What isn't "art?"

[Mark Sawyer]

And since we're the only photographers with perspective control...

[jnantz]

snip: Which brings up the point of if we're supposed to learn anything from art in the first place?

nope - unless you want to read something from your own life-experience into the artwork as you "absorb" it ...

[John Kasaian]

Scott: Great comment! The idea of "best art" vs "worst art" is far more relevant than the notion of "good" art vs "bad" art and its certainly more important to understand the difference.

Straun: Art as behavior? I don't fully understand---can "art" be determined by a majority vote(by a committee?) Or is it the product of "artsy" behaviour? I'm missing the point here!

paulr.: Good observation on the differences between "good" and "important" I think this transcends art and carries over to much of the human experience.

Kirk: Very profound!

johan: "..illusory form of art called life..."I'm not sure I get that one. I'm not a philosopher either but I find the "best" philosophy is reassureing while the "worst" philosophy is terribly disturbing.

Paul Fitzgerald: But just maybe we can recognize those things which are something other than "art" but are erroneously labeled as being "art"---which should give us a more clear picture(pun intended) of what could be "art"---then again maybe not. The real value of this thread is in the expression of ideas by contributors who have actually given the topic some thought and generously offered to share their thoughts for the enlightenment of a dim-wit like myself.

Graeme: Score and performance---good point! I don't know of an actor or symphony (or printer) that repeat a performance exactly time after time--not the way a CD, DVD, vinyl or a digital print can. Is it any less because of it? Or is it (digital)more truthful to the original? I don't know either.

Robert A. Zeichner: Point well taken!

Scott: Now thats profound!

Domenico: Fantastico!

David R. Munson: What art is not(to you) really is important (to me) because if we cannot agree what art is not(or is) how can we appreciate, criticize, or otherwise share and discuss art? If society sees art as a purely individual thing, then art is impotent in it's effect on society, no?

Mark Sawyer: I love the analogy!

Paulr.: Heidegger? Phenomenology?? Huh???

jnanian: "...you absorb it..." How true!

[Struan Gray]

"Art as a behaviour" derives from my attempts to classify my own preferences and experiences, as well as trying to make sense of what appears in galleries and museums. In both cases the range of 'art' is so diverse that in the rare instances I feel the need for a definition I keep coming back to the only common defining aspect: my reaction to whatever it is; the place in my life I make for it; the ways I experience and share it. What I consider to be art is all the stuff I treat as art.

I think the same is true more broadly, so yes, what gets valued as art in a society is decided by a vote - it's just that some votes are decidely more equal than others. Paul touched on this by stressing 'importance', but what I find fascinating is not so much the end result, as the process by which importance is assigned. Again, this is behaviour, albeit of a crowd or society.

In short, I think that art is a topic for the antropologists, not the archeologists. The things are less important than how they are treated.