do you need a concept of art to do art, or appreciate art, by whatever name, i’m suggesting no name, possibly even art without a working concept of art, would it still be art, can whatever still be art

has all the best art been done by artists, that qualifies, or are there a lot that wasn’t done by artists, or does some thing become art by someone deciding it’s artistic

further, how cerebral does whatever need be, to qualify, or impactful in some aesthetic way

what was it called before there was a word for it, has there universally been names and a similar word-concept, or word indicating category, across all cultures through history, for it

what’s the simplest art possible, is it audible perhaps, the noises two primates make during sexual intercourse maybe

Shouldn’t this be in the amateur artsronomy thread?

transition said:

do you need a concept of art to do art, or appreciate art, by whatever name, i’m suggesting no name, possibly even art without a working concept of art, would it still be art, can whatever still be art

has all the best art been done by artists, that qualifies, or are there a lot that wasn’t done by artists, or does some thing become art by someone deciding it’s artistic

further, how cerebral does whatever need be, to qualify, or impactful in some aesthetic way

what was it called before there was a word for it, has there universally been names and a similar word-concept, or word indicating category, across all cultures through history, for it

what’s the simplest art possible, is it audible perhaps, the noises two primates make during sexual intercourse maybe

You only need a name when you need to inform others. However when you are dealing with scientific concepts they need to be named and recorded as others need to know in order to build upon them.

transition said:

do you need a concept of art to do art, or appreciate art, by whatever name, i’m suggesting no name, possibly even art without a working concept of art, would it still be art, can whatever still be art

has all the best art been done by artists, that qualifies, or are there a lot that wasn’t done by artists, or does some thing become art by someone deciding it’s artistic

further, how cerebral does whatever need be, to qualify, or impactful in some aesthetic way

what was it called before there was a word for it, has there universally been names and a similar word-concept, or word indicating category, across all cultures through history, for it

what’s the simplest art possible, is it audible perhaps, the noises two primates make during sexual intercourse maybe

> art without a working concept of art, would it still be art.

Well. A meme without a working concept of meme would still be a meme. I see no reason why that concept shouldn’t be extended to art.

But what is art. There may be different and conflicting interpretations. eg. try these definitions for size:

• Any skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice.
• Art holds a mirror up to nature.
• The expression or application of creative skill and imagination, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

So the different sides of art are creativity, skilfulness, beauty (aesthetic) and emotional power (impactful).

I personally see art as balance. The more balanced a composition, the closer it approaches fine art.

> how cerebral does whatever need be, to qualify

See “balance”.
I personally find that in order to be artistic, I have to switch off logic. It also helps me if I switch off all extraneous input. I play better music when blindfolded and paint better in an acoustically quiet environment.