Thread: What is art?

the questions are, for this thread and that, respectively, What defines art? and What is art?

I fail to see a meaningful distinction between the two, and you have 24 hours to prove me wrong

Originally Posted by coqauvin

the questions are, for this thread and that, respectively, What defines art? and What is art?

I fail to see a meaningful distinction between the two, and you have 24 hours to prove me wrong

I disagree as to the questions being asked.

The OP in the other thread, seems to specifically focusing on what is postmodernism, and and whether it fits the definition of art.

I am talking specifically about the postmodern works and if they can truly be called "artistic".

Although they are also asking the question of what is art, this is only in a peripheral sense, in that doing so is necessary to determine whether post-modernism is art or not.

Hence in any definition of art they conclude (thread-wise) is correct, they may actually choose one that ignores any or all of a whole range of other types of arguably legitimate forms of art, because it's not necessary to agree upon those to make a definition that includes or excludes the one particular form in question (i.e. post-modernism)

My intent on the contrary is to discern a definition which is an all-encompassing definition of what art is, which is capable of including within it's definition all recognizable forms of art (although obviously this will always be open to a measure of debate over some controversial forms) and excluding those with are not.

It is therefore my assertion that the intent, content and conclusions of both threads will be demonstrably (if you allow it) quite different. Also, his thread is predicated on drunken gibber, mine is sober gibberish.