Art is not Subjective, Art is Situational

	Duration: 05:10 minutes Upload Time: 07-06-28 11:05:53 User: Joshbuckler :::: Favorites :::: Top Videos of Day
Description: more on art. This is an extension of a converstation that started with zorio 's Q&A video , and then I saw tyakelly 's video which I thought might shed some light on the issue. tyakelly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bLaZNSiQ_g ScientificDiscussion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmlBC0qf5dY zorio: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYZuPvyGtec
Comments
DONKShoes ::: Favorites This is a messsage/suggestion for Zorio and Josh Buckler. You two are obviously unseperable. I would highly recommend if it is convenient for you two gentlemen, that you partake in some love-romping in the Coast Inn of the North. It would make a perfect Josh does PG #11. 07-08-29 22:02:38 __________________________________________________
ScientificDiscussion ::: Favorites Hi , My internet has been down, so I´ve just seen your video now. I think i´m gonna have to watch the many new videos on art before making a new video-reponse. But let me just say that I totally agree that "I dont like that piece of art" is a valid statement, but that there is a big difference between this and saying that the ART is bad... 07-07-03 07:38:50 __________________________________________________
Joshbuckler ::: Favorites Well I look forward to hearing your thoughts on some of the ideas put forward in the new videos, both of mine and others. 07-07-03 11:45:32 __________________________________________________
zorio ::: Favorites Not everything has a purpose. Aristotle said that philosophy was the greatest practice for a human being because it is the most useless. I would say that people often <i>create</i> art with a purpose, but that does not mean it serves it. I would also say that from what I know of artists, they create simply because they <i>have to</i> with no other purpose needed. 07-06-29 00:09:17 __________________________________________________
Joshbuckler ::: Favorites Those artists I would contend are, at best: cathartic, at worst: intellectually lazy, or somewhere in the middle: just plain deluded about what it is they are really doing. Art's benefits can be intangible, I'll grant; but art is anything but useless and purposeless. 07-06-29 04:42:29 __________________________________________________
Joshbuckler ::: Favorites The way I'd interpret Aristotle's claim, is that intangibles like philosophy and art might not have a direct use, but it is their supposed detachment from physical labor that allows them to transcend and become objective, above the level of the mundane, the material, and the corporeal. However, since there can be no subjective analysis of art or philosophy, art and philosophy must be viewed from within the paradigms that spawn them. Thus, there is no art, only communication and aesthetics. 07-06-29 04:51:57 __________________________________________________
Joshbuckler ::: Favorites The concept of "art" has been dreamed up by intellectuals trying to classify things that humans do, and trying to create an artificial detachment between the ideal and the material. I'll not deny that this classification can be useful, but as a system of classification, I think it can be safe to start placing arbitrary boundaries between what is to be considered art and what is not, as long as those boundaries are recognized as artificial. 07-06-29 04:52:20 __________________________________________________
zorio ::: Favorites I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that we start claiming what is not art? I would say that's a bold move, as I have said before, because no one can know exactly what another subject would consider art. As such, no one can really say what everyone would deny as art. I think rather than setting limits and boundaries, we should be clearing spaces to allow for more art, not less. 07-06-29 09:27:45 __________________________________________________
Joshbuckler ::: Favorites "However, since there can be no *subjective analysis" meant to say objective. 07-06-29 04:54:51 __________________________________________________
zorio ::: Favorites I understand that you meant objective analysis, but there can be subjective analysis. Why shouldn't subjective experiences be viewed as they are then? I see no communication in art <i>necessarily</i> and therefore cannot include it in a definition. As for aesthetics, that's really just a name for what the experience <i>other people have</i> with art. I would say that any subject would feel the definition of "aesthetics" is lacking when it comes to pinning down the experience at hand. 07-06-29 09:24:49 __________________________________________________