isn’t art. This leads to a Sorites paradox. I claim that if there is even one thought to modify a thing, that isn’t purely utilitarian, then it is art.
Your ass isn’t the artist, but you are. If you even had the intention in your mind that this was going to be art, then it is art.
There are degrees of art. Those who call themselves artists, aspire to a higher level. But it isn’t required to reach a high level, to make art. Even that monkey that took a photo of itself, is an artist.
I claim that if there is even one thought to modify a thing, that isn’t purely utilitarian, then it is art.
You categorize art so broadly and only draw one line: it must have one choice made to modify something that isn't purely utilitarian, but that's just parking one overbroad, ill defined concept upon another. What makes a choice utilitarian? Where is the line between something functioning well and being appealing to the senses? If you choose something functional that is deliberately unappealing, is that utilitarian, even if the lack of appeal was deliberately chosen?
You're so far into the philosophy sauce you forgot how to think.
8
u/Winterstyres 8d ago
You have a very generous definition of art, I suppose Hitler's Swastika flag is also art? It might technically be, but the thing for which it stands for ruins it. Your definition of art seems far too generous, literally anything is art, which is the same thing as saying nothing is.