Aesthetics - (What is Art?)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 июл 2024
- Join George and John as they discuss and debate different Philosophical ideas. Today they will be looking into Aesthetics - this is the Philosophy of Art and Beauty.
One of the major questions of Aesthetics is asking “What is Art?” This video will look to see if we can reach a universal definition of art. Is there an underlying criteria that makes a piece of work art, or does art in fact have no definition and is purely subjective. By the end of the debate we will be closer to answering the questions what is art?
For an introduction in Philosophy check out the Philosophy Vibe Anthology set, available world wide on Amazon:
Volume 1 - Philosophy of Religion
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H42XCS
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H42XCS
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H42XCS
Volume 2 - Metaphysics
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H5MGF9
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H5MGF9
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H5MGF9
Volume 3 - Ethics & Political Philosophy
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H9V22R
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H9V22R
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H9V22R
Check out the Philosophy Vibe merchandise store: philosophy-vibe-store.creator...
0:00 - Introduction
0:15 - What is Aesthetics
0:30 - Standard definition of art
1:20 - The Institutional Theory
2:23 - Problems with the Institutional Theory
4:30 - Art as Beauty
5:49 - Art does not have a definition (Wittgenstein)
8:02 - Art needs a definition
#aesthetics #philosophyofart #philosophy
For the best introduction to philosophy check out the Philosophy Vibe Anthology set, available worldwide on Amazon:
Volume 1 - Philosophy of Religion
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H42XCS
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H42XCS
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H42XCS
Volume 2 - Metaphysics
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H5MGF9
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H5MGF9
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H5MGF9
Volume 3 - Ethics and Political Philosophy
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H9V22R
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H9V22R
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H9V22R
Perhaps art can’t be defined by reason at all. Maybe it can only be felt by the emotions. As Pascal said “The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing.”
Great point
I just stumbled across your channel last night and i absolutely love what youre putting out! There arent many philosophy channels that do the thorough dialectical moves that make your videos so rich. When it comes to format and design there is something stale about how the content is presented but beyond that I'm so glad youre out here
Thank you for the comment and the feedback much appreciated. We're happy you are enjoying the videos on the whole and we will always be looking to improve the content as we move forward.
This channel is great. Covers a variety of philosophical topics. I like the respectful back and forth discussion. It makes for thoughtful exchange. That is what philosophy is all about.
Maybe art is a method of human creative outlet? That's why it can take so many forms: dancing, acting, writing, painting, drawing? Just a thought.
Can animals create art?
I genuinely did not find interest within the philosophy of art until this video! I really enjoyed both arguments raised, they both have great points that I agreed with
Thank you, glad you enjoyed the video!
Now, I just love philosophy ,which is possible just because of you 2 guys becoz earlier I find it so difficult to understand this subject but you two awesome guys made it so simple and understandable.......I just love your voices and ofcourse the anime...i do really wish to see the amazing people behind the anime😉!
I think art is any thing that is human made with the purpose to 'raise a certain emotion'. So:
1. If something was not made with that purpose, it can not be considered art
2. If a teapot was made with the purpose not only to be functional but also to be appreciated while using, then it can also be considered as art
3. Good art for an individual is that something that has the ability to 'change much emotions'. A good movie that makes me cry is better art than a movie that doesn't change any emotion in me.
4. When it comes to the public, good art can then be defined as that something that can change a lot of emotions for a lot of people. This may mean that the most famous paintings do not have to be the best art. They may be famous for technical details that experts may know, but if the majority of the people don't care about it, is it then really good art?
That definition and those four stipulations could also all apply to designer drugs, to sex toys, and to methods of torture.
@@henryfellowsmoss3827 hmmm good point. I would say that the difference between art and the other things you mentioned might be that the emotions that are generated are because of ‘the appreciation of the object it self’ and not because of the object has only (physically) interacted with the observer.
So while sound waves of music interact physically with my ears, it is called art because the appreciation of it is wat causes the emotional change.
In the case of the other things, I might appreciate them for what they do, but not because of what they are.
@@rouash Well put! What's the difference between what something is and what something does from the perspective of a subjective observer?
@@henryfellowsmoss3827 I have an answer to your question but I’m afraid that already see some weak points in it (and it’s hard to find words to describe what I have in my mind, but I’ll try).
Let’s say there is an artist and he makes a slavery chain as an art object. And let’s say that he recreates a chain that used to have to have sharp points in the inside for torture.
The way I look at these points is different than a slave use to look at them. For me, I might appreciate these sharp points because this shows how skillful the artist is or because the message that I receive from the object is more powerful. So I appreciate these points not because they are functional, but because ‘what they are’ or because ‘they are there’ and the meaning behind them.
However, one might say that the slave only looks at these sharp points as a source of more pain. So he looks at them and creates an emotion because of the thought about the interaction with them.
The weak points in my example are that one might say that the slave might experience negative emotions not because of the idea about them being functional and therefore causing him pain, but perhaps because the chains are made in such a way that they convey a symbolic message that hurt his feelings, so then he is creating emotions because of what the chains are and the deeper meaning about how they are made. Exactly like an art observer.
And now I have to think about my definition again xD. Thanks for the critical questions :D.
UPDATE: perhaps the actual slave chain can be seen as art in certain situations. I mean we have 1. A maker that has put effort in making the chain in such a way that it has become a ‘message carrier’ and 2. An observer that could recognize this message and 3. Develop emotions towards the meaning behind the nature of an object.
Perhaps it’s how well it portrays the message of the artist, and how the audience or observer connects with it, art can be relatable to some and not relatable to others. So is art relative? Is there an objective beauty? We as creators define beauty, but only in our eyes and prospective, not for what the essence of art truly is
Here's my (tentative) definition of art...
Art: anything created/done, at least in part, to be appreciated for its beauty.
Of course, this just pushes the question back from "what is art?" to "what is beauty?"
What about something created to be appreciated for its ugliness, or its horribleness?
they spend 11 minutes arguing about what "art" is, and end up with the conclusion, "eh, let's just wait for the next philosopher".
Some points on the subject
1)There are two worlds humans live in. One is the world of logic and the other one is the world of emotion. Art belongs to the second, while maths for example, belongs to the first. Both worlds are equal in importance. Art helps us deal with emotions.
2) Art objects are the most expensive in the world, even more than yachts and plains etc. for some reason.
3) Art is the most free activity for humans. There are no rules.
4) Music is a hybrid art because it has rules. It's closer to maths than it is to art.
5) Art is to form the unknown, like the burning bush in the bible for example.
6) photography and realism painting is closer to language rather to true art because it gives a picture to people s head like the wittgensteins theory of communication.
Hope it helped.
Another top video!! Keep it up.
Thank you :)
Couldn’t we simply revise the standard definition to “an expression of human creativity, skill, and imagination, which was made with the primary intent of effecting a humans emotional or mental state”. It seems to me that this would encapsulate all pieces of art, while excluding things like tractors and telephones, as the primary purpose behind their creation is utility.
Not bad. I would say something like this. (I wrote this on ChatGTP today. I was curious about what it would say.)
This is my definition of art. Tell me what you think. Art is work created by humans that is meant to represent the human experience. It is created for entertainment, enjoyment and self-expression.
I think Thomas Aquinas defined art: something like proportion and eminence of light. It would be good to popularise this classical definition of art.
Let's say we know everything humans think and have ever thought. Then we can know what art truly is and define it in absolute. However, the farther we drift from this knowledge of everything, the farther we drift from knowing what the definition is. It is somewhere in this realm we exist. Humans want to see discrete absolutes where there are none.
I like a more romantic approach: art is to conquer or to be conquered. Art conquer us by defying our capability to undertand it, that is, reason. Art, at first, is something strange and chaotic, marvellous enough we cannot define or give a propper explanation of.
We conquer art by making it familiar, when we reflect enough to explain it or give a sort of sense or meaning.
We can also surrender to art, but that is a pathetic experience, is what estrangement tries to do, but often fails. Ej. to consider a chair a "four legged device".
Art is surrendered to us everywhere. We "use" the art we understand, it is common and familiar in our lives, as the chair I mentioned.
Human reason is a defining aspect of art, but human creation is not, thus, it is, at least, not culturally bounded
maybe art is the creation meaning, and good art conveys its meaning well
Art is an outward concept expressed. Beauty is when the outward concept is closely defined. And true ART is when a painting invokes your passion.
art is not just a painting
Art can be defined with emotion...if a piece of work brings emotion of joy, peace,awaking than it can be considered as art
yeah, but there are art pieces that are good, but you don't really feel anything. visually you can see and appreciate its beauty, but sometimes you can't feel anything.
So good to me...love ya
I wonder to what extent our conception of art is culturally bound. Thinking back to those pre-literate societies in which oral poetry is the main way of recording history, applying the word "art" to poetry -- in contradistinction to other creative and necessary intellectual pursuits, such as battle tactics and government -- seems like an odd distinction.
Also, what of non-creative "art," such as the performance of a dance with fixed steps? It has aesthetic qualities, but it would have much more in common with religious ritual or physical exercise than, say, sculpting.
Our current society, because it mainly aspires to mediocrity, has a furtive and uncomfortable suspicion that things like painting, poetry, music, and dance are somehow superfluous. To justify continuing them, we assign them to a category ("Art") which we then lionize. You don't see people assigning things like food, family, medicine, defecation, and fish-hook making to a single category, searching for some intrinsic definition that justifies the category, and then fervently propounding how essential that category is to human life.
Definición de arte: English / Español
www.arteallimite.com/2019/06/20/de-que-hablamos-cuando-hablamos-de-los-sabios-incompetentes-iv/
Art definition: www.arteallimite.com/en/2019/06/20/de-que-hablamos-cuando-hablamos-de-los-sabios-incompetentes-iv/ & Precisions about definition of art:
www.arteallimite.com/en/2019/08/12/contra-los-farsantes/
Hindi me bhi banaiye
They are not Indian tho. Most they can do is give Hindi subtitles.
The way I see it, art is simply subjective. What I may percieve as art could be garbage to everyone else and vice versa. Art isn't defined by the creation or the creator but by the beholder, if I perceive something and react to it emotionally, to me that is art, and sure that can mean that a particle of dust could be art to someone but so what? This is why you also can't objectively measure art unless you agree on some subjective criteria like complexity or how much effort was put into it.
Also how much Pleasure it gives to an individual