So I made a further discussion in a very logic way and found something fallacy of the statement. This is the inference I made:
Whoever makes art is an artist. (or " whoever makes a lot of art is an artist".)
àArtist makes art.
àWhatever an artist makes is an art. (or with announcement of the artist)
To show the logic fallacy that happens on the arrow, I can simply prove it by replace the nouns in the sentences. (I wish my English is fine that won't make confusion. The
"good " I mean is virtues thing.)
Whoever does good act is a good person. (or " whoever does a lot of good acts is a good man".)
àGood person does good acts.
àWhatever a good person does is a good act. (or with an announcement of the good person)
It is apparent that not all acts a good person does will be good acts. There are acts that do not relate to good or bad, such as stand up, sit down, and close the door. Even with the announcement of the person, these acts won't be considered as good acts but neutral acts.
As a result, we can find out that there are other ways for us to distinguish if the act is good or bad, and NOT because of whom did the act.
The same logic structure can be applied to the statement we have previously. When we try to distinguish if the object or act is an art or not, we should ask for the reason, not the producer.
I do not try to discuss how to define what is art, because I think people have different answers. I am just trying to demonstrate in a logic way that if you think a stuff is an art, it shouldn't just because of the person who made it is an artist.
While I like your analysis and agree to some extent, there is still the problem of defining what art is or isn't. Just about everything can be art in certain contexts. If an artist defines whatever she does as art, the concept can be accepted as art. It becomes an idea that lives as a work of art. If we can accept the concept as art, don't we have to also accept the reality that the concept is based on, that everything that person does is art?
ReplyDeleteThe truth-values cannot compare - one joins with material conditional and the other does not respond to the same truth-functional operators. It is not a semantically complete formal system, because the tautologies of "artist" or "art" are not always theorems ... eww ... and this is why we are artists ... if it is true that what we do is art :)
ReplyDeleteif and only if ....
ReplyDeleteI believe that art is made for a reason, any reason, but there has to be some of the artist's hand or other tool that is manipulated to produce a work that has a context. This could be simple or very complex.In a recent class discussion the topic is about authenticity, and honesty. If I place an object on a pedestal and call it art does not work for me, as Marcel Duchamp did that 100 years ago. It was art then because of his concept and no one had done so before. One could do that now, but there has to be a deeper reason for doing so to avoid being labeled as a fake artist. I feel that there has to be some developed skills, and craft in a piece to be true art. The aesthetics of skill and craft can be very rough and raw, or very clean and tight depending on the meaning and context of the work.
ReplyDelete