I don't see where beauty has much to do with it...If one picks what is a noble, or perhaps, a worthy subject, and art is subject, and it is not beautiful, but terrible, then beauty would hardly be a part of the art...

I've always thought that art is anything which inspires beauty...
Just anything you stop to look at and think, wow
That can be something natural, like a sunset, or the Mona Lisa, whatever, if it makes you stop and stare, and gives you those shivers down your spine, its art.

A little crude, but that's my personal opinion.

And then there's art as an institution. Here, its difficult to say. There's a very thin line which has become more and more blurred. To begin with, art was the only way of representing reality, it had a purpose. Then you get the camera and some big changes start to happen. Art doesn't need to represent reality anymore, you have pictures for that, it needs to serve some other purpose, maybe to make you think or feel, take Picasso and the cubists. Then you get Warhol et al, and art is suddenly about the celebrity - 'Everything the artist spits is art' - Duchamp.
And it just goes downhill from there...
In fact, as soon as art no longer had a purpose, it was a downhill slope to where we are today, nowadays who even knows what art is? We know only what we're told, and we're told it by people who accept anything they don't understand as art - both for fear of looking stupid and for the masses of money they're going to make.

You want to know what art is - well to be honest, its an institution, nothing more.

With art, I would be inclined to say its purpose was to produce beauty.

.Life is the prize that goes to those who see clearly...

I suppose it depends on your definition of what art is, what its purpose is...
With other subjects its usually easy to say, for example the maths and sciences have various practical purposes. With art, I would be inclined to say its purpose was to produce beauty.

But i suppose this is also flawed, because if a particular branch of maths isn't practically useful, that doesn't mean its not maths, so perhaps you could say that just because a work of art isn't beautiful that doesn't mean its not art.

This seems a contradiction though, because, for me, art and beauty are one and the same... Perhaps my definition of art does need some readjusting then.

However, I don't think I could ever consider anything ugly art. I suppose all it comes down to is your personal opinion of what art is... To me, it is something that is beautiful, i suppose this is very crude, but i can't imagine ever appreciating an ugly work of art!

Every art needs its purpose... People need a Purpose... They just can't say I am and so what...They have to have a purpose so they can get paid so they can buy more life to have a purpose in..But art does not need a purpose...Art is what it is.. It defines itself so we don't have to.. It is infinite.

Nice, Fido! But I would say that it defines us in defining itself, that art is one of the ways man defines himself.

All those paintings of Jesus are paintings of us at our best.

Poor pitiful man... What did he do to deserve that... What did they all do???

Born mortal! Just like us. Jesus is the myth of the God who dies. The only honest story of God. The rest is superstition. But of course this perfect myth was also turned to superstition. The whole point of it was simple, that god is just a man, and not only a man but a criminal, a reviled philosopher...

yes, it's mixed w/ a lot of crap, but that's what they do. They bury the diamonds in excrement. Lord knows they don't want the slaves to get wind that they are just as much God as their masters..

This is why Zizek, a political radical, recently published a book called "the Fragile Absolute" about the radical core of Christian myth. Zizek is also a Hegel man. I know you think about politics. Zizek wrote a great book called "The Ticklish Subject.' Check it!

The ticklish subject: the absent ... - Google Books
The fragile absolute: or, why is the ... - Google Books

He was a philosopher and a humorist... The world will never have enough of those and it already has too many Gods.

I think, if you agree with D.H. Lawrence; then American liturature is all about death. I think, as a people, we are fascinated with death. But; for the artist, death is a huge exclamation point that shines a great light at all one does and all of ones struggles. I don't think there is any beauty in death, though plenty of mystery. I have killed, animals, and perhaps some defensless fetus, but I have always went to one too many funerals; and now I can hardly kill a fly or a mouse without an apology to nature. If there were no one to make a big deal over death, who could see ones accomplishments in the short span of life we have; then death would be entirely without meaning. It is not a question of what is the sting of death, or how pretty is her face. Death is only a reminder to get up and keep moving, so that while we live we can improve, and soften, and medicate, and mend the human condition. While we live we can do good, and some times that good is art. In the broader sense, no art is as essential as living a good life, with few injuries to mankind or to nature; and that is the art of which we should become masters.

There is too much evidence that he did exist... Besides, no one ever gets a joke without a joker, and he had a million of them, folks...The Greek influence through Macedonia, even after the Maccabees was extreme, and Paul, one of the most pivital people in history was rich with Greek influence...Nietzsche was right to key into him as he did, and Paul is like Plato to Socrates... What would we know about Socrates without Plato... That knowledge is virtue??? What would we have of Jesus if Spinmaster Paul had not got him first???

Is art subjective? Are there boundaries? What makes "good" art and "bad" art?

It is evident that none of the rules of composition are fixed by reasonings a priori, or can be esteemed abstract conclusions of the understanding, from comparing those habitudes? and relations of ideas, which are eternal and immutable. Their foundation is the same with that of all the practical sciences, experience; nor are they any thing but general observations, concerning what has been universally found to please in all countries and in all ages. ...

...

But though all the general rules of art are founded only on experience and on the observation of the common sentiments of human nature, we must not imagine, that, on every occasion, the feelings of men will be conformable to these rules. Those finer emotions of the mind are of a very tender and delicate nature, and require the concurrence of many favourable circumstances to make them play with facility and exactness, according to their general and established principles. The least exterior hindrance to such small springs, or the least internal disorder, disturbs their motion, and confounds the operation of the whole machine. When we would make an experiment of this nature, and would try the force of any beauty or deformity, we must choose with care a proper time and place, and bring the fancy to a suitable situation and disposition. A perfect serenity of mind, a recollection of thought, a due attention to the object; if any of these circumstances be wanting, our experiment will be fallacious, and we shall be unable to judge of the catholic and universal beauty. The relation, which nature has placed between the form and the sentiment, will at least be more obscure; and it will require greater accuracy to trace and discern it. We shall be able to ascertain its influence not so much from the operation of each particular beauty, as from the durable admiration, which attends those works, that have survived all the caprices of mode and fashion, all the mistakes of ignorance and envy.

...

It appears then, that, amidst all the variety and caprice of taste, there are certain general principles of approbation or blame, whose influence a careful eye may trace in all operations of the mind. Some particular forms or qualities, from the original structure of the internal fabric, are calculated to please, and others to displease; and if they fail of their effect in any particular instance, it is from some apparent defect or imperfection in the organ. A man in a fever would not insist on his palate as able to decide concerning flavours; nor would one, affected with the jaundice, pretend to give a verdict with regard to colours. In each creature, there is a sound and a defective state; and the former alone can be supposed to afford us a true standard of taste and sentiment. If, in the sound state of the organ, there be an entire or a considerable uniformity of sentiment among men, we may thence derive an idea of the perfect beauty; in like manner as the appearance of objects in day-light, to the eye of a man in health, is denominated their true and real colour, even while colour is allowed to be merely a phantasm of the senses.

...

Many and frequent are the defects in the internal organs, which prevent or weaken the influence of those general principles, on which depends our sentiment of beauty or deformity. Though some objects, by the structure of the mind, be naturally calculated to give pleasure, it is not to be expected, that in every individual the pleasure will be equally felt. Particular incidents and situations occur, which either throw a false light on the objects, or hinder the true from conveying to the imagination the proper sentiment and perception.

One obvious cause, why many feel not the proper sentiment of beauty, is the want of that delicacy of imagination, which is requisite to convey a sensibility of those finer emotions. This delicacy every one pretends to: Every one talks of it; and would reduce every kind of taste or sentiment to its standard. But as our intention in this essay is to mingle some light of the understanding with the feelings of sentiment, it will be proper to give a more accurate definition of delicacy, than has hitherto been attempted. And not to draw our philosophy from too profound a source, we shall have recourse to a noted story in Don Quixote.7

It is with good reason, says Sancho to the squire with the great nose, that I pretend to have a judgment in wine: This is a quality hereditary in our family. Two of my kinsmen were once called to give their opinion of a hogshead, which was supposed to be excellent, being old and of a good vintage. One of them tastes it; considers it; and after mature reflection pronounces the wine to be good, were it not for a small taste of leather, which he perceived in it. The other, after using the same precautions, gives also his verdict in favour of the wine; but with the reserve of a taste of iron, which he could easily distinguish. You cannot imagine how much they were both ridiculed for their judgment. But who laughed in the end? On emptying the hogshead, there was found at the bottom, an old key with a leathern thong tied to it.

The great resemblance between mental and bodily taste will easily teach us to apply this story. Though it be certain, that beauty and deformity, more than sweet and bitter, are not qualities in objects, but belong entirely to the sentiment, internal or external; it must be allowed, that there are certain qualities in objects, which are fitted by nature to produce those particular feelings. Now as these qualities may be found in a small degree, or may be mixed and confounded with each other, it often happens, that the taste is not affected with such minute qualities, or is not able to distinguish all the particular flavours, amidst the disorder, in which they are presented. Where the organs are so fine, as to allow nothing to escape them; and at the same time so exact as to perceive every ingredient in the composition: This we call delicacy of taste, whether we employ these terms in the literal or metaphorical sense. Here then the general rules of beauty are of use; being drawn from established models, and from the observation of what pleases or displeases, when presented singly and in a high degree: And if the same qualities, in a continued composition and in a smaller degree, affect not the organs with a sensible delight or uneasiness, we exclude the person from all pretensions to this delicacy. To produce these general rules or avowed patterns of composition is like finding the key with the leathern thong; which justified the verdict of Sancho's kinsmen, and confounded those pretended judges who had condemned them. Though the hogshead had never been emptied, the taste of the one was still equally delicate, and that of the other equally dull and languid: But it would have been more difficult to have proved the superiority of the former, to the conviction of every by-stander. In like manner, though the beauties of writing had never been methodized, or reduced to general principles; though no excellent models had ever been acknowledged; the different degrees of taste would still have subsisted, and the judgment of one man been preferable to that of another; but it would not have been so easy to silence the bad critic, who might always insist upon his particular sentiment, and refuse to submit to his antagonist. But when we show him an avowed principle of art; when we illustrate this principle by examples, whose operation, from his own particular taste, he acknowledges to be conformable to the principle; when we prove, that the same principle may be applied to the present case, where he did not perceive or feel its influence: He must conclude, upon the whole, that the fault lies in himself, and that he wants the delicacy, which is requisite to make him sensible of every beauty and every blemish, in any composition or discourse.

...

Here are excerpts from the best essay I have read on the subject:



Online Library of Liberty - ESSAY XXIII: OF THE STANDARD OF TASTE - Essays Moral, Political, Literary (LF ed.)

gobedlygook....The more words you use the less you have to say...

It's a case for there being an objectiveness to artistic standards... the existence of a more correct assessment.

If you're cross-eyed, you're probably not going to be the best judge of visual art. The Don Quixote story says that the poorer judges were just going by what what was assumed to be true.

On the other hand, the cross-eyed judge isn't seeing the same work of art as the straight-eyed. A certain piece might actually look better cross-eyed.

It's a case for there being an objectiveness to artistic standards... the existence of a more correct assessment.

If you're cross-eyed, you're probably not going to be the best judge of visual art. The Don Quixote story says that the poorer judges were just going by what what was assumed to be true.

On the other hand, the cross-eyed judge isn't seeing the same work of art as the straight-eyed. A certain piece might actually look better cross-eyed.

Is art subjective? Are there boundaries? What makes "good" art and "bad" art?

Imo it's 2 things.

For the elite:
- anything which you can convince them is great art (the are many extremely naive and group think people)
- that which is expensive
- that which the others wants
- individualistic
- functionallity is a very low priority, most times not even considerd

For the ignorent mob:
- usually that which looks good
- that which can stimulate your senses well
- functionallity may be a factor, but not a nessessty

Does art have boundaries? Can something cease to be considered art? I think this is an excellent addition to whether or not art is subjective, Lore. Lets presume that the greatest painting in the world had been created? leaving aside the argument that this is relative. No one has seen this piece of art? and, to put the hypothetical more abstractly, not even the artist? perhaps the painting conceived itself. Now lock that painting away in a room never to be seen again.

Is it still art??????