concept.

So, as any person knows, most art gets conceived in the mind. The author creates his plot in the brain, same with the artist and the painting, and the musician with the music. Now, lets take a moment to think about it. The idea of that piece of art is already lodged in that artists noggin. All an artist does is bring what he experiences in his mind to a physical medium (or auditory in the case of musicians). So, the art must therefore exist before it is brought to the world of the senses. So, my question is, is the pre-existing idea that is lodged in an artists brain art? Take for example this: Suppose that at some point we invent a device that allows us to peer into anothers mind and see in our own heada what they are thinking. Now, suppose we use that device on a painter who has an amazing idea for a masterpiece. Would that mental image of the masterpiece be considered art even though it is not brought into sensory form yet?

Does art need criticism?

That is the question that was asked by my classmate Hannah. And to answer it, I would say that no, art does not need criticism to function art. I believe that art can survive without anybody criticising or critiquing it. Art, in my opinion, is art upon the creation of it. It might be horrible art, but it still is art. Criticism in itself cannot make a piece of nonart art. If an object is concieved, possibly then the critic might be able to decide whether it is art or not, but he would not be able to say "well, this right now is nonart but if you do this, then it will be considered art."
 Is there a 'barrier' between art and nonart? Do thngs have to be one or another? or are things more muddled then that, and can they be mixed?

Denise's question

In her blog post, Denise asked a very good question "What do you consider to be your art?"
Honestly, I think my art isn't very artistic in nature and it might sound very cliche, but I think my art lies in the realm of listening.  I know how to listen to people, pick up on key things that they say and can even infer from what they are saying to problems more complex in their roots. And by using this art of listening, I can then formulate a much better response and am able to help more people than someone who just listens to one's superficial statements.  
In fact all a conversation is, could be interpreted as verbal art. One person speaks, conveying with it imagery and emotions behind each word, the listener then interprets the statement the other makes and formulates a response to it using their own artistic style and flair. The process then repeats.
If a conversation is art, then couldn't a debate be considered a clash of artists?

Imitation

So, it is a well known fact that artists like to imitate other artists styles, or use influences from others in their own work inn order to create their own piece. Musicians and artists do it all the time. But, can an artist imitate their own work? For example, can an author create a book that imitates their own style, but isn't? Or would it be considered just their own style?

Too much quiet.

This post isn't really about art, but this is an appeal to my other students in my art and philosophy class. I have noticed that very few of us actually do end up talking in that class. The discussion always seems to be dominated by a few speakers and everyone else just sits back.  As a student who enjoys the class, I am tired of hearing points brought up by the same classmates over and over. I would like to appeal to my fellow classmates to speak out more. I am sure we all have different points of view and questions that can get our class involved in the discussion and make it enjoyable for all of us. It is no fun when only a few voices speak up. Plus when one is involved, one usually is more entertained than when one just sits there. Think about it.
Question: please?

A response to Denise's Question

In her recent blog, Denise asks an interesting question "If art is an abstract concept, how can we describe it without examples and anecdotes?"  I would have to say that this is indeed impossible and we can not. Well, at least right now.  Art, in my opinion, is as hard as defining the color blue.  One can not possibly describe the color blue to someone who has never seen blue before.  Art is the same way, if one has not seen it, it is near impossible to describe what art is to them.  One could say it is putting ons emotions or intention onto a medium, but they would have no idea what that meant, just like saying blue is a primary color that resonates at a high wavelength frequency means nothing to a blind person.
Although this might be a bit of topic, my question is might art have a more biological origin?

Interesting survey I did.

So, I was curious about what some of my friends thought the meaning of art was, so I asked thirteen of my friends who come from all different backgrounds what they thought the definition of art was. These were the results. I used two letters at the front of each definition are the intitials of the friend that responded to my question.

MF-art is being creative, making something new

BM-art, is similar to music, only pretained to the visual rather than audio senses. Art, is any object that makes an emotional connection when viewed, and may depend on the individual as to whether or not the object can be classified as art.

AR-art is how someone can show their feelings

MC-art is anything you create thats from your heart and soul

JM-art is an expression of yourself

JS- art is the tangible creation of a persons consious/unconcious. it needs to have thought and passion to be art

CW-art is an expression of emotion, or passion that someone feels for something

AB-art is a creation of a product

RVW-art is anything that someone finds to be captivating

SR-art is any visual or auditory medium that shows some sort of complex knowledge of the aspects of it's medium that elicits some sort of emotional response from the observer

OG- art is self expression..of emotions and opinions. things that are hard to put into words...we put into creation (paintings, music...which includes words but melodies help 'paint the picture' as well)

BS-art is an human expresion in terms of taking a medium and useing to produce a item that gives you feeling

AW-art is a way to express emotion. usually resulting in something beautiful or unique

So, my question to you, my fellow bloggers, readers, and strangers is, what do YOU think art is?

A response to Duncans Question

My colleague Duncan Baxter asked a rather interesting question: Do you think it could be said that it is the critics who control the trends and direction of the arts, rather than the artists themselves? I would have to say that this is indeed the case. They might not control 100 percent of it, but they definitely control a lot more than critics, in my opinion, should.  Critics are a lot public than other artists are, except possibly for musicians and actors. Critics also get famous by their critiques and opinions on art, so they have much more of an influence on shaping public opinion on the arts than others do. Although, I am not sure if this is a good or bad thing, I do realize that this means the artworld is heavily influenced by the acts of a few.
Would it be a bad thing if critics did indeed control the artistic world, which they might actually be doing?

Comedy

Comedy, in my opinion is indeed an artform. I believe that comedy is very different from other types though.  Comedy is basically the art of finding humor in a given object, person or situation.  And unlike other styles of art, comedy can only draw upon silliness and absurdity. That in itself makes it stand out because all other artforms can draw on various emotions like sorrow, anger, joy, hatred, serentity, and many others. Comedy in this sense is limited then. another limitation of this style of art is that it requires the audience to be a lot more involved than in other styles of art. If the audience doesn't get the joke the art is lost on them. So therefore, Comedy is a lot more difficult than others as well.
Now, going along with objectivity and Hume, since Hume says that art is a matter of taste and only certain tastes are objectly right, does that mean people could have an incorrect sense of humor?

Response to Denises question

My colleague Denise asks a very interesting question. "If art encourages us to break our moral code, should it still be considered art?"  My answer to this question is yes.  Art, in my opinion should not be judged on based on what message it preaches.  As long as the art has good quality and conveys an emotion, I would definitely consider it art. It might not be likable art, but still art, nonetheless. This actually makes me think a bit of propaganda art. Art used in Nazi Germany to produce feelings of anti-antisemitism and  nationalism. Now although I do not agree with these feelings, I wonder, would art made to promote propaganda if it was made by a mass government to manipulate the masses still be considered art?