Next Generation magazine returning.

[The_Meach]

I think Meach's definiton isn't really what art is, but what good art is.

No. This is why I didn't put any value statements into anything I've said. Art comments on what it means to be human. Good art communicates something worthwhile about what it means to be human. But there is bad art that says something poorly or bad or non-worthwhile (see: some abstract art). That doesn't mean it's not art.

Videogames have nothing to say.

And again, art must say something in order to be considered art (good or bad).

[Joust Williams]

But you have put value statements into the equation. How do you know what the art says? Art can't talk. If I have someone make a piece thinking a whole bunch of stuff, and then I have someone duplicate it for the sole purposes of selling another copy, is that second piece NOT art?

[The_Meach]

So is my poem art?

Is it really your poem?
Why do you say you are an apple?
A bus doesn't float. Why do you say it does?

But you have put value statements into the equation. How do you know what the art says? Art can't talk.

If you're going to be so literal, we cannot have this conversation.

[Joust Williams]

Does it matter? is the point. If someone answered those questions to your "liking", would it elevate its status to "art"? I could say it's a bunch of nonsense, but then someone may have made this very same piece and said a whole bunch of incredibly deep things. They're both either art or not art. They are identical.

[sethsez]

Human condition = what it means to be human. Hungry Hungry Hippos has *nothing* to say about what it means to be a person living in the world. Jackson Pollock's work does. This is partially due to purpose. HHP (or Monopoly or Tetris or Sonic) has no artistic motive. It's not trying to say anything about what it means to be human. It's just there to occupy your time. It's a diversion.

So you're saying that architechture isn't art? After all, buildings (with very, very, very few exceptions) are not built to say something about what it is to be human. The intent most definitely is not there.

And once again, there are plenty of artists, art lovers, philosophers, professors, whatever who disagree that art is about the original intent.

[The_Meach]

So you're saying that architechture isn't art? After all, buildings (with very, very, very few exceptions) are not built to say something about what it is to be human. The intent most definitely is not there.

A shack built to provide shelter (a utilitarian purpose if ever there was one) is not art b/c of the intent. I think we can agree the Eiffel Tower is art. The difference is purpose/intent.

And once again, there are plenty of artists, art lovers, philosophers, professors, whatever who disagree that art is about the original intent.

I'm not saying original intent is SUFFICIENT. It is *part* of how we define what is art and what is not. Otherwise we could say crazy things...like the plastic spork at Wendy's is art.

[RoleTroll]

Editing this post so that it no longer says what it said before I edited it.

[Joust Williams]

"A shack built to provide shelter (a utilitarian purpose if ever there was one) is not art b/c of the intent."
But see, if I was a famous artist and threw the same junk up in a heap, everyone would be praising how great a statement I was making about social ladders, class status, etc. That is what people have a problem with (at least, as far as I can see it). My poem is frickin trash. But it's no worse than some of this other stuff that passes for "art".

[sethsez]

stuff

You've yet to define anything in any meaningful way that most people agree on. You know why? Because this debate has been going on for many centuries and you're not the one who's going to finally see the light and figure out what art really is, once and for all, and how it all ties into the human condition.

You are going by your own personal definition. It is not a universal definition. Many people disagree with it. Accept it.

[Ashen Victor]

Human condition = what it means to be human. Hungry Hungry Hippos has *nothing* to say about what it means to be a person living in the world.

what are you talking about? the hippos in Hungry hungry Hippos are shown to be man's place in society and how grabbing the marbles (success) is his way of getting ahead in life by any means neccessary. the hippo that gets the least is less motivated to make his mark in the world, while the one that gets the most is the most dominant and is willing to do what it takes be become successful. it's man's competitive nature at it's finest.