Does an intention have to be involved for it to be art?

well If you’ve looked at some art, you’ll notice some of it is ridiculously simple, my 3 year old sister can paint some of the art out there. And Im not just talking about random local “art”, I mean expensive, famous pieces.

Both intention and perception create art.
Not necessarily mutually-exclusive.
I consider intention the curating of perception.

@Nimis: how does it work, then?

Art is art to different people.
And for different reasons.

@desiree333 ;
a Miro looks like child’s art, but the more I learn and the more I look at it, the more meaning it has, and the more I like it. I used to say that it “moved” something inside me, but that it wasn’t very pretty. It is starting to grow on me though.

[Removed by self]

@ judi, yeah like directions of lines can create different feelings and different colours can mean certain things. A good example of how lines and colours create different things is Edvard Munch’s The Scream some other pieces however are jokes in my opinion.

@judi, I looked at the Miro painting and I really like it. Not a childs work at all. What I did mean though by things my little sister can paint are those paintings that are just one colour with a blue bar in the middle (sorry I cant remember the artist or the names though right now) but it is in the same era as Andy Warhol and Litchensen(I think thats how you spell it.)

Yes, I think there does have to be intention. But the intention can be as simple as the act of isolating and drawing attention to something as art. The act of presenting something as art is really just a way of defining the terms by which you wish that object to be considered. A found object may not have been formed with any intention of creating a work of art, but the person who frames it, or photographs it, or puts it on a pedestal is intentionally saying “confront this object not as a utilitarian object, not as data, but as a vehicle of meaning”. The act of intentional selection, isolation and presentation can be enough to make art. I don’t know why we need to need to think that art has to be something noble or exalted or powerful.

Whether the viewer agrees that the object carries meaning is a different matter. I’m inclined to think that there doesn’t have to be consensus between whoever is presenting something as art and the viewer. The presenter is saying, in effect, “Look at this. This carries meaning for me. See what it does for you.” Those are the terms of the encounter, and those terms are what make it art. The viewer’s reaction may be to disagree that the object carries meaning (that’s often my reaction), but I would still suggest that the art lies not so much in the object as in the nature of the encounter.

I think anything that emotionally appeals to a person’s senses can be considered art. I also believe that the elements involved need to be arranged intentionally with some sort of creativity, which I guess would count out a beautiful sunrise or a big handsome tree.

What about when I look and see ‘art’ all around me?
There is no intention to present it to anyone but myself.

@ tennesseejac, a “handsome tree” for some reason this actually made me laugh.

@desiree333 ;
probably not the best Miro example I could have given for the childlike simplicity. This might be better.

@desiree333 : the three year old comment is a bit moot, I could argue that a three year old couldn’t make some “childlike” art, simply because there was more complex thought behind it, even though no apparent skill was involved.

However, on the other side of the concept, Art does not have to be intentional; as I’ve said before, art is in the eye of the beholder. Some people consider sublime geographic and astrological phenomena (the mesa desert, aurora borealis, constellations, etc) to be art.
Instead of asking, just follow your instincts. If you think/don’t think it’s art, just say so.

@nimis: I just meant “intentionally” as in the artist deliberately made the piece in question as an expression of their feelings. If I accidentally fell in the snow and made a cool looking impression I don’t think that would be considered art, but if I got down and started making shapes in the snow to be creative I would say “check out my art”.

Just because someone declares that it is art,
it doesn’t mean that it will resonate with me
more so than that which was unintentional.

There does have to have some intention to be art.
But that can also be in the way that someone perceives something.
It’s not just passively looking at something and enjoying it.
There’s an intention to elevate it the level of art.

@tennesseejac: what if you purposely fell in the snow, making the exact same shape as the accidental fall. Does it become art? I don’t understand how we can consider the difference between art and non-art as intention. This is particularly the case when a viewer is there. What if the viewer thinks the accidental impression is art, because it is human made and aesthetically pleasing, but they dismiss the intentional impression because anyone could have done it.

Another question:
Let’s say that the accidental shape in the snow is indeed art.
Who is the artist? The person who made the shape?
Or the person who noticed the shape and declared it art?

Just thinking out loud here
Imagine a photographer walking through a cityscape. His eyes will constantly be flooded with visual information. I would say that none of that brute input is, intrinsically, art. But something else is happening. The photographer is engaged in a mental process of selection, of framing so as to elicit meaning from that visual chaos, calling attention to evocative visual relationships by excluding the irrelevant. I would say that it’s in that act of selection/exclusion that the artistic process begins.

Half an hour ago, I was sauteeing a big skilletfull of tofu cubes. That jumble of cubes wasn’t in itself art. But I noticed that I could selectively frame closeups of that jumble in such a way that a visual resonance occurred, some kind of visual meaning. But that meaning only emerged as a result of that act of selection/exclusion. At that moment, again, art began.

But to follow through on that act of selection/exclusion would require that I find a way record that meaning. Here, intent is required. A photograph, or a pile of wooden cubes might be the means I choose. At this point, for the first time in the process, I think we could truly say there is art.

@Harp My Friend’s art makes your point!

I love this thread, even if thinking about this stuff makes my head hurt.

Art is about communication of the abstract. It takes thought to create, even if the thought is seemingly natural or intuitive. An artist doesn’t need to know exactly what abstract thoughts or emotions he or she will evoke in a viewer/listener, but I believe, as @Harp said, that the artist should suspect what will evoke those important ideas and select them for inspection.

I was musing over the very same example of photography.
This seems the most clear cut analogy for ‘brute input’ versus art.
Though the tricky thing about using this analogy is that, in this instance.
the artist has seemingly made our job easier by defining their medium.
It’s a very seductive example because it seems so clear cut when art is created.

Much of how we experience art created curated by others is, as Harp mentioned,
through their choice of medium to record that meaning/selection/exclusion.
But if there is not an intention to share this experience with a third party,
is choosing a medium to record it even necessary?
Can the experience itself be considered art?

Every time I drive to this one store, I always overshoot it.
Mostly because I am always caught up in admiring this old wall.
It is beautifully layered in varying shades of greens and blues
and even though it is but an instance that I have to admire it,
it lends a certain degree of quiet to my mind.
Not entirely unlike how I experience official, museum-sanctioned art.

When I described this to a friend,
they suggested that I take a picture of it.
To make art. they said. To which I replied It already is.

@Nimis – By taking a picture of the wall, you would be creating art (the photo) that stems from the already existing art (the wall). Even if you don’t want to share it with a third party, that photo would exist as art. There are said to be aesthetic universals which help define art and artists. One of those universals is imitation of nature – all art is an imitation.

I deny that an experience itself is art. Art is the medium through which an experience like that can occur. Then again, the word “art” can and has been tossed around so much that there are probably many people that agree with you…

I’m kind of thinking out loud, so my choice of words isn’t always spot on.
What I meant to say is that the wall is already art.
The way I experience that wall is akin to the way I experience art.
But that the wall becomes art through my experience of it.

For the record, I think the word art is woefully ill-equipped
to describe all the things that everyone tries to cram into it.
Often times it is art just because it’s the best word we’ve got.

For me, art is an act of communication, usually between humans. The communication has special qualities: it is usually of a more sophisticated quality than ordinary communication (though what counts as sophisticated is a matter of debate). The sophistication should indicate some amount of thought or skill on the part of the artist that most people don’t have.

In addition to sophistication, there are a lot of people who would also add the criteria that the art must also be beautiful. I do not hold with this, but I point it out, because I think it is important to include it as part of the discussion.

In my definition, art is a dialogue between artist and perceiver of the art. If no communication goes on, then it isn’t art.

Where I am uncertain is if it can be called art when the communication is between humans and non-humans. I go to Yosemite, and there is beauty everywhere. One could consider Yosemite to be an act of communication between mountains and trees and rivers and human. In this, the perceiver, the human, is the only one who, apparently, can manipulate symbols. So a kind of reduced dialogue happens.

We are uncertain if the artist is doing things intentionally to communicate to us. And yet, we are part of nature, and we are evolved to find nature beautiful, and thus to treasure it (see how well that works!) to some degree. Certainly, in our representations of things, it is popular to represent nature.

Still, nature is like “found” art. Just as the photo of Nimis’ wall, and Harp’s perception of his tofu. In doing this perception, they might keep their observations to themselves, in which case it is not an act of communication between humans. However, the instant they talk or write about it, we start to imagine it, and, it seems to me, it becomes art.

All writing and all words are attempts at communication, so is everything art? Well, I believe there is art in everything, but that doesn’t mean everything is art. There is a kind of intentionality to art: it means going beyond the ordinary, in some way. Yosemite is beyond the ordinary natural setting. Nimis’ wall is beyond the ordinary wall. Harp’s tofu is, in his opinion, beyond the ordinary skillet of tofu (I bet he has an awesome kitchen). And I’d like to think that my words would also qualify as art.

Just wanted to say that I loved this discussion. Thanks to daloon for starting it, and thanks to all for some wonderful insights

Let me add my thanks, too. You folks have been wonderful. Keep ‘em coming!

@daloon I’d agree with much of your statement.
Though I’d probably switch out sophistication for sublime.
I’m kind of in the Harp camp; I don’t think art needs to be exalted
nor even special in any traditional sense. It can be a simple thought
that most people do have and can relate to quite easily.

I’ve quite enjoyed this thread myself.
It was a lot of fun reading you guys think out loud.
At this point, I have to echo Harp’s previous sentiment.
A round of thanks and imaginary beers for everyone!

Man, wouldn’t it be cool to be in some dark pub with a roaring fire and lots of comfortable seats, and an excellent selection of beers on tap? I bet we’d solve the world’s problems before the end of the evening (or before we pass out, whichever comes first)!

That would be most excellent.

Agreed.

I’m in!

i like beer. and could pitch in a little.

Art is by definition a human expression. When you decribe your reactions to nature you are speaking of an aesthetic experience, an experience that draws on your senses. Both can be unpleasant or pleasant or even euphoric, but there is a distinct difference.

Art is a way of shaping human experience including, but not limited to, our experiences with nature. Artists are inspired by nature and often seek to mimic its colors, patterns, rhythm, visual balance both in realistic and abstract forms.

Also, there is faulty logic in responses like ” my kid sister. . .” If we use that as a condition for an object being art, than we are dismissing the art of children, which often has explosive expression. I prefer to cast a wide net in defining art, and then have the discussion “Is this good art?” which is a whole other ballgame.

@kruger_d I love your definition and follow-up question! Lurve!

@daloon said: “Is it the maker or the perceiver who decides if something is art?

If it is the perceiver, then couldn’t anything be considered art? Even a landscape? Or a dump?

If it is the maker, then couldn’t they, oh, draw a small mark on anything, and claim it is art?”

this will be long and rambly, forgive me. I’m just thinking out loud and throwing ideas around like mad. not even sure i have a specific point. just opinion.

I agree with your answer to the question, daloon. I think it’s both the observer and the maker are Artists in their own right. My definition of art is broad and all encompassing like @kruger_d‘s definition. And the question “Is this good art?” can only be answered by the individual observer.

That Communication isn’t Necessary for it to be considered “Art”
A point where we might disagree.. I think that necessarily when we’re speaking of Art we’re talking about a thing made and then appreciated. A cloud in the sky (nature/found art) that looks like a flower, is an artistic creation of the observer her/himself. In this sense, there is no room for communication (as you were hinting at earlier, daloon) between bodies UNTIL that observer shares the thought with someone else: “hey, that cloud looks like a a flower!” But really, even before communication becomes a part of it.. it is still art. The original observer still created that image for her/himself. You could also consider if you made a painting and then burned it before anyone else saw it. It was still art even though no communication occurred. For these reasons I feel that Art does not require communication and it needn’t be a part of the definition.

What is art?
if you consider my definition again for Art: The (more-or-less)anticipated results of any intentionally unique task. The greater the uniqueness of the task, the more “Artsy” that result is considered.

Given this, someone who is merely labeling a cloud as a flower has done something fairly lacking in uniqueness. And surely no one would buy this man’s opinion of clouds because labeling clouds in this way lacks uniqueness as an artform and hence lacks value. If however, he took pictures of clouds and photoshopped them to look like a REAL flower, it would gain uniqueness and hence Artistic value.

Weird examples of Art
All invention is Art. Art is the result of every intentionally unique task. This includes the Combustion Engine, this includes the particular muscle formations of a body builder, this includes the exact ease of success that a pole vaulter can achieve after years of practice, this includes the ease and grace of a cartoonist who has mastered the ability to create a near-perfect circle in a single flick of his pen and it even includes the particular workflow that a salesman has mastered in order to go about his business of used car sales better than his competitor.

Duplication doesn’t count
Duplication lacks artistic value. Manufactured reprints photographs/books/paintings are not artistic because the task in creating all those copies obviously lacks uniqueness. However, when someone goes through unique trouble to reproduce a work of art in likeness to it’s original, this is considered artistic. Though it is not as artistic as if he came up with the concept on his own.