If we live in a fatalistic existence, there is no free will, individual thought is impossible and therefore not of your own design. In this way, imagination is no longer a 'spontaneous' process, and therefore is functionally indistinguishable from any event, like a shelf collapsing with a pot of paint on it. Both make a colourful thing happen, both are and event of a cause and so both are equally art?

Any sort of production that does not have mere functional purposes has artistic values, in my opinion.

Does this mean something purely functional has no artistic value? So how to still life/landscapes/photorealistic art fit in to this? Is photography art? Is accidental art possible? Does the principal of "form follows function" lead to non-art?

Still life/landscapes/photorealistic/ stuff's function is to be artistic for the most part, is it not?
Photographies can be functional as well as artistic. Depends on the intention of the person who takes them. I wouldn't say that taking pictures with plane to observe enemy troop movements are artistic, while taking a picture of your child for your personal enjoyment is art.
Also yes, as soon as you start enjoying something beyond it's mere function you see a “something” more in it which you enjoy, makes you think or remember or something in that general direction. I'd even argue that things that make you feel uneasy can be artistic as well.
I have a pocket knife. While I appreciate its sharp edge I also appreciate the style of the blade, how it feels in my hand, the wooden handle and so forth. Therefore, from my subjective perspective, it has both functional and artistic values.

Cool, so basically; if a person creates it with artistic intentions, then it's art.

Alternately, if the person observing it thinks of it artistically, then it's art.

A bit of a flaky definition, but the artistic nature of an object can be determined by either the creator or observer. What's interesting about that is that non-art can become art simply by observing it, or by changing it's context.


On the flip side, think of the Basilica Cistern, where they used former artwork as pillars to hold up the roof. In this context art has been used purely for function - is it still art? The 'creators' used an artistic component as a functional object, and the observers were engineers considering functional aspects. A few thousand years later, the artistic value is rediscovered. Can we conclude that the label of 'art' is ephemeral - something can become art or non-art as the times change?

A related question is 'can nature be art'. Can an elephant or dolphin create art? I'm sure you've heard of (or can google) instances of dogs or elephants creating paintings, can this still be considered art? And if so, why? We previously established (or I tried to establish) that at least one of two parties must consider the artistic value for it to become art. Can a dog consider something to be artistic? Or is it purely on the shoulders of the human observer?

If the burden is purely on the human observer, then can we consider an ordinary tree to be art? If we appreciate the texture, the form, the colors, is it art? Obviously flowers and animals are appreciated, but are they art? Can the Earth, the moon, the Sun, be considered art? What about difficult to observe things like air, a vacuum, rays of light? Or impossible to observe things like quarks or kinetic movements like vibrations? What about purely non-physical things - mental, spiritual, intellectual - like ideas, concepts, arguments, emotions?


tl;dr:
- can non-humans create art?
- can non-sentient create art?
- can non-life create art?
- can non-observable physical phenomenon be art?
- can non-physical phenomenon be art?

No, when someone subjectively sees artistic values beyond their mere functionality in something it has artistic values for him.
There is no point in generalizing it because it's all depending on your perspective.
I could go buy the Mona Lisa and use it as spade, and not care about how it looks like. I would value it for its functionality as spade, and therefore it wouldn't be art for me.

Well the whole quote was;

But what you are adding is that artistic value is not only ephemeral but also subjective.

I wonder if it's also relative, and continuous.

This message has been deleted

As I said before, I just think Art is something that has to be very creative. I personally think 'realistic' drawings such as portraits and drawings of fields etc... don't show creativity because all you need to do is go outside and draw what you see but a drawing you made up in your mind and put to paper shows creativity. While 'realistic' drawings is still classed as Art I am more into creative art. If somebody was to draw a 'realistic' drawing I would prefer that drawing being tampered with and made to look 'fake or interesting' and more creative than it is.

Art can't just be creative, it has to have a science to it. The reason any great artist has become great in the first place from painting to music was because they applied a science to it. Modern Art lacks dedication as people think art should be the feelings of the artist,
In this case hard lines done in a stressed fashion is art, showing the artists raw emotion.
It can't just be that, he has to be aware of the placement of those stressed lines of black on white canvas like does this leap off the canvas here or here through heavy dedication and experimentation you'll eventually apply a science to it everything on the canvas down to the placement of your signature will create a uniform look once aware of this you can create a conflicting look.