As for Art

As for ART. I think we run into the idea of how it’s all down to ‘language’ to some degree. And the language thing is about our inner monologue as well as our need to communicate. And everything _is_ or _can be_ art is a problem. The first is the problem because that simply means we do not want to use language at all. But the second is an issue because it still requires definition so that we know when or how something becomes art or ceases to be if it works that way. Is the question of inner monologue and external really two different cases/issues? In this or in the consciousness one? I think for art they may not be different since the art is not you. So what works for you to define art, works for others that use the language. Maybe. Anyway, art seems like the act, materialization of a message, of a communication. It’s not enough to think it. It’s not enough to simply move your arm to swat a fly. If we look at dance — the art of moving the body to music? Or how about just the art of body movement. If it is an art, then swatting a fly would not qualify. Choosing to swat a fly with an intention of communicating something — i.e. the movement/action would be ‘read’ by oneself or another, would count. So if I need to clean the table because I need to use the space and debris will hinder and dirt might cause health issues, so I clean the table, but think of other things or think about the process or think about the results as I go, then I am not intentionally communicating anything with the act of cleaning it. If I need to get out of my chair, but I know someone is watching [could be just myself] and I decide to get out like an old man or like a tiger or with deliberately exaggerated moves, then I am practicing the art of movement. There is no judgement on the quality of the art for it to be an example of art. How clear does the communication have to be defined by the artist for it to count as such? I think that having thought about it at all, whether in the thinking about the specific message or the response to the message does not matter. So I can think about the words I write or I can think about which words I want to write in order to get X to be angry. I can think about what moves I want to make [slow, elongated here, stretch there, to the left more there] and/or I can think about how I want X to see me and think of a giraffe or feel intimidated. All of those are valid thoughts about communication — message and/or response to a message. Now I am particularly tasked with visual art, but I dont think this changed it much. In fact maybe not at all. So how is art different than communication? If I leave art off at the intention to communicate [a message] to someone [another or one’s self] — then isn’t that also the definition of communication? To send a message to someone? But then is art tied into the medium? Communication would be at the top, and then you would have movement art, visual art, auditory art, written art, food art, art of war?, smell art, tactile art. And above that but after communication you would have Fine Arts which just hold different mediums as a subcategory. Is that correct? Is art merely the use of a specific medium/mediums to communicate a message to someone? The question is, is there any communication that is not Art? So when I say, “get off the couch,” is that art? The art of speaking? Well let us think about intention here. I do have the intention of communicating. But is there not a difference between saying it, thinking, I need to say this in a particular way in order to get this person off the couch as I wish. For instance, I might say it choosing my words and tone [and stance] specifically to get a scary hooligan off the couch or another very specific setup to get a rich employer off the couch. Or I might not think about it at all when I say it to get my husband off the couch in order to clean the cushion. The not thinking about it, is something we do understand. There is no intention because it has become reactionary, it has become instinctual. The language or the movement, has become rote. Like standing up. So it _can_ be art to tell someone to get off the couch. But there is a difference. And there can be communication performed without awareness of intention. I may have an intention, but I may have gathered that sometime before and am now just reacting. So we need to add intention into this definition of art based on communication. I want to practice my handling of a paintbrush — not art.

I draw a fish in pictionary for fish — not art. I was indeed communicating to someone else, but I did not choose the way I drew the fish, the final form of the fish, with thought to some intention of a message other than ‘fish’. A message is not a single symbol. I message with intention is not a statement as one component of a process. The fish in pictionary is more like using symbols to communicate, kind of like how the chinese written language is logographic. I guess this means that the movement or the visual has to have some other intended message than the one ‘universally’ ascribed. And if the artist gets it wrong, that still counts, but if the intention isnt there, then it does not count. So if I intend to get my husband off the couch, and I do by saying “get off the couch”, then not art. If I intend to get a rich employer off the couch and I have learned that “please sir, when possible, I need to reach the cushion” will be what I always say to get him off the couch, then not an art. If I encounter a crazy, angry, violent, hooligan for the first time, and I think really hard about my situation and communication method and I say “please,” softly with eyes lowered, then that is an art. It was an act of communication based on the artist’s intention to communicate a message to someone other than the one universally ascribed. Maybe universally ascribed means ‘interpretation required’. A fish is a fish. But if you draw a fat cat for ‘lazy’ that would be art if the goal was to communicate to someone ‘laziness’. But if the goal is to get someone to guess a word, I’m not sure that’s the same thing. Ah this requires some thought here. It plays into the question regarding say if you have to copy over painted lines a million times to make a million prints that you did not originate. You paint the final paintings. But you had no intended message. Your intention was to do a job to make a copy. What if you did create the original? Is that not different than when you make the copies? Is drawing a fat cat to get someone to guess lazy the same as drawing a fat cat in order for people to think about the sloth of america or to get people to think about the joy of a simpler, relaxed life, are those different things? There is still the communication of a message to someone other than the universal/direct, done with intention, yet one relies on an end goal other than ending with the communication. I would think though that even when you want to convey the sloth of america or the simpler life, you have an end goal that when someone gets that communication, it will have an ‘affect’. And that is true to of getting someone to guess ‘lazy’ when you communicate fat cat to them in a game. So a drawing of a fat cat for lazy is an example of art. I think I would agree. But is the copy of painting you made not art, if the first one was? If no, then if I copy someone else’s painting because I think it works, but I dont have it handy, is that art? Yes. Originality and quality can be judged, but are not part of the definition. Neither is the specific message or intended audience of ‘someone’. So the only sort of ‘dirty’ part of this is the ‘interpretation required,’ aspect. But it seems to be what differentiates art from communication. Communication relies on agreed upon, common interpretation whereas art seems to hinge on the idea that interpretation rather than memory or literacy helps to bring power to the message. If we did not need to think about it, if we just responded instinctively, then we might not really be getting much of a communication. I see a stop sign. I read a weather report that says it is cloudy with a high of 80. I hear my alarm or the beep for a new message. I feel the shake of a hand at the office. These are so rote. These require very little interpretation because everyone [many] will interpret them as such. Stop. the weather. Wake up. Hello. And the intended message were those things. Now graffitti. Now a haiku. Now a piece of music. Suddenly they may be relatively easily interpreted or they may not, but the require some extra connection. They may not even be interpreted the same way even given time and attention. Reaction is different than interpretation of course. Anyway, that’s what Im going with.