General Discussion : Art vs. Craft

In general --- the idea that art is of a higher order than craftsmanship is flawed. Can't there be bad art? Can't there be something which requires great skill to build but is not art, even if it is awesome?

Sparrow --- You can enjoy looking at things besides art. You can hang your favorite newspaper article on your wall and it wouldn't become art, nor would your desire to hang it indicate that it is art.

I didn't say something became art when you enjoyed looking at it. I was comparing a bedspread that was mass produced with the sole purpose of being on a bed, with a hand quilted bedspread were attention to detail and color scheming were treated with great importance, where the symbols important to the culture it came from were sewn into the quilt. This kind of quilting is most definitely art. I didn't explain all of that, but I thought that making a point of separating "bedspread" with "Hawaiian quilt" would give enough information. You can disagree all you'd like, but if you do, I guess I'm going to politely say I don't think we'll ever agree. 

You seem to want to take something that is completely subjective and put an objective set of rules on it. That's frankly not possible. Many crafts are also arts, and most arts require craft. That's why you have visual arts, language arts, performance art, etc etc etc. 

And this:
The Mona Lisa would still be a work of art (I guess.) The replica is of a work of art but is not one itself. If you had a print? It's not the art itself. If you had a cartoon version? It's not the art itself. It's not magic; it's just not the same thing to copy something that already exists as to create it

I find to be really...I don't know. Stubborn and foot stompy at best, elitist at worst. 

A print is a print, yes, a replica of a work of art. It isn't an original work of art--but the thing in the picture? Still art. So you can't touch it and feel the brush strokes, but I doubt DaVinci ever thought about the way the textures feel when he was painting it, he was concerned with how the textures of the paint made it look.

I think the reason why I am never going to agree with you is because you want to sit down and define exactly what art is--and your definition seems to mostly depend on what art isn't while being fairly snobby. 

Most of the art in my house is from local artists, and yes, most of them are prints. I have a few original pieces, but not many. Because there are 75 prints and only one original--is that what is important? I don't think so. I think the craft and skill needed to make a painting good are as apparent in a print, and the feelings and emotions the painting invokes are still there. It's still art.

Art isn't, and shouldn't be, an exclusive thing. In a world where only very, very specific things are considered art, and then, only the original, that leaves very little art for the rest of us. 

Stacy --- I was saying I guess the original is art, not your reproduction.

Sparrow --- you must have missed what I said earlier about how the definition I like is totally non-snobby. I'm not saying that whether or not something is art is indicative of its value. Look at what I actually said and tell me where I'm saying art is "better" than craft. If anything I'm saying that they're not really comparable; that it's not a dichotomy. The things I've said about what it isn't have mostly been in response to things other people wrote. No one has actually made an argument against my stated definition, so I've been fielding grounders.

Please do not make up my arguments. I am not your imaginary art-snob. The things you've accused me of are baseless and untrue. Check my statements.

When someone says something like "it's elevated to the status of art" it implies height, or one thing being higher than another.

I didn't say a quilt couldn't be art, but it's not made into art by people liking it. So, no, I did not dismiss an entire art form at all.

Saying something isn't art isn't snobby in the least if I don't think calling it "art" is a positive value judgment.

Is it elitist to say something doesn't meet criteria? It is limiting, but so is every single term with a definition.

My first post in this thread was August 24 at 8:23 pm. That's where I say what I think art is. No one has addressed that, but rather they contradict examples I give (and do so based on their own undefended idea of what art is, not my definition) and put words in my mouth.

Stacy --- I didn't argue that; I said the copy was not "the art itself."

Andy Warhol was a joke. Picasso signed mass-produced pots. Both were able to produce real art, but even so, they sometimes made things which were not art. Is that not possible? Can't an artist do something other than art now and then? If you want to believe everything you're told by someone whose job is to sell you paintings, that's your thing.

I'm not taking it personally either--and I think maybe the use of "snobby" makes it seem that way. But I do find your definitions a bit elitist, and most people don't think that's much better.

I would follow on Stacy's example--many artists make stencils and use those stencils to produce art. By your definition--is the stencil the only art? Or the first piece they make using the stencil?

If nothing that is reproduced is art, then surely literature is not art. It's reproduction is almost inherent in it's value. What about performing arts? Is a song only art when the composer plays it for the first time--but it isn't art when another artist records it? Or is it only art when performed live?

I think the definition of art implied by the idea that reproductions are not art limits art in a way that makes most things we consider art not art. 

"I am annoyed that I let myself get sucked into one of these forum battles."

One day you'll learn not to give a fuck.

Yeah, I buy local art for something like $30 a pop unless something REALLY speaks to me. I don't believe the prints I have framed on my walls are art because someone told me they were--I believe it because it looks like art, it feels like art, it does the same thing art does...

So...

Yeah. Art.

The same way that I believe films can be art, even when they go to DVD.

And then you say if you feel it's art, then it's art. I won't argue that because it's impossible.

I can't speak for Stacy, but I don't think what you just said disagrees with what I have been saying. I am saying that most crafts can be art. I am not saying that every film is art, every quilt is art, every word written is literary art...I am saying that those things can be art depending on how they are done.

I do disagree that the art begins when a piece is created though. That's the craft. I can have the greatest idea for a song anyone has ever had, but since I can't write music, or even play an instrument...no song. If I had the skill set, I could write the song, but I don't think it is art until it is out there in the world. Because art isn't about the artist, really. If you start digging around and looking at how artists define art, most of them call it an expression--there is no expression if you are talking to yourself. Others quantify it as something that bring mankind together--again, gotta be "on display" for that to happen. You have the definition offered in the first post here, which also agrees that art doesn't exist in a closet.

I didn't argue it because it's a fact!!! Andy Warhol was an artist.

Who else isn't an artist, according to you, that is considered by the WHOLE populous as an ARTIST?

The fact that I am still continuing this argument is a testament to my weakness, and not to the fighter in me. If it was a real fight you would have something to fight with. Your arguments, as they pertain to me, are downright embarrassing at this point. Take a step back and really consider what you are asking me to do, you want me to denounce Andy Warhol as an artist to prove a point. Do you even know what point you are trying to make anymore, or is this just pride at this point?

In other words, those quotes might be from people who don't agree with you about what art is, and therefore you wouldn't be talking about the same thing.

Except that I have already said that I believe art is different things to different people, and given examples of things that are likely not art but could be to someone else.

So...we would be. It's really that simple.

Sparrow -- You really would be talking about the same thing? If you and I disagree about whether or not one item is art, and we both use it as an example of art and not-art, how can we be talking about the same thing (that thing being art?) Give a defintion of art which allows that. Saying "it's whatever you want it to be" does not define it.

It can't cease to be art if it never was.

Fine, but don't say I'm saying things I'm not.

Exchange of ideas? Please. I asked for your definition of art and you did not give one. When I've made positive claims, said things other than "not" and "never," people haven't addressed them, but instead got on me for the negatives (and there were many, I admit.)

I never deviated from the small scope of the argument that I originally had with your statement that "a replication can never be considered art" and that was your response to a previous qualification that a sculpture made to replicate the human form was craft as opposed to art. So don't lump me in with the "you guys" 

I'm sorry you feel you weren't treated fairly and that all of your comments were taken negatively. To be honest I only concerned myself with the exchange between the two of us. 

Kumbaya and all that shit 

Okay Stacy.

S'mores 'n' shit.

Is this thread art?

My ass is art

Okay, I'll bite.

So, art is not some subjective experiential event that occurs between an observer and a work of art, because that implies that their viewing imparts art-hood to it. Their viewing is the end of a longer process that cannot retroactively create art where none was before, nor can it remove art that was already there because the viewer doesn't recognize it for what it is. Because if that were the case then art as a label would be completely subjective, and therefore useless for talking about anything. So either we don't talk about art, or we find an objective way of talking about art:

Art is that which is brought into being for its own sake and serves no other purpose.

               ---- Me, 8/24 8:23 pm

Well, it certainly seems objective, I'll grant you that. Either something meets this criterion and is art, or it doesn't meet this criterion and is not art. No subjective wiggle room there. So now we can go out armed with your definition and functionally talk about art, right?

Oh, right... internet. We're not going anywhere... Well, let's do the next best thing and create some hypotheticals and talk about them:

If you carve a statue of a woman in repose for the sake of a statue of a woman in repose and it serves no other purpose, then by your definition, it's art.

Well. That seemed easy enough. Done. What was all the fuss in this thread about? Seems an awful waste of a post... Oh, wait! I can pad this out with a counter-example:

If I carve a statue of a woman in repose to sell it to an art gallery to make some money so I can buy groceries and carve more statues, then it's not art... because it serves another function; namely consumerism. Right? Am I doing this right? Let me know if I get off track...

So, your statue is art, and mine is craft for the sake of consumerism. And so Howie comes along and sees our statues. Now, his subjective observation cannot impart art-hood to my sculpture even if he likes mine more (the secret is showing just a hint of nipple) and it cannot likewise impart more art-hood to your already inherently artistic sculpture (oh, I see you know the nipple trick...)

Conversely, he being a "full on nipple or nothing at all" kind of guy means he doesn't like either of our sculptures. Still, yours is art and mine is craft for the purpose of consumerism thanks to our handy defintion of art and his subjective perspective doesn't change anything... And we can then proceed to talk about Howie obviously being one for the fellas. Or art, I guess. Since that's why we have the definition, to talk objectively about art. Yeah, I guess you're right, my sculpture just isn't "nipple for its own sake" enough.

Well, that didn't seem to quite work the way I thought it would. I mean I guess we did objectively talk about art. Your statue was art, and mine wasn't. But how could Howie tell? I mean, how would he know that your statue was created for its own sake and mine was created for the sake of money?

Oh, wait, that's right. Other people's subjective perspective of the statues doesn't change whether or not they're actually art.  So it doesn't matter what Howie thinks, so lets take him out of the equation. And I guess we have to take you out of the equation too, since I guess technically you're biased and might skew the hypothetical. So I'll write a book. And it will be a book for its own sake and no other purpose. I won't even sell it, or even really show it to anyone... wait, deja vu, I think I've lived this hypothetical before... Anyway, it's done. And it meets the definition, so it's art. Right?

But how do I tell? Are art books heavier than non-art books? Does its inherent artness weigh it down a little more? I mean, it's only like 250 pages, so it doesn't even outweigh one of the Twilight books. So that can't be it. Does art smell different? Wait, I'm doing it again, right? Even my own subjective perspective on this book can't grant or deny the inherent artness of this book I just brought into being for its own sake and not to serve any other purpose. So it's art even if I can't tell that it's art, because I wrote it acording to the definition, so that's how I know it's art... And also because not once in 250 pages did I ever once think about anything other than creating a book for its own sake and not serving another purpose...

Well, except for the sex scenes... I was maybe thinking about sex, and how sexy the sex scenes were and that maybe some cougar might read my sexy book and maybe she likes the way my sexy mind works and finds my delicate, sexy, portrayal of nipples to be something she might be sex interested in sexploring with me in the backsex of her Miata... Sex.

Okay, so those parts weren't art, other-purposeful in trying to attract cougars. Oh, and also probably the part where I started daydreaming about what might happen if my book like fell out of my bag or something on the subway train, and some literary agent happened to pick it up on her way home from work, and she started to dig it, and couldn't get enough, and my address and email are on the cover because I just have a template set for all my writing that does that, not because I actually intended to send it out, but luckily I did, cause now she has the book, and she loves it and she has my contact information and wants to represent it because she knows the perfect editor for it, and even though I brought it into being for its own sake and serves no other purpose, I also get to have sex with a literary agent... I mean book deal!

Oh, and the token black guy. I just put him in because I didn't think my book was really urban enough to appeal to the market of my highschool reunion.

So not all of it was art. But not all of a work has to be art, right? Some of the book was brought into being for its own sake and serves no other purpose, and some of it was not. Nothing wrong with that. And now I can objectively talk about it: Pages 1 to 3 are art, brought into being for its own sake and serves no other purpose, and pretty much the rest isn't. Or at least I can't really remember which parts I was writing purely artistically, and which I were writing for other purposes. So does it still count as art if I don't actually know if I brought it into being for its own sake and not to serve any other purpose? I mean mine is just another subjective opinion, I can't actually change whether or not it's art because I can't tell whether or not it's art, right?

Wow. Talking about art objectively is getting a little tiring though, huh? I mean, yeah it's just a one-line simplification, but it's still a mouthful. I'm kind of mangling it too, let me refresh: Art is that which is brought into being for its own sake and serves no other purpose. Really, though... Is that it? Just the one rule? So we can use your definition to talk objectively about whether a work is or is not art. What about good art? Or bad art? When do we get to objectively talk about good art? Or at least how good art my book is? Or at least how good art my first three pages are? I mean, let me tell you: When I brought those first three pages into being for its own sake and serving no other purpose, it was like angels singing hallelujah. It was that good. E.L. James got nothing on me. I brought more 'for its own sake and serves no other purpose' into being in just three little pages than she brought in the whole box set. And she used way more nipples too.

No, you're right. That is a little over the top. But I mean if we only have a single qualifier to denote that something is or isn't art, then we can't really talk about how good that art is. I mean, something can't really be good at being brought into being for its own sake and serving no other purpose, can it? It either does it, or it doesn't. And that means it either is art, or it isn't. Failing to meet the criterion doesn't make it bad art, it makes it not art. It was never art to begin with, so nothing I can do subjectively can grant art-hood to it... but then how do I talk about improving my art?

I mean certainly it can be crafted better or worse, but craft isn't a function of artistic value, is it? Because artistic value is the whole "brought into being" part... Where's the craft in that definition? Art is that which is craftily brought into being for its own sake and serves no other purpose. Is that it, maybe? Oh see that works so well, because your other definition was all about art is madness and craft is sanity, so art is the creative impulse harnessed through intention and craft. So:

Art is the creative impulse harnessed through intention and craft into being for its own sake and serves no other purpose.

         ----- Not Me, 8/28, around coffee time.

Oh, you know, that was kind of bad. I got all intentiony and other purposeful there for a bit... I bet you could tell, I mean even I could tell, and it's not even my definition.

So let me get just slightly more serious for a second, though my examples were a bit silly and full of nipple jokes, I was actually trying to follow the logic of your definition into hypothetical situations that I could talk objectively about art... which admittedly I am only presuming is the whole purpose of having an objective definition of art. But the questions I raise are actually genuine questions that are not answered in your one-line simplification. Granted it is only a one-line simplification, so please, elucidate me (really I only wrote this entire post so that I could use the word elucidate in a sentence) how can something be good or bad art if it only needs to meet a single criterion to qualify its existence as art? Your definition only seems to leave room for the existence of art, not any sort of measure of its quality. Also, if a third-party subjective perspective can't change or influence if a piece of art is art or not, does that not also apply to a first-party subjective perspective? I mean it would seem that if I create something for its own sake and no other purpose, it's art, even if I don't think it's art... Even if I think it's crap and never show it to anyone... no one ever calls my book art, but because I brought it into being for its own sake and it serves no other purpose, it is inherently a socially constructed idea?

Because really, that's how we identify art, isn't it? We see something, and someone tells us it's art. This usually happens very young, I doubt you remember the first time you ever saw something referred to as art... But maybe you do remember. It doesn't matter. The reason you knew that it was art, is because someone told you it was art. You did not recognize its innate "artness" and say to yourself even, "I don't know what that quality is, but once someone gives me a name for it, I'll recognize it instantly in the future." And then someone says it's art and now you can recognize innately whether or not something is brought into being for its own sake and serves no other purpose... And I am seriously getting really tired of typing that whole thing out every time, but I also don't want to be accused of putting words in your mouth, so I'm trying to only attribute words to you that you actually used. I know how strongly you feel about your words. You've even quoted yourself, because... they weren't going to quote themselves? But I've been very flippant so far, so I might have slipped. If I have, please point out what I have attributed to you that you haven't actually said, and then maybe we can discuss why maybe it sounds to me like you're saying things that you're not actually saying... and I actually do want to get this right, because now we're getting to something that I think we agree on. But I can't really be sure, because it sort of came out sporadically across the three discussions you were having at the time and was never codified into a single idea to either accompany or ammend your inital definition, but I think the gist is:

Craft is its own thing. It is not some scale that if you reach high enough on your craft meter you can enter the "art zone" and maybe get a few more miles to the gallon... or whatever my stupid analogy means. It also can't serve as some detriment to pull something out of its art-hood into the poor lowly ranks of the hobby lobby lounge lizards who glue-gun-glued themselves to my futon and won't pay any god damn rent. 

So no, you haven't actually said this, exactly (really, you didn't say anything about hobby lobby?) but it certainly follows the logic of your argument, right? If my subjective perspective of your intrinsically artfull object can't influence its artness, then even a brilliant or piss-poor paint job can't influence its intrinsic artiness either. And it certainly fits in your definition...

But I'm sure you've picked up on it by now, I'm having difficulty using the word art as an adjective. I keep feeling the need to make up ridiculous words that don't quite actually fit, to talk about art the way I think you're talking about art. And again, you haven't come out and explicitly said that you think art objects have an intrisic value that either defines them or qualifies them as art, but you've certainly given me that impression, and it would seem that in order to actually say that something is or is not art outside of a viewers subjective perception, you have to be able to say that something either is intrisically art, or has acquired at some point an artistic quality that makes it art. And it would seem that the first argument against Howie's theory is that  a veiwer coming along can not grant artistic quality to a work of art. It either was always art, or it acquired its artness during its genesis as it was brought into being for its own sake and to serve no other purpose.

But that has been the whole problem with this thread I think, because (now I get to put words in B.H.'s mouth) if art is an experience, if art is something that only happens in interaction, then his theory absolutely agrees with you: a third party viewer cannot come along and grant an object intrinsic artistic value. And so I don't feel left out, I'll put some words into my own mouth: An artist also can not come along and grant an object intrinsit artistic value. Even at its inception. There is not some magic formula that the artist can follow, or some definition that he can ascribe to (even as clear-cut and objective as your definition) that will "magically" turn whatever he's bringing into existence into "art". I cannot write random words on a page, and because I do it for its own sake and not serve any anvil red in butter squeeze please one hundred. Clearly the purpose of that was to be exemplery and snide, so not art even by your definition. But do you really ascribe to your definition so handidly that you would allow for a page full of random words of no purpose to be art. I mean a monkey with spell check can produce that, so does the monkey inbue it with art, or the spell check, or the zookeeper who worked for years training the monkey not to eat the mouse? Because craft doesn't matter right? So if I write something out by hand, or by computer, or by monkey-at-a-computer, it doesn't effect its intrinsic artistic value, right, as long as I follow your definition?

Well, I'm going to say no, just flat out. If a viewer cannot inbue something with art because of their subjective perspective, then the creator also by the same logic cannot inbue something with art because of his own subjective perspective. This is the circular logic you "refuted" the tree in the woods analogy with. Only I can objectively say whether or not something I've created qualifies under the definition of art, so it is art, because I say I created it under the definition of art. And I guess the beauty of it is, you can say the same thing. And so can Howie. Everyone can. We can all say (and even better actually do it) we've created art under the definition of what qualifies something as art and so we can all create art. Whenever we want. All the time, we just have say we did it for no reason. I take it all back. This is a genius definition, everyone is an artist, everything is art. The end. And if I actually thought that was what you meant by your definition, I would actually stop here, but there are still a couple sticky points to clear up.

Now, if you've been following at home folks, you will realize that I have hit two of the three points at which art can have an intrinsic value... will he go for door number three... so far no one thinks that a third-party can grant intrinsic value to an already created work of art... at least one person thinks that art can aquire its intrinsic value during its inception and genesis as long as the artist follows an ancient greek formula lost for millennium... but who is going to go for "art is its own inherent value, only crafted into existence by the artist"?

Well, that was a big set-up for a non-joke. But seriously if art is to have an intrinsic value as art, and this can't be granted by a third-party after the fact, and can't be inbued into something by the artist during the fact, then its inherent value has to pre-exist the object that represents it or the process of creation.

Well, let's try to correlate this with our existing definition, I mean an art object with intrinsic artistic value that I imagine already has intrinsic artistic value, so all I have to do is bring it into being for its own sake and for no other purpose, and it's art, right? It also fits with the other parts of the argument; no third-party or even my own subjective perspective can influence its intrinsic value because it's already there, craftsmanship is a separate consideration that also can't influence its already present art-hood, it will continue to have artistic value even unperceived in the depths of space (which as actually more a function of having intrisic artistic value and not so much a part of the argument, but I just like having symmetry in at least some of my sentence construction... obviously not this one), and I'll even throw in repetition, which I have not yet even touched until now, and say that if an object has intrinsic artistic value in its conception and really only needs an artist to bring it into existence... and then...

oh, maybe you don't get repetition after all. I was actually hoping to fit that one in too, it really might have turned the difficulty up to 7.5 or even 7.7 from that pesky subjective russian judge. But if an idea has intrinsic artistic value before it even becomes an object with intrinsic value, then unless crafting that into an object somehow erases the intrinsically valuable idea from my mind, then as long as I follow the definition, I should be able to make a replica with intrinsic artistic value, right? But you maintain that creating a replica is inherently other-purposeful, so not art... but what if I have short-term memory loss, and I don't remember creating something the first time, so I can't be replicating it, I'm just taking my art idea from my head and bringing it into existence, that's not replication, is it? Or does its intrinsic "replica-ness" overide its already existent "art-ness"? What about the looped nature of consciousness which sort of means that repetition doesn't even exist? I mean if I tell you a joke, and then I tell you the joke again, that's actually the first time you're hearing the joke after the first time you've heard the joke. And if I tell it again it's the first time you're hearing the joke after the first time you've heard the joke after the first time you've heard the joke. Our brains do not function in such away that hearing a joke three times creates three separate but equal joke hearing experiences. Each one is different. And if it's different, it's not replication, no matter what its "function."

But anyway, because I want the points from the callback joke, you can even fit in "repetition is not art" into this brand new frame of intrinsic artistic value before the fact. we'll just dismiss the way consciousness works (which we've already been doing the whole time anyway, because people's subjective perceptions are not factors in determining artistic value), and also we'll say that people with brain injuries can't make art, or intrinsic replica-ness trumps art. Done and done. In many many many short paragraphs we now have your definition of art into a working and functional state. Though, we've had to make an adjustment:

Art is something which can be intentionally brought into being, but only for its own sake and to serve no other purpose.

So clearly, not what you actually said (I know, I know, you don't know where these words have been, you don't want me sticking them in your mouth... it's just unsanitary.) But I think at heart is practically the same, and still supports all the other things you said in your argument while allowing for a frame of logic that incorporates a feasible intrisic artistic value to be applied to an art object. Unless you forgot that's what we were doing... I know I did. I'm suddenly very distracted by the fact that I've spent all this time writing this crap, and I still haven't gotten to talk about the chair yet. But really, if you do have a problem with my logic, or even my methods, if you think I went off track somewhere and was no longer following the logic of your argument and premise, if you just flat out disagree with some of my conclusions, please let me know. Maybe we can come to understanding around this preassumed preexisting intrinsic artistic value and we can actually get to my own definition of art?

You know what? Fuck intrinsic artistic value, it's time to talk about the chair.

When does a chair cease to be art? I mean, if I create a chair for its own sake, just to be a chair and no other purpose, is it always art, or does it cease to be art when someone sits on it? You've already said that someone's actions and opinions can't change whether or not something is or is not art, so I assume a chair for the sake of being a chair is always art, even if I sit in it. Why does a chair's seemingly inherent purpose of being a place to sit not conflict with its being for its own sake and no other purpose? How can something that inherently has a purpose be brought into being for its own sake and no other purpose without also bringing along its inherent other purpose? I mean I guess I could make a chair that you couldn't sit in, for the sake of being a chair and no other purpose... would that be art? But if being "sittable" is a quality that makes a chair a chair, and I make a chair that isn't "sittable" then is it even a chair? And even if it is a chair, It would certainly not be for its own sake, right?  Because a chair for its own sake would be "sittable" because that's part of what makes it a chair, and a chair that was "unsittable" is clearly not for its own sake... so okay, not art. So a chair's functionality doesn't come into the equation when qualifying it as art or not. But you cover all this in your opening post, right? The chair function is part of its craft and the artistic function is the little unnecessary decorations that have no purpose other than to exist.

So when does a painting cease to be art? I mean, if I create a painting for its own sake, just to be a painting and no other purpose, is it always art, or does it cease to be art when someone sits on it? I mean, looks at it? Why does a painting's inherent purpose of being something to look at not conflict with its being for its own sake and no other purpose? I guess I could make a painting that you couldn't look at, for the sake of being a painting and no other purpose, but is an "unlookable" painting still a painting? Or is it, like the chair, inherently not being a painting anymore, and therefore not art. So a painting you can't look at is inherently not art because it isn't "being a painting", but a painting you can look at is inherently not art because it is serving the purpose of being looked at in addition to simply being for its own sake.

No, I don't think you believe that... So if the "chair function" of a chair is to be sat in, and that is part of its craft, and therefore separate from the artistic parts have that no purpose other than to exist, lets do the same for the painting. The "painting function" of a painting is to be looked at, so everything you look at in a painting is part of its craft, and therefore the artistic part is separate and is in the... um... the frame? (Where does the art go?)

Oh, but now I'm tired. Maybe if anyone bothers to read this whole thing, they'll wonder what I was preparing to say about the newly revised arguement and what it means for intrinsic artistic value... or not. Probably thinking "I can't believe I just read the whole thing. It wasn't even funny and he stopped making nipple jokes a long time ago..." But maybe, just maybe someone will want to know and may ask me about it. Or will respond to some other part of this... thing. And this can turn from me amusing myself to dialoguing with someone else. But really at this point, I mean it's too long. No one would read it. I'm really only crafting some semblance of intention around the madness that's been bounding around my head all night for its own sake. It can't even be used to communicate if no one reads it and so serves no other purpose...

TL;DR - and that's why it's art? Really, what a crock. I'm glad I didn't read the whole thing. Let's go back to talking about Stacy and her artistic ass and how they're enjoying Remainder.

"Hold all my calls. Someone is wrong on the Internet"

Love that, should have posted it yesterday. :-)

@ Avery, your shitty story is outsider art ;-)

@ X ~ my ass is inspirational

The word art refers to something, that which you're calling an idea. The word and the idea are not the same, I know; but if the idea to which the word refers is undefinable, so is the word. Make sense?

If it doesn't address the idea, then it's either a bad definition or your idea is disconnected from the word.

JY--Obviously it's not just me who is completely missing your point. Just saying...