Intro to Aesthetics | Philosophy Tube

If I asked you to show me some art, you’d probably be able to do it. You might have some favourite pieces or know something about
the history of art. But if I was an alien from another planet and I asked you to define art – could you do it? Philosophers have been attempting to define art for a long time, and it turns out it’s actually really bloody difficult to do. There are
lots of different types of theories and each one has its own pros and cons. So we’re gonna take a quick whistle-stop tour of some of the options. First up, Essentialism. If you are an essentialist you believe that all art has some feature, call it Feature X.
So the definition of art is just “Everything with Feature X.” And depending on what kind
of essentialist you are you might have different ideas about what that feature is. The trouble is, there’s so many different kinds of art, and people are always making new kinds of it that it might be difficult to find one feature that all artworks have in common. To illustrate this problem I’ve brought along a few examples. So these are some song lyrics in a frame that a friend gave to me because the song has a particular meaning to us. This is a sign that says, “Mike’s “Drive In” Hot Dogs: 5 cents” This is a drawing that someone did in pen of a town in Scotland. This is a painting that I did, actually, it’s a painting of some flowers. And this is a map of my home county that I display on my wall. This is a bull made of glass that I got in Spain. This is a model of a saxophone that somebody – ooo! That somebody made of scrap metal.
Ooh, that’s gonna fall apart… This is a book of poetry that my friend Carly wrote. And this is a copy of Mary Shelly’s “The Last Man.” All of these are very, very different things – so what’s the one feature that they all supposedly have in common? Next up, Functionalism. As you might have guessed from the name – Functionalists think that all art has some function, call it Y, and so the definition of art is just, “Everything that does Y.” And, a little bit like Essentialism, the problem is that art is so varied it might be difficult to find just one function. You’d also have to think about bad art. If it fails to achieve its function, does it still count as art? Changing tack slightly, there’s also Institutional
Theories. These say, surprise surprise, that art is defined by an institution. The most famous example of this theory comes from George Dickie, who said that art is whatever “the artworld” says it
is. That’s why there’s so much variation in art, because the artworld could point to literally anything and go, “Yeah, that counts.” Trouble is though is, who are the artworld? Who are these shadowy figures who get to decide what counts as art? And on what basis do they make their decision? If they have no reasons for picking the things that they do, well then concept of art is kindof arbitrary. Is that a major problem? And if they do have some reasons for their choices well then it’s not their choice that makes it art; it’s whatever it is about the art that
that reason relates to. Then there’s Historical Definitions. People
like Jerrold Levinson, who says that something is art if it fits into a recognised historical artistic tradition. Again though, a little bit like with the Institutional Definitions, how do we decide what counts as an artistic tradition without presupposing
some other definition of art? And what about the first ever works of art? They weren’t part of a historical tradition: they were brand new.
And if we found art that was made by aliens, would it not count as art because it doesn’t fit any recognised earthly historical tradition? Just so we’re clear, nobody’s saying that
any of these problems are impossible to solve. The philosophers who defend these various theories engage with these problems all the time. In fact, the definition of art that I defend is an essentialist one
and I think it works. But if you’re gonna defend any of these theories, these are the questions you need to be answering. And if you’re writing exams or essays on these subjects, these are useful things to bear in mind. And in fact, there’s one other major approach
worth considering, and that’s just giving up. I say giving up, but Anti-Essentialism
is the position that art can’t really be defined using traditional methods, so it’s not so much giving up as rejecting the question. Anti-essentialism was very popular in the late 20th Century. And it took a lot of clues from the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein famously examined the concept of ‘games,’ and said there isn’t really one thing that all games have in common. Football, Poker, “Knights of the Old Republic;” these are all games but you’d lose your mind trying to find the common feature.
He said that some games resemble each other, like golf kindof resembles football because they both use a ball. But there isn’t one essential feature of games. So the anti-essentialists said that art
is kindof the same. Some artworks resemble each other, like painting and tattooing
both involve using pigment, but there isn’t one feature that all artworks have in common. There isn’t one unifying thread. It’s more like a web
of family resemblances. Anti-essentialism has fallen out of fashion though because it does have some big problems. First of all, anything resembles anything if you just look hard enough. Like Plutonium resembles Oxygen because they’re both made of atoms. How do you decide which are the important resemblances? And Can you even do that whilst still maintaining as an anti-essentialist that there is no one thing that all art has in common? Also, try this one on for size. A resembles B, and B is a work of art, so A must also be a work of art. OK grand. But how do you know B is a work of art? How did you decide that? You can’t just keep going and say well because it resembles C, which resembles D, which resembles E, and so on forever! Or can you? Uggghhh, so we can’t even give up without encountering problems! Ok Ok, last one, last one. Pluralism: there are lots of different definitions of art, and we dip in and out of them as it suits us. Maybe the
definition of art is a little bit like the definition of the word ‘species.’ When you get right down to it, biologists use different definitions of ‘species’ depending on what field of biology they work in, because it’s actually really difficult to come up with a definition of the word ‘species’ that fits all organisms all the time. But biologists still manage to do their jobs despite that. So maybe the definition of art is similar. This is kindof similar to a thought by the philosopher William Kennick, who said that trying to define art was pretty much a pointless task. We have enough of an idea of what art means to be able to get on with our lives. Like if the art warehouse was burning down, and someone said to you, “Oh my God! Run in and save all the art!” You would know what they meant and you would know what you were supposed to do So, whatever the definition of art “really is” we kinda don’t need to know it. But although that’s a nice idea, when it comes to modern art it might
not actually be true, because in 2004 that actually happened. The Momart Warehouse in London burned down, and if you and I had been there and somebody said, “Run in and save the art!’ we might not have known what we were supposed to get because the Momart warehouse contained all kinds of weird and esoteric art pieces. There’s also that famous tweet that did the rounds ages ago about someone dropping a glove in the Museum of Modern Art and nobody was sure whether or not they were supposed to look at it! And there are lots of modern art pieces where people go, “Mmm, does that really count as art or not? I could have done that!” So there are occasions when having a robust definition of art might be really useful. In this video we’ve covered six different ways of trying to define art: we’ve discussed Essentialism, Functionalism, Definitions, Anti-Essentialism, and Pluralism. And we looked at the pros and cons of each. Tube is where you can help me give away more free education on the Internet; leave me a comment telling me what your favourite theory is, or maybe you can come up with your own. And, as always, don’t forget to subscribe.


  1. my definition of art would be anything made with purpose, for the benefit of an audience, or, if it never made it to an audience, at least something that could concievably be exhibited for an audience

  2. Art is a creation made or realized with the purpose of fulfilling some sort of expression more than a functional, everyday use.
    A hammer, for example, is not usually made with fulfilling some sort of expression, and are made with functionality in mind.
    A bedazzled hammer, in contrast, qualifies since the person bedazzling the hammer channeled expression through the bedazzles, for no other reason than to express it. Additionally, the bedazzling was not done to make the hammer more efficient or functional and has either a neutral or negative effect on its functionality.

  3. The first answer that came to my mind when you asked 'what is art?' is expression. An expression of an idea, concept or emotion or literally anything is art. Maybe that doesn't make sense, there are probably loads of flaws. Who tf knows

  4. I'm probably not the first person to come up with this and it sound like a softer version of intitutionalist theories but I think a useful way of defining art. Art is what ever a large enough number of people agree is art.

  5. I think essentialism is on to something – that as far as I can see it, what connects art is that they are a creation that represents a certain personal value. Every piece of art means something to the person who made it.

  6. I feel like art is whatever someone finds aesthetically pleasing. From a Monet to a can opener to a pepe meme, it's all art. The actual question is what art is valuable, and regardless of your theory on economics, some art is more valuable than others. The value of specific works of art is subjective, therefore art is inherently indefinable. Dude A thinks Piss Christ is aesthetically pleasing, dude B thinks Starry Night is aesthetically pleasing, dude c thinks a Riley Reid video is aesthetically pleasing, and dude D thinks a Brutalist courthouse in Cleveland is aesthetically pleasing. All are equally correct as to what is art, but the value of that art is up for debate.

  7. The thing all art has in common is people. Art doesn’t happen, it is made. And it is all made to communicate something abstract. Art without purpose isn’t art.

  8. Art is art because people that have created it decided to call it art. If someone calls it art, then it is art, because art is an idea, not an object. This can be seen in things such as Harsh Noise, where most would not agree, however the creator, as well as consumers, of harsh noise have decided to call it art.

  9. Boiled down, I'd say one of art's most important qualities is that it is a social exchange between individuals, where meaning is created, questioned, and/or considered. Not all things that exhibit these qualities have to be art of course, but for something to truly be art it must contain these things. If it doesn't then it's probably something else. An equally important quality is that both the creator and the viewer recognize the work through which this process takes place, and/or the process itself, as being art.

    I like testing this definition with propaganda. If the viewer perceives a work as art, but the author's intent was to create propaganda disguised as art, rather than a multi-directional exchange, it isn't art at all. The same can possibly go for the definition of games. If both parties don't consider the game a game, it's probably something else, even if one member considers it so. Think tag or hide and seek, both simulations of actually threatening circumstances.

    Fledgling and scattered thoughts on an old video, I know.

  10. I think I take an essentialist/anti-functionalist stance in that the essential feature that makes art art is its lack of function or well-defined utility in its purest isolated form, apart from leisure (which probably brings its own problems).

  11. Isn't the trouble that modern art brings intentional though? Artists are out there trying to subvert expectations and definitions and "push boundaries" and in that sense there will probably always be some art piece that frustrates definitions

  12. It can be a thing or a process or even a collection of words
    You can't define it because it itself is anti-definition
    If you can break it down and tear it apart till all you see is just intentions of someone or some people
    Well then that's just what you've done – broke it down and tore it apart

  13. Good old Wittgenstein.. I feel like a person who is anti-essentialist is merely saying that there is no essence, not there there aren't things in common. It's just that it isn't innate. ¯_(ツ)_/¯ I'm reminded of Diogenes here.. When Plato floated the definition of man as "featherless bipeds," Diogenes plucked a chicken and brought it into Plato's Academy, saying, "Behold! I've brought you a man!"

  14. Isn't stirring up the conversation about boundaries (for instance, what does and doesn't count as art) at least in part the point of some of the more conceptual modern art? Think Duchamp's Fountain, for instance.

  15. 4:20 Isn't the common feature of games just that you derive enjoyment from trying to reach a goal or goals that have no practical purpose? That's how I would define a game.

  16. i like "objects in service of ideas". objects not necessarily meaning physical objects, like, this applies to color and sound, but they are in service of ideas, conveying things that are more than the sum of their parts. even if its just a drawing of a person, that person is being conveyed through lines on a paper. its more than the sum of its parts, its representing the idea of that person via ink

  17. I would say everything can count as art. Whatever it is, someone can probably find meaning and beauty in everything. So there is nothing that noone can enjoy as art, making everything art.

  18. I find the question of what games have in common rather interesting, since the things you listed are called games in english, yes, but in my native language, for example, only Knights of the Old Republic and poker from your examples can be translated as being games; football and golf are sports and can only be referred to as such. We also have a separate word for the type of games children engage with.

  19. I always think of art as a thought manifested in the physical world. Whether or not everything created from a thought is art I'm not sure as that would make almost everything human-made art. If I think of making a cup of tea and then make one is that art? Maybe it is, though it is art that is just as fleeting as the thought that created it.

  20. I love M. Night Shyamalan's Last Airbender — superb film and art according to this institution that I call Me. In fact, Me loves most all of Shyamalan's films.

  21. Hmm. I think, for me, art is about conversation. Specifically, art produces some response in the viewer– I think anything can have artistic value based on what you see in it, what it makes you feel and think.

    I think you can also "do" art, in which case it's intended to provoke a conversation.

    The glove at the museum, for example– that wasn't intended to be art, and most people, as you said, were wondering if they were /supposed/ to be looking at it. They were thinking about themselves, not about any artistic value. You can walk straight past the Mona Lisa without a second glance if it doesn't provoke a response in you.

    (I know this is an old video, obviously, but I wanted to respond anyway 'cause I thought it was interesting)

  22. You are going to going a lot of trouble young man.
    For god sake you didn't mention or pick up that dusty ragged , musty smelling book by Art Bell. Its there where he explains everything that no one can understand and puts you to sleep after every 3rd line.

  23. I think what makes art art is largely its context. Two otherwise identical pieces could be art or not art, just from being in a different context. And that includes stuff like who currently is looking. I.e., while you could find some features or functions common in some subsets of art, where large parts of population (either general population or "The Art World") would agree "yes, this is art", ultimately it's a very personal notion. It just so happens that the least controversial pieces of art do tend to have similar properties, but I don't think you could, like, nail down necessary and sufficient conditions even for such uncontroversial pieces. The art producer and the art consumer both matter to whether something is art.

  24. Hahaha "OMG SAVE ALL THE ART" -> "You would know what is meant to do."
    Nope! There are, in fact, cases where, say, a janitor removed art because they thought it's literally garbage. Like, they didn't criticize it as bad art. They identified it as people littering up the place. So not even that will work.
    (Ok you gave another example)

  25. Art revolves around ways of communication eventually… Both art and design share a common feature of trying to convey something in one way or another.
    Design is constructed around functional art – It is supposed to do something… To serve for a certain goal, like, having someone recognize what the stop sign means.
    Design isn't always art, because many times it's pure utility… You can understand the message of it, yet, the message is eventually "Bathroom is here"… In other words, it's served as visual/audial/textural and ells communication.
    Art however, more leans towards communicating events, ideas, viewpoints, feelings and ells… The purpose might not serve any function at all… The artist might have drawn the piece without any thought of an audience, yet, the picture clearly conveys a message… Or, incapsulate a moment in time.

    If an alien specie comes, they might not even notice it at all… Because they perhaps do not communicate in such manners, or, with their form of senses, they might see something completely different than how we see it, hence, for them it might not be art at all, because it does not say anything to them.

    Sometimes though, art does not say anything at all… In which case, it's "Pure mechanics"… Pretty much, the idea is to impress people with your skill, similar to what people do in sports – push a skill to the limit, present capabilities, and show how far they can go.
    LIke, a person drawing a painting using a crane… While the picture at the end shows the skill behind it, and ends up being impressive to behold.
    So, it's "Mechanical art", pretty much, presenting how far we can push ourselves.

    Next, we have the very odd trend lately of the contemporary art… Where the message is mostly "We can use an object, and arbitrarily point a meaning into it", that ends up more expressing how little they actually have to express… It's trying to rival the idea of meaning, and eventually, trying to appear as if they are "beyond that" while ultimately, having something not actually worthy of display… Why?
    Because it's only "Art" as long as someone defines it as such, and place a price tag on it… In other words, taking out of the social context, you might not even look at it, due to it having absolutely no message to convey on it's own… Like, placing dirty clothing on display, and having a very long description… Or, just saying "it says something"…
    The idea of fighting the concept of giving a message to people, ends up with no message other than "We consider everything as special, and meaningful, and it does not need to convey any actual message"… Pretty much, their concept of art is to devalue the very concept of having the art convey anything at all… While trying to tell you that the material itself is the art.
    Well, the material itself is just that, material… You can make a salad out of vegetables, that salad won't have any additional meaning, just a combination of tastes.
    In visual art, if you make a statue, it might be impressive to make it out of toilet paper… But, if the only thing you have is piled up used toilet paper, with no formation… It'll look like garbage, because it does not say anything at all… It's just present there, while the artist attempts to deliver the meaning through external means… Like, the pile of toilet paper marks how little concern people pay to the filth they produce in the world?
    The attempt to deconstruct art ended up with us looking at very ugly things… Because the idea is to strip away everything, and leave you with either randomness or just them trying to tell you that you must accept everything as art, otherwise, you aren't good enough?

    It's just disgusting in my opinion.

  26. I wonder if the tacky necktie appearing in this video about art (and not your other videos, I think) is meant to be ironic or unironic…

  27. Art is everything associated with perception. Which is pretty much everything. When I get food poisoning and Jackson Pollack my toilet bowl that's art. The real question is what makes art valuable. Is there an objective way to define the characteristics of good taste singularly.

  28. In German, there is an interesting linguistical hint: the German word 'Kunst' is related to the German word 'können', which basically means 'to can' but is not as flippant; its use can also imply that you have a certain skill, nominalized as 'Können' it expresses your competence, as in 'Mein Können reicht nicht aus' which means 'I am not able/sufficiently skilled'.
    Similarly, the phrase 'Das ist keine Kunst' (literally 'This is no art', or rather 'This is not art' ?) means 'this is is easy, anyone could have done it'.
    The word 'Kunst' stems pretty much directly from the Old High German word 'kunst' which means something along the lines of 'knowledge, cognition' (and it still does today).
    'Kunst' is contrasted against experience or perception, sentiment, as being a matter of skill.

    This relation can also be seen in English, for instance in the class at Hogwarts 'Defence against the Dark Arts': here 'art' seems to refer to a certain class of ability.
    Perhaps this sounds rather noble?

  29. In my opinion, art is anything creatively made with the intention of making it beautiful, be that words or sculptures or paintings

  30. Would it be wrong to say that art is all things that are performed with the intent to evoke an emotional response?

  31. I'd argue that art is about the creative intention. For any given piece of art, a person has gone through the effort of creating it, or at the very least intentionally giving it new context, and declaring it a creative work.

  32. for me art is what you can call art
    like if I consider something an art then it's art (for me)
    If someone else consider is not art then it's not art (for them)

  33. The thing with art is that we have two concepts of art that we mix together.
    First: Art as the act of creating something that is an expression of a feeling/feeling for they joy of doing so.
    Second: Some form experience that stirs up feelings for some reason.

    If a modern piece of "art" does not stir up strong feelings inside you it may still be art for the creator, but then a different definition of art.
    When a designer designs a car that designer may do it just as a part of menial labor. So for that person it is not art. But for the buyer of that car it may be are in a different way.

  34. but… all games do very obviously share one unifying essential trait. They are all at their core simulated conflicts/problems that you, the player, seek to resolve/fix. Chess, football, KOTOR, poker, a footrace, WoW, solitaire… Everything and anything that can accurately be described as a game fits this criterion.

  35. Lemme see if I can take a crack at it:

    Art is a thing created by a sentient being intentionally that a separate person can find subjective appreciation in aesthetically or conceptually.

  36. Forgive me for not having the right names at hand. It's late. But in France at one point there was a group a clique ect that decided what art was. When impressionist came out they pooped on it said it wasnt art. I want to say the mans name starts with a D.. he believed in the impressionists he funded them. When he couldn't break thru the snotty French cliques he took the paintings to America. He almost went bankrupt supporting them. In America they were wonderfully recieved. If he had not almost lost everything to support them we may have been graced by some of the most breath taking impressionist painters. I would never leave it to "experts to define art". For me I defined art in 1st grade. The teacher scolded me for coloring my banana purple with orange spots my response to her was art has no rules. I still stand by my definition.

  37. The Symbiotic, Regenerative, DNA RNA Repairing biochem cellular functions, antioxidative, genomerepairing, genomecode functionupgrade transcripting.. from before survival evolution.. embrionic starts of functions wich are cutt of by quantitative over qualitative emergency responsive instructions in the genome from birth to reproduction misses the detail & functional reflection wich experience later in life uncovers.. wich means evolution is inherently blind to it's desired goals & purposes. As the objectives it misses are later on in the lifespan as they were corroded & sanded away by harsh survival & deeply & overly complex compromises.
    The measuring & reflection of learning is corrupted by datacontamination because of lacking tissue density & structural coherency. As such the human function is limited as it is scared by sensitory emotion & horrified by protocolair formalistic handeling without considerate relevance of respect interrefferentially as in function requires accurate upkeep.. As in curing infections & clearing obstructions rather than limiting functions wich reach out strongly.. reason, not the annoyance of Error..

  38. The appeal to the routines in the most basic senses in music & culture is a structural pain in the parts most lack attention to, and there is lack of developed character & weak sense of purpose in moet cultures too..
    As conflict is still seen as katalyst from wich me ignore the primitive conditioning & never research the workings of safe emulation. Because standardism & conditioning conformism beats all new innitiatives numb with the reason to comply. Yet the efforts to transcend our human nature are mocked by those who appeal to the powers of sensitory conformative programmative mainstream & surface emotions.
    Educational, research & university systems handle language & symbolism like standard plastic bricks wich are inherent their things in ways of are as handled. Detail to it's working functions as a logic of system method in measure referance & infrastructural handling & remodulative & composite restructurings..

  39. Standards symbolicbuildup definitions conclusions inherencies, ignored biochemical breathability of connective & transport of liquids, shielding from viral or phage or yeast or funghi or bacterial instructions wich harm or set back functionality.. rather than limiting glandular neurochemistry wich by infection or tissue problems causes various direct & hard primairy emotional responses..

  40. Perpetual biochemistry of healing bio-oils, enzymen, proteïnen, amino-acids, connective/tissue saturative healing peptides & symbiotica regenerative & anti-oxidation of tissue.. workercells restoren from Ancient genomen functiën in the body with DNA RNA repairing function instructions. Symbiotica rescripten naar efficiënter functioning of the biochemical maintainance & educating & structuring agriculture tech & research towards accurative biofunctional understanding to the functional interdynamic harmony & potential of the very construct to engineering & frequency geometric shape function electromagnetic field effects..

  41. Esthetics are the reason to seek beauty as a way to reach into re activating the search to reach into the code framework scripts of pre survival evolution buildup to a more actuant state of functional coherency wich grants the more realistic timespan to actually research the fullest dynamics of the concept in wich language symbolism reaches the Essences of the Instrumentalia of the Terraforming & Solar systemic matter converging & frequency geometric energetic constructs of synthetic matter in wich the recorded data information lives defining harmonious & functional masterpieces of nanomolecular complex buildup as to define structureworkings in the Knowledge we consider handleing substances as tools & instrumental functions.. however.. we cannot just consume the planet. We need resource reshaping & recharging & restructuring hightech to circulairy revert waste back into resources to word with. A depleted Earth is not something to ignore. Once it's failed, we all lose. Those in control? Start with basic recycling. Also learn to repair & good education means more accuracy.. and preciser hightech to standardise.

  42. The mechanics of our actions to our purposes & directives, considering the dimensions in wich contextuality interrefferentially interchanges the leaverage of the handled constructs, to maintain the acting party's task purpose in refering to an active functional Role, and considering the conditioning party's script to adress the gaps in it's structural framework of supporting pillars on wich the build structure gains the concrete values & norms wich justify the functionality of the composition wich defines the building, on the basis of criteria..

  43. How do we consider the build structure to be in Means of Right or wrong.
    Good or Evil. Function or Error.
    Harmonious consistency or escalatieve chaos vectoria. Potentially effective or diplomatically repaired to a at a certain point reached state of acceptability?!

  44. What does Beauty mean?
    Not just the sensitory message of verification.. It has to contain an element of Emulative stance or flawless actuance.. or abstract morphological signifficance to adress focussed & directively the aspects of shape or form..

  45. Philosophy to this?
    Forget it! Perfection is never truely wise.
    As humanity lacks such abilities inherently.
    Emulate that! Draco..

  46. I Admire Monks who look into the Essence of the Soul & those who shine in their Gestalt Aura as Passionate & versitile as the rays of the Energy Sphere wich synergized Earth to the pointy Details..

  47. Earth is aestehic when resource is Circulaire & policy respects the principes of actuant human functiën & potentiaal.. our arrows be pointy outward.. As desires be beautyfull & Nice.. They also hurt & consume resources.. If Beauty be an Ideal..
    Hightech research is the basis of Ecology..

  48. The most important aspect of Beïng human is to fullfill our design engineeringly to maintain & caringly perpetuate.. in efficiëncy of integral function.. the desire is not to spend mana.. truth is to maintain & restore the integrity & love wich transcends the decay & previously lost mechanisms in our code in wich we all fail.. conflict & ignorance makes us claim & consume resources.. As education fails at adressing essential life's questions.. and hightech research lacks funding.. structural problems in human society keep frictioning into conflicts..
    Our Ego's be ignorant & primitive..
    Our Cognition lacks the locus to Adapt & learn from experience.. As popular culture appeals to our sensitory desires.. we forget to research & study to advance into truely managing our selves as a person and Earth's potential into perpetuative circular function. There is only one Earth.. and you as a person must study & learn from scratch.. You are in these crazy circumstances. Act Responsible in your Education of the learning practicing zelf.. we are this Earth..
    Be the individual that inspires technology or practice life to realise knowledge of the methods in learning wich make Earth functional & reach the details of Essence wich free is from the chains of pollution & overconsumption by errors & lack of education.. You only have one timeline.. Study intensively..

  49. We consume all those resources because we lack understanding of our function, and we need to study & research intensely to ecologically grow the healing herbs & crops to realise actuance.. Crispr Cas9 to rescript genome to more efficiënt functionality..

  50. The Human genome has remained damaged for ages since Ancient times because survival evolution hurt the Essence of our functionality..
    Wich causes our Ego's to overconsume resources & fall into conflicts..

  51. I don't know where I heard this definition, but I really like it:

    "Anything that someone creates that is meant to invoke an emotional response."

  52. It's annoying when people confuse the terms "Modern" and "Contemporary" art.
    Modern is a very specific art movement (around the 1900s to around the 1950s).
    Just because something is new and a bit wacky or out there, people say it's "modern art". That's contemporary art, or belongs to another movement entirely.
    It's why we also have the term "Post-Modern".

  53. Haha. I love the shrug you did after saying "Plutonium resembles Oxygen because they are both made of atoms". 😀

  54. If I step on someone's foot by accident, I like to call it found torture art. Then I apologize, not for the stepping, but for the quality. If I'd known I was going to be creating some accidental sensory art, I would have stepped much harder.

  55. Arts uglification has taken root in educational establishments, wande throgh undergarduate art exhibitions, its mostly celebrating the ugly with nil skill, nice and easy

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *