When used in the context of a personal title, I think the word needs to be spelled with a bunch of "e"s in the second syllable. (eg. "You are not an arteeest!")
I hang out with a lot of academic kids who spend way too much time on this non-question, but somehow I can't stop myself from throwing in my own attempt:
I'll use the word "art" to describe all activities whose performance is not completely understood. Whatever I cannot model mechanically, I attribute that to the muses.
By this measure, a game of chess is "art" but a game of tic-tac-toe isn't. Surgery is "art" but adding a column of numbers isn't. It's a fuzzy definition, since some activities can be more precisely modeled than others.
I'll use the word "art" to describe all activities whose performance is not completely understood. Whatever I cannot model mechanically, I attribute that to the muses.
By this measure, a game of chess is "art" but a game of tic-tac-toe isn't. Surgery is "art" but adding a column of numbers isn't. It's a fuzzy definition, since some activities can be more precisely modeled than others.
Well, I'd actually have to disagree with you on the meaning behind the words in your definition. Art is something that is bandied around for all sort of things, to the point where artistry is simply a way of saying that someone is very good at something like kicking a ball, or whisking eggs. In general this definition has little to do with the arts though, and more with skill and ability.
In terms of "the arts" my personal definition is that art is anything created with aesthetic, emotional, or intellectual ends in mind, rather than functional ones. This basically lets the term encompass fine art, commercial art, craftsmanship, and pansy modern artists without much fuss, while excluding things such as surgery or chess, one of which is for physical health, and the other being about following rules.
I stopped saying "I'm an artist" because the usual response was "oh my toddle (2,3,4,5 yr old) paints... s/he did this wonderful finger picture with bright colours and everything. We stuck it on the fridge door"
I just do it to expel thoughts and ideas from my head and give them 'flesh and bones', otherwise ruminating on them doesn't do me (or any artist friends I know) any good.
Well, I'd actually have to disagree with you on the meaning behind the words in your definition. Art is something that is bandied around for all sort of things, to the point where artistry is simply a way of saying that someone is very good at something like kicking a ball, or whisking eggs.
"Kicking a ball" and "whisking eggs" are both well-understood, and easy to simulate with mechanical models.
Hmm, I subscribe more to the idea that art is some form of communication which has a profound or deep effect on its audience. That means that some movies are art, some aren't. Some paintings are art, some aren't. Some games are art, some aren't, etc...
Attributing art to everything that is not understood seems a bit odd to me, but everyone to their own I suppose.
That's close to the traditional sense of the word "art." It's an old word. Been in English for centuries. Roughly synonymous with "skill."
Human knowledge is by tradition divided between "the arts" and "the sciences." That's where I'm coming from. That's the sense in which playing chess is "an art," while playing tic-tac-toe is "a science." Because chess requires human creativity, while tic-tac-toe requires only knowledge.
The use of "Art" to refer specifically to painting, sculpting, etc. is a modern development... a new meaning for an old word.
I suspect that attempting to define "Art" in that sense is likely to be about as profitable as attempting to define similar words like "soul."
(I don't mean to diss the newer sense of the word "Art". It's a perfectly good word. I'm just not sure anything resembling a definition can be concocted for it, barring recursion.)
Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean by chess being an "art" and tic-tac-toe not... by your definition chess wouldn't be either. There have been computers made which can beat world chess champions and such. :P
I've also never heard of art as a synonym of skill. But I suppose that could be partly due to cultural differences in where we live.
However I definitely did not mean that art refers specifically to painting, sculpting and such. Those are just manners of communication. Really I feel that anything that can communicate ideas can be art.
Ryans right, "Art" (with a capitol 'A') is now an intellectualism, it has nothing to do with "skill" ('arts and crafts') in any sense, shape or form now. As a result there are no defining criteria and it simply boils down to art being "Art" because someone (the establishments) says it is; hang around the "Art Establishment" long enough and it becomes as plainly obvious as the nose on your face (that wasn't meant to sound rude btw).
I used to hate the term "artist", especially when it was applied to myself. This was due mainly to the fact that other people I knew who openly referred to themselves as 'artists' were people I considered utter jackasses and I didn't want to be associated with them.
Also, I felt that until I was actually getting paid to do the 'artwork' I'm doing, I wasn't exactly earning the title.
Now that I'm referred to as an 'fx artist', I kind of casually use the term, but only combined with the 'fx' bit.
It kind of has two meanings...
The 'artist' title I consider myself having for my job is one that refers to someone making useful art, visual things that have a purpose and are put to use. I tend to look at game artists under this title, and when I see them producing something that isn't useful or up to par or whatever, I feel they aren't earning that title. It's kind of a paid-for privilage to call yourself a game artist.
The other kind of 'artist', the more traditionally accepted title, I'm very wary to hand out nowadays. You've got places like deviantart and CGTalk and the like absolutely *flooded* with artworks, even at the utter superb level, but I'm hesitant to call them artists. You've also got art exhibits flooded with a wide range of pieces, all speaking to different tastes. Then you've got museum filled with classics like Picasso, Michaelangelo, etc etc... but you've got to remember a lot of those famous pieces were commissioned, so even if passion was put into it's creation, it still could be classified under my first type of artist. Then there's things like Dadaism, which is attempting to be anything but art, but a bunch of pleebs fell in love with the stuff and not it's considered a major movement. I seriously think that the true title of 'artist' is something that can rarely, if ever, actually applied to anyone. We all attempt to create what we consider art, usually as some form of expression of ourselves or something like that.
Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean by chess being an "art" and tic-tac-toe not... by your definition chess wouldn't be either.
Tic-tac-toe requires no creativity to play. Only knowledge is required. The game can be "solved" by following rules.
In 2008, chess has never been solved yet, even by our most powerful computers. It cannot be played automatically. It requires human creativity.
Today's computers "play chess" in the same way that game engines "draw pictures." (Meaning, the game is being played by a creative human using a computer to make his moves faster. Just like images in Quake are designed by creative humans using a computer to draw them at 60fps.)
Of course, even if chess is someday genuinely solved by a computer, that won't change things for a human player. He won't be able to hold the computer's solution in his human brain, so he'll still need human creativity to play.
Replies
I hang out with a lot of academic kids who spend way too much time on this non-question, but somehow I can't stop myself from throwing in my own attempt:
I'll use the word "art" to describe all activities whose performance is not completely understood. Whatever I cannot model mechanically, I attribute that to the muses.
By this measure, a game of chess is "art" but a game of tic-tac-toe isn't. Surgery is "art" but adding a column of numbers isn't. It's a fuzzy definition, since some activities can be more precisely modeled than others.
Well, I'd actually have to disagree with you on the meaning behind the words in your definition. Art is something that is bandied around for all sort of things, to the point where artistry is simply a way of saying that someone is very good at something like kicking a ball, or whisking eggs. In general this definition has little to do with the arts though, and more with skill and ability.
In terms of "the arts" my personal definition is that art is anything created with aesthetic, emotional, or intellectual ends in mind, rather than functional ones. This basically lets the term encompass fine art, commercial art, craftsmanship, and pansy modern artists without much fuss, while excluding things such as surgery or chess, one of which is for physical health, and the other being about following rules.
I stopped saying "I'm an artist" because the usual response was "oh my toddle (2,3,4,5 yr old) paints... s/he did this wonderful finger picture with bright colours and everything. We stuck it on the fridge door"
I just do it to expel thoughts and ideas from my head and give them 'flesh and bones', otherwise ruminating on them doesn't do me (or any artist friends I know) any good.
"Kicking a ball" and "whisking eggs" are both well-understood, and easy to simulate with mechanical models.
Attributing art to everything that is not understood seems a bit odd to me, but everyone to their own I suppose.
Human knowledge is by tradition divided between "the arts" and "the sciences." That's where I'm coming from. That's the sense in which playing chess is "an art," while playing tic-tac-toe is "a science." Because chess requires human creativity, while tic-tac-toe requires only knowledge.
The use of "Art" to refer specifically to painting, sculpting, etc. is a modern development... a new meaning for an old word.
I suspect that attempting to define "Art" in that sense is likely to be about as profitable as attempting to define similar words like "soul."
(I don't mean to diss the newer sense of the word "Art". It's a perfectly good word. I'm just not sure anything resembling a definition can be concocted for it, barring recursion.)
I've also never heard of art as a synonym of skill. But I suppose that could be partly due to cultural differences in where we live.
However I definitely did not mean that art refers specifically to painting, sculpting and such. Those are just manners of communication. Really I feel that anything that can communicate ideas can be art.
Also, I felt that until I was actually getting paid to do the 'artwork' I'm doing, I wasn't exactly earning the title.
Now that I'm referred to as an 'fx artist', I kind of casually use the term, but only combined with the 'fx' bit.
It kind of has two meanings...
The 'artist' title I consider myself having for my job is one that refers to someone making useful art, visual things that have a purpose and are put to use. I tend to look at game artists under this title, and when I see them producing something that isn't useful or up to par or whatever, I feel they aren't earning that title. It's kind of a paid-for privilage to call yourself a game artist.
The other kind of 'artist', the more traditionally accepted title, I'm very wary to hand out nowadays. You've got places like deviantart and CGTalk and the like absolutely *flooded* with artworks, even at the utter superb level, but I'm hesitant to call them artists. You've also got art exhibits flooded with a wide range of pieces, all speaking to different tastes. Then you've got museum filled with classics like Picasso, Michaelangelo, etc etc... but you've got to remember a lot of those famous pieces were commissioned, so even if passion was put into it's creation, it still could be classified under my first type of artist. Then there's things like Dadaism, which is attempting to be anything but art, but a bunch of pleebs fell in love with the stuff and not it's considered a major movement. I seriously think that the true title of 'artist' is something that can rarely, if ever, actually applied to anyone. We all attempt to create what we consider art, usually as some form of expression of ourselves or something like that.
Tic-tac-toe requires no creativity to play. Only knowledge is required. The game can be "solved" by following rules.
In 2008, chess has never been solved yet, even by our most powerful computers. It cannot be played automatically. It requires human creativity.
Today's computers "play chess" in the same way that game engines "draw pictures." (Meaning, the game is being played by a creative human using a computer to make his moves faster. Just like images in Quake are designed by creative humans using a computer to draw them at 60fps.)
Of course, even if chess is someday genuinely solved by a computer, that won't change things for a human player. He won't be able to hold the computer's solution in his human brain, so he'll still need human creativity to play.