>Why? Why is that the question to ask? Why must be considered in this specific way, rather than any other?
Have you asked the same question about your definitions? You might as well ask why words have certain meanings rather than any other.
A short answer: art is commonly understood as an expression of thoughts, feelings, emotions, ideas, etc. in some form. Creating art is converting human thoughts and emotions into objects of art. Consumption of art is the reverse process: thoughts and emotions emerging when the object of art is consumed (seen, heard, etc).
Taking an art history course will leave you with a better answer. Maybe a google search on "what is art", too, if you actually put some effort into it.
>So something that's made to be made rather than to be seen is not art, even in the case that if someone did see it they would think it's art?
See, now you're getting closer. You're defining art by saying that it's art because someone who sees it thinks it's art, i.e. you're analyzing the emotional impact.
When an art object is made, the audience is the set of people that consumes it at has thoughts and emotions as a result. It may or may not include the artist themselves. In your example, the person that thinks it's art is the audience.
Without an audience, there is no art.
Something that's "made to be made" has the artist as its audience at the very least.
>No. No, no, no. There's no justification for this besides that you say so
I'd hope, common sense would be one. Sadly, it's an increasingly uncommon asset these days. In any case, it's me and everyone else in this thread, which could give a hint that you're missing something.
>Why can't I look at the thing in isolation and decide for myself what it's good for?
Can a caveman look at a microscope and decide for himself what it's good for? Absolutely. He can decide it's good for beating other people with. And then talk how there are many better sticks out there, and how anyone who thinks a microscope is valuable is an idiot.
And insofar as the caveman is concerned, he's right! He has no other use for a microscope because he is too limited in his understanding. He would be better off with a large stick.
You, too, certainly can do the same, but your understanding will only apply to yourself.
Insofar as other people are concerned (and your judgements of them), your opinion will be less than worthless, because it's only based on what's in your head, and there isn't enough there to judge others.
> If for my purposes it's a good screwdriver and I use it like that, is it wrong because I'm not properly interpreting the message the manufacturer embedded into the tool?
You're welcome to use a saw as a screwdriver.
But if you leave a one-star review for a saw because it's a shitty screwdriver, and start judging other people who like them for reasons beyond your understanding, you'll be laughed out of every room.
>Again, why? Exactly what prevents me from doing that?
Your ignorance. Which is what you'll actually be opining on instead of art and its merits.
There's a logical fallacy at the very basis of your thought:
- you decide what something is good for, without looking at a larger context
- you observe that it's not good in that way
These two statements are in contradiction to each other. The second statement shows that what you decided on isn't the right thing.
Instead, you conclude that the object is not good at all, and everyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.
>Interesting line of reasoning. Mathematics is art, therefore mathematical merit is artistic merit. Artistic merit by my definition is about originality, therefore mathematical merit (being artistic) is about originality.
I have no idea where you are going with this. This wasn't what I wrote, and it doesn't make any sense to me either.
>I don't agree that mathematics is art with no qualifiers whatsoever. Mathematics is, very reductively, primarily concerned with the search for true statements, not with the search for beautiful statements
Says who? Not the mathematicians. And I am one[1] - so I am qualified to say this. Are you? If so, please show me your work, and I can use it as a basis of explaining things further.
Otherwise, you'd be better of listening to someone who has created works of mathematics and art (also see [1]).
As mathematicians, we see beauty in truth. But finding un-truths is even more fascinating. Posing a conjecture and finding counter-examples is fundamentally a part of mathematics.
So is "bad" math. "Lapses in mathematical reasoning"[2] is a great mathematics book.
Finding ways in which something we thought was true isn't is the crown achievement - like the discovery of non-Euclidean geometry.
Mathematics itself has been proven to be either inconsistent or incomplete[3]. And a lot of mathematics is concerned with things like Riemann's hypothesis (which may or may not be true), or the continuity hypothesis (which may or may not be answerable).
> Mathematics is, very reductively, primarily concerned with the search for true statements, not with the search for beautiful statements
Let me emphasize again that it is, in fact, the opposite.
Generating true statements is easy. Generating beautiful statements that are true is mathematics.
> nor with self-expression or cultural transmission.
Let me assure you that you are wrong on both accounts here as well.
There is a very strong cultural element in mathematics; different mathematical schools have different mathematical traditions.
Mathematics in inherently a cultural, group activity. It's all about self-expression. That's why theorems have names attached to them.
That's why we talk of "Lwow School of Mathematics"[4], for example.
Further discussion of this subject is out of scope. I ask you to not have strong opinions of this kind on mathematics if you are not a mathematician.
Have you asked the same question about your definitions? You might as well ask why words have certain meanings rather than any other.
A short answer: art is commonly understood as an expression of thoughts, feelings, emotions, ideas, etc. in some form. Creating art is converting human thoughts and emotions into objects of art. Consumption of art is the reverse process: thoughts and emotions emerging when the object of art is consumed (seen, heard, etc).
Taking an art history course will leave you with a better answer. Maybe a google search on "what is art", too, if you actually put some effort into it.
>So something that's made to be made rather than to be seen is not art, even in the case that if someone did see it they would think it's art?
See, now you're getting closer. You're defining art by saying that it's art because someone who sees it thinks it's art, i.e. you're analyzing the emotional impact.
When an art object is made, the audience is the set of people that consumes it at has thoughts and emotions as a result. It may or may not include the artist themselves. In your example, the person that thinks it's art is the audience.
Without an audience, there is no art.
Something that's "made to be made" has the artist as its audience at the very least.
>No. No, no, no. There's no justification for this besides that you say so
I'd hope, common sense would be one. Sadly, it's an increasingly uncommon asset these days. In any case, it's me and everyone else in this thread, which could give a hint that you're missing something.
>Why can't I look at the thing in isolation and decide for myself what it's good for?
Can a caveman look at a microscope and decide for himself what it's good for? Absolutely. He can decide it's good for beating other people with. And then talk how there are many better sticks out there, and how anyone who thinks a microscope is valuable is an idiot.
And insofar as the caveman is concerned, he's right! He has no other use for a microscope because he is too limited in his understanding. He would be better off with a large stick.
You, too, certainly can do the same, but your understanding will only apply to yourself.
Insofar as other people are concerned (and your judgements of them), your opinion will be less than worthless, because it's only based on what's in your head, and there isn't enough there to judge others.
> If for my purposes it's a good screwdriver and I use it like that, is it wrong because I'm not properly interpreting the message the manufacturer embedded into the tool?
You're welcome to use a saw as a screwdriver.
But if you leave a one-star review for a saw because it's a shitty screwdriver, and start judging other people who like them for reasons beyond your understanding, you'll be laughed out of every room.
>Again, why? Exactly what prevents me from doing that?
Your ignorance. Which is what you'll actually be opining on instead of art and its merits.
There's a logical fallacy at the very basis of your thought:
- you decide what something is good for, without looking at a larger context - you observe that it's not good in that way
These two statements are in contradiction to each other. The second statement shows that what you decided on isn't the right thing.
Instead, you conclude that the object is not good at all, and everyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.
>Interesting line of reasoning. Mathematics is art, therefore mathematical merit is artistic merit. Artistic merit by my definition is about originality, therefore mathematical merit (being artistic) is about originality.
I have no idea where you are going with this. This wasn't what I wrote, and it doesn't make any sense to me either.
>I don't agree that mathematics is art with no qualifiers whatsoever. Mathematics is, very reductively, primarily concerned with the search for true statements, not with the search for beautiful statements
Says who? Not the mathematicians. And I am one[1] - so I am qualified to say this. Are you? If so, please show me your work, and I can use it as a basis of explaining things further.
Otherwise, you'd be better of listening to someone who has created works of mathematics and art (also see [1]).
As mathematicians, we see beauty in truth. But finding un-truths is even more fascinating. Posing a conjecture and finding counter-examples is fundamentally a part of mathematics.
So is "bad" math. "Lapses in mathematical reasoning"[2] is a great mathematics book.
Finding ways in which something we thought was true isn't is the crown achievement - like the discovery of non-Euclidean geometry.
Mathematics itself has been proven to be either inconsistent or incomplete[3]. And a lot of mathematics is concerned with things like Riemann's hypothesis (which may or may not be true), or the continuity hypothesis (which may or may not be answerable).
> Mathematics is, very reductively, primarily concerned with the search for true statements, not with the search for beautiful statements
Let me emphasize again that it is, in fact, the opposite.
Generating true statements is easy. Generating beautiful statements that are true is mathematics.
> nor with self-expression or cultural transmission.
Let me assure you that you are wrong on both accounts here as well.
There is a very strong cultural element in mathematics; different mathematical schools have different mathematical traditions.
Mathematics in inherently a cultural, group activity. It's all about self-expression. That's why theorems have names attached to them.
That's why we talk of "Lwow School of Mathematics"[4], for example.
Further discussion of this subject is out of scope. I ask you to not have strong opinions of this kind on mathematics if you are not a mathematician.
[1] https://romankogan.net/math
[2] https://www.amazon.com/Lapses-Mathematical-Reasoning-Dover-M...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lw%C3%B3w_School_of_Mathematic...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3