One art form to describe the other.

I was just wondering about the language, an art form in itself.

Language is an art form, skill, tool, and many more things but most importantly and art.

All this time we have been trying to describe concept of art, with one of the arts it self.

It's like trying to form a definition of a word, and having definiendum in the definiens.

Such circularity is endless.

Describing a variable with the same variable (x=x).

I would like to put out there, that whatever we come up with, is never going to describe all art, it merely will lay a crude template. But is that all that bad? After all we generalize, language is based on generalization of concepts, so why should the definition of art be specific?

Openness of art.

We ve discussed this subject, almost to exhaustion in class, but I'd like to add few things, that I thought of outside of class.

The 30 pots I mentioned in class... they all may be the same, created by skilled art-craftsman/woman. How is that when we see one, we think:

"Okay that's art, a lot of intention, creativity, and skill was involved into making that."

But when we see all 30 we go on label them as craft, mass produced, not unique, repetitive.

Author/Craftsman aside what makes the human creation an Art?

People make things constantly, they label them many things, but what exactly is it

Is Art a truth?

Is there a objective truth behind ART, solid answer, or universal meaning?

response to lisa's "Bell & Music."

Music... harmonic sounds. It says nowhere, they have to be made from instruments. Instruments specialize in creating sounds, which generally can be formed into groups, tones, etc.

Singing creates notes, that can also be generalized and formed into categories.

I think if an artists takes a mush of 7-8 instruments(counting vocals, back up vocals etc) or what ever the number and he calls it music, it is music. May be good or not so good... as we all know, we all have those "creative" friends that make unearthly sounds...

anyhow the mush of the sounds is an art.

I think a better question to ask is when singing turns into prose, or talking?

No black lines can be drawn, but it makes me wonder; are sounds ever not musical?

Response to Andrew Roiter "Observers as participants in art"

Andrew brought up an interesting point. How do external factors, or unintentional factors affect what art is.

Art is vague enough, controversial, and pretty much boundary-less.

So how would one interpret the crowd in the concert? Viewers viewing a picture?Bystanders in a groomed garden?

I believe these unaccounted for factors, add to the original art piece.

What would a Mona Lisa be if people didn't think it was beautiful?

Art is affected by its viewer, and viewer of the viewers.

Not a significant, permanent way, but in some temporary design.

Who is viewing who? when it comes to art?

can viewers be interpret as part of the art work?