Rethinking art: the praxeology of art.

Miscellaneous General
,
1

I was reading a short book on aesthetics and theories of it and began a discussion of it with my girlfriend.

She made some very interesting points and I’m always open to new ways of thinking about things as long as they aren’t too kooky or aren’t statist in any way.The way she described art made it sound praxeology.

some points she made :

  • art is process of doing something
  • art is not something you make (that is called the product) but something you do e.g. the art of painting ,art of driving or art of swimming.
  • It’s praxeological in that it’s an action which requires means aimed at a goal.
  • art isn’t necessarily about the product merely the goal e.g. the goal of swimming could be to improve or to win a competition or to go up in rankings or to just feel satisfied with performance.
  • Good art is achieving the goal aimed at that the person(artist) aims for however if the audience assumes the goals of the artist have not been achieved then they perceive it as bad art such as with the swimmer if they think the goal is coming first then they would think it’s bad art when infact the artist aimed at improving on their time in a race.
  • in this way something can be good AND bad art at the same time.
  • Whether something is good or bad art also changes over time in certain cases e.g. a building.If a shed is wellmade,sturdy etc it is good art as the goals were achieved however over time as it falls apart rots etc then it becomes bad art.
  • All of this means art is merely another action among a range of activites
  • this means Everything is art

I’m not sure what to make of it.It sounds very familiar and sort of reasonable.I have felt for quite some time that aesthetic value is not objective but merely a subjective matter of taste.

It could also be that all art is an economic good and as such it’s value is subjective.(I think that fits with the praxeological theory of art ,my girlfriend believes in)

what do you think about this?

2

“art of driving”

Problem right there. Now I know you could say “the art of driving”, but that refers to something entirely different than music/painting/writing etc. It would be better to say “methods of driving”. You are presupposing a definition while you are trying to define art. If art isn’t something you make, then everything and anything is art, or at least what you “feel” to be art is art. This is a Dada type answer to “What is art?” Your reasoning here is based upon the whole “art is not something you make” which in turn is based purely upon the fact that some people say “the art of horseback riding” etc. It is misleading because saying a painting is art refers to something completely different saying than swimming is art (assuming it’s not “dance swimming”). Why is art “something you do”?

Based on what I said here, it also should be clear that “what is art” relates heavily to whatever theory of concepts you may believe. If you are a nominalist, I’m sure you would throw out a lot of what I just said.

Whatever you think defines art, it does not make much sense to suggest that art is not limited to creation. There wouldn’t even be a point to saying something is art other than you like the way it sounds.

3

First remember these are not exactly my views.Just views my girlfriend said that I found rather interesting and though I would write up here.

I’m not sure if I completely agree with them.I understand this perspective is surprising.It was a new way of seeing things for me too.I mean I’ve gone from the randian idea that there can be an objective basis for art to a more subjectivist view that art is a taste or preference and never a fact.

"You are presupposing a definition while you are trying to define art. "

I think I know what you mean.

are you saying where I wrote “art is a process, an act” , that if art = process then essentially I’ve said a process(what is here called ‘art’) is a process

(a tautology I believe it’s called)

is that what you mean?If so then I see your reasoning and this is a HUGE problem that I’m embarrassed to say I overlooked.

if not ,could you please explain further.

“Now I know you could say “the art of driving”, but that refers to something entirely different than music/painting/writing etc.”

now I know what you mean by this BUT what if we only divide these two kinds of activites on an arbritrary basis(do we divide them up possibly for semantic reasons).There is skill involved in each both are actions and processes.

" If art isn’t something you make, then everything and anything is art,"

Maybe there is some confusion in my wording. When I wrote art isn’t something you make I meant art isn’t a poem or a painting ,art is making that poem or painting I didn’t mean art is not a process of creation.I would think since things like trees or nature in general do not have a consciousness that would imply they cannot act in a purposeful way so cannot act thus cannot be/make art.

does this theory imply everything other than things such as those mentioned above are art? Yes. I stated that above in the list as one of the conclusions of my Girlfriends’ theory.

"or at least what you “feel” to be art is art. "

This is a Dada type answer to “What is art?” Your reasoning here is based upon the whole “art is not something you make” which in turn is based purely upon the fact that some people say “the art of horseback riding” etc.

It is misleading because saying a painting is art refers to something completely different saying than swimming is art (assuming it’s not “dance swimming”).

Why is art “something you do”?

hmm.good question.I’m not exactly sure.

Like I say ,it’s her theory not mine.I don’t think of myself as Dada or postmodernism.I’m very much opposed to that though I admit this does sound slightly like that.

“Based on what I said here, it also should be clear that “what is art” relates heavily to whatever theory of concepts you may believe. If you are a nominalist, I’m sure you would throw out a lot of what I just said.”

True.I’m not a nominalist though I’m a moderate realist about universals and a realist about reality in general.

4

I meant that you used the word art in your explanation of one theory of art. You said “art of painting” and “art of driving”. Why is painting art? Why is driving art? That’s what you’re trying to answer in the first place. You can’t go onto the other steps until you better define art. As you said, you don’t know the answer (right now, anyway) to why “Art is a process of doing something”.

You said art is a “process of doing something”, which implies even dogs/bees/cats/dolphins/trees make art. If you mean “process of human action”, that makes some more sense, but if that’s all it is, why even have the word art? Also, I should note, by trying to define art, you are providing an objective basis for art. A subjectivist view would be a Dadaist one: whatever you want it to be. (I should saying what art is has nothing to do with what your tastes are. You can say “that’s good” without liking it. You can say “that’s art” and hate looking at it. I think you are approaching this from a perspective of taste [emotion] rather than facts)

5
6

You can say “that’s good” without liking it.

I don’t think that is exactly a value judgment. Saying it’s “good” does not necessarily mean you like it, it means it is good for a particular purpose. That purpose can only be understood with a definition of art.

For example, there is plenty of food I’ve had that I know is well made by an objective standard based on my sense of taste. That doesn’t mean I enjoy the taste. I do not look at measuring art in any other way. I think I can see then why you’d lean towards saying measuring art is purely subjective, but that’s only the case if you measure based off of emotion.

7

Your girlfriend’s explanation is missing the point of expression. It isn’t art until a value or emotion or feeling or idea is trying to be expressed. The question “what is art?” was really the focus of the avant-garde. Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain was nothing more than a urinal. However, it became art the moment it was used symbolically and expressed an idea. That idea was simply that an everyday object could function as art.

My degree is in Music Theory and Composition so I spent much of my life dealing with these kind of question. Good or bad art is a whole different beast. To say that something could be both at the same time is a boring idea. Of course some people may like a song while others hate it. The artist reaching his goal is but one tiny measure of how good the art may be.

8
9