The combination of aesthetics and craftsmanship. Note the craftsmanship part.
You cannot have art without aesthetics, but then aesthetics are subjective. But you also cannot have art without craftsmanship, and that is NOT subjective. A crumpled piece of paper on a pedestal in a gallery or a flaming bag of poo on your front porch may have tons of aesthetics for someone. But neither has a modicum of craftsmanship. So neither is art.
Several people (including your own lovely self) have defined “art” or “not art” as being based on the perceived quality of the work. A can of feces is not art, because you don’t like it or whatever.
I think the Mona Lisa is trite. If I owned it, its sole value to me would be resale, as I don’t particularly aesthetically appreciate it. Under some definitions in this thread, it’s therefore not art because I say so, and further I’d be a con man and a faker for selling it to someone for millions.
From dictionary.com
Craftsman:
…
Sounds pretty subjective to me (not to mention circular).
All this time, and you still don’t understand that these are both the same question?
If it is the same question, it is kinda funny to what lengths the poster I was responding to was going in order to avoid saying it wasn’t art.
… one who creates or performs with skill or dexterity especially in the manual arts
Maybe you should write another letter to Merriam-Webster editors.
I don’t think that’s an accurate description of what Hamster King has been saying in this thread. Perhaps you have him confused with a different poster?
Still sounds pretty subjective.
I mean, have you ever TRIED to poop in a can? There’s some serious dexterity involved.
No, not because I don’t like it. Because it involves no craftsmanship to create it.
I am not a big fan of Pollock - but his paintings involved craftsmanship, and if I just tried throwing paint around I wouldn’t be able to do anything as good. But I can crumple paper and crap in a can with the best of them.
The entire time I’ve been reading this thread I’ve been picturing how to do that. The way that my can opener works creates a sharp edge all around the top. There’s no way I would squat over that, not even for all the artistic accolades in the world.
That’s one of the definitions. As you so helpfully pointed out, some words have more than one definition. Or are you the sole arbiter of which definition we’re all using in this conversation?
Let’s go with your definition, then. Are you saying that music is not art?
Now let’s look at “skill”:
1 obsolete : cause, reason
2 a : the ability to use one’s knowledge effectively and readily in execution or performance
b : dexterity or coordination especially in the execution of learned physical tasks
3: a learned power of doing something competently : a developed aptitude or ability <language skills>
Still sounds pretty damn subjective.
I am the sole arbiter of which definition I’m using in MY definition.
Music is. 4’33" isn’t.
So music is a manual art?
Also, can you tell me what definition of “skill” you are using?
Creating (and playing) music requires craftsmanship. As the definition of craftsmanship I gave you says, it is not limited to “manual arts”.
“expertise” or “expertness”.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skill
So it only rises to the level of art if it is excellent?
Next one: what do you mean by “excellence”?
“expertness”
If I enjoy the result, why does it matter how much skill it took to produce it?
Intellectual appreciation of the craftsmanship behind a piece is certainly ONE way to engage with art, but it’s not the only way. And it runs the risk of reducing art to a technical stunt.
Expertness at what?
To expand on this (excuse my scattershot responses; I’m multitasking), are you saying that my beginning students, who are certainly not experts, are not making music when they sing? When does something rise to the level of “expertness”?