it depends, a lot of different criteria are used to evaluate art. Not to say you are wrong, because I believe you have a very valid point, but if one of the criteria one would use to evaluate happens to be technique and method, then I believe an artist ABOVE a philosopher would have more knowledge. But if you are considering social significance, impression on a viewers ideals and "soul", then a philosopher, rather than the artist, would have a more accurate argument.

ignore him smitty - he is a troll

philosophers can only have an opinion. The only true answer comes from the artist.

man, I love you isaboa

I'm vegan.

btw vespucci, thanks for the link to my work, I am glad to have the discussion continue on the piece.

Ahh yes! I love a good philosphical tumble! Here's to you, Vespucci, for getting it going!



Well, the first thing I would say about you propisition is that I think you are right and wrong. You are right when you say that the evaluation of aesthetic value is the domain of philosophers, but I think you are wrong to exclude artists as unqualified to comment based on their supposed non-academic, "technical" status.



Quite simply - everyone can be a philosopher! You don't need a degree or a title, especially in this era when the internet makes research so easy (and fun!). The only thing philosphers need is a desire to investigate, an enquiring mind and an interest in the subject matter.



As for artists, rather than having just a lay knowledge, they provide invaluable insight into the artistic process. I firmly believe that the "process" - the mechanics of the act + the boundaries and implications of those actions - influences the theory (materialism).

YAY!!! :-) Ok.... here we go!



ISOBOA: In your spirit of irrationality, you're a poopy-head. In the spirit of intellectual curiosity, why do you call me a troll? The comment was inspired by the blog for wonderland, not by the shirt or by Smitty necessarily. I actually LIKE the design, and have nothing against Smitty. My post was not meant to be anything against either him or the shirt.



slaterock: you are mistaken. anyone can have an opinion... and thats precisely what makes them boring. philosophers actually need to have reasoned, logically valid arguments. much more robust than an opinion. but you bring up an interesting component of aesthetic evaluation... and that is intentionality. why do you think only the artist has the "true answer" ?



steviec: thanks! i only exclude artists as unqualified insofar as the status of "artist" alone is insufficient to be qualified. a person can of course be an artist AND a philosopher.



steviec AND Smitty: having EXPERIENTIAL knowledge of the mechanics of the process of creation... does what precisely to enhance the understanding of the "theory" as you call it?

I would say that mechanics influence theory. Why? Well, you could answer that point by addressing one of the longest-running smackdown debates in the history of philosophy: Materialism Vs. Idealism.



In the answer to the great questions...



An Idealist approach: emphasises the factors of spirituality, the individual's state of mind and the way that thought or ideas shape and process reality.



A Materialist approach: would tackle the same question of the standpoint of the physical realm - economics, class, historical conditions and the materials of existence.



These two schools of thought bump up against each other over and over again through history (then you get dialectical materialism, but that's another blog!)



Hegel was an idealist, Marx was a materialist, but most contemporary thinkers are critical of choosing just one approach. For a very tight attack on Idealism, read the Australian philosopher David Stowe's book, "The Plato Cult & Other Philosophical Follies" (1991).



Anyway! I would answer that the creative process is one of both idealism and materialism, and while artists start with an idea, ultimately their success or failure is bounded by their access to education and training (their access to a computer in this case), materials (computer programs), time and ultimately, the views of the Threadless staff and community.

You are a troll because you made an argument solely to get a "rise" out of artists on this site.



Art is an experiment in creation - the creator has a vital perspective on the process.



Art is as vital, provocative and unquantifiable as philosophical reasoning. Instead of arguing I am leaving you with some insight from those who do know better.



Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments. An artist recreates those aspects of reality which represent his fundamental view of man's nature. (Ayn Rand, 'Art and Cognition')



The fact is that an artist is a philosopher - just not in the way you define it -



Fantasy, abandoned by reason, produces impossible monsters; united with it, she is the mother of the arts and the origin of marvels. (Francisco de Goya)



From the moment that art ceases to be food that feeds the best minds, the artist can use his talents to perform all the tricks of the intellectual charlatan. Most people can today no longer expect to receive consolation and exaltation from art. The 'refined,' the rich, the professional 'do-nothings', the distillers of quintessence desire only the peculiar, the sensational, the eccentric, the scandalous in today's art. I myself, since the advent of Cubism, have fed these fellows what they wanted and satisfied these critics with all the ridiculous ideas that have passed through my mind. The less they understood them, the more they admired me. Through amusing myself with all these absurd farces, I became celebrated, and very rapidly. For a painter, celebrity means sales and consequent affluence. Today, as you know, I am celebrated, I am rich. But when I am alone, I do not have the effrontery to consider myself an artist at all, not in the grand old meaning of the word: Giotto, Titian, Rembrandt, Goya were great painters. I am only a public clown - a mountebank. I have understood my time and have exploited the imbecility, the vanity, the greed of my contemporaries. It is a bitter confession, this confession of mine, more painful than it may seem. But at least and at last it does have the merit of being honest. (Pablo Picasso, 1952)



When we speak of Nature it is wrong to forget that we are ourselves a part of Nature. We ought to view ourselves with the same curiosity and openness with which we study a tree, the sky or a thought, because we too are linked to the entire universe. (Henri Matisse)



The painter's mind is a copy of the divine mind, since it operates freely in creating the many kinds of animals, plants, fruits, landscapes, countrysides, ruins, and awe-inspiring places. (Leonardo da Vinci)



In dealing with a scientific problem, I first arrange several experiments, and then show with reasons why such an experiment must necessarily operate in this and in no other way. This is the method which must be followed in all research upon the phenomenon of nature. We must consult experience in the variety of cases and circumstances until we can draw from them a general rule that is contained in them. And for what purposes are these rules good? They lead us to further investigations of nature and to creations of art. They prevent us from deceiving ourselves and others by promising results which are not obtainable.

(Leonardo da Vinci)



We all know that art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize the truth. (Pablo Picasso)



The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance. (Aristotle)



Have no fear of perfection, you'll never reach it. (Salvador Dali)

Art is subjective, no? Does one need to be an engineer to appreciate the handling of a fine automobile? A chef to appreciate fine food? A prostitute to... well, you get my drift.

Hang on...are you saying art is NOT subjective? Didn't you just contradict yourself with the engineer/chef/prostitute analogy?

no he is asking if you agree that art is subjective. He is turning the statement that "Art is subjective" into a question

Oh, yes, cheers Smitty. That had be a bit befuddled. Art is subjective, yes!

it's all good bra.

Yeah, I can see where that may be a bit confusing.



I've always had a problem with people who think you can quantify art. The purpose of art, be it visual art, music, or whatever, is to evoke emotion. If something appeals to you, then it's art - to you, if no one else.



Something doesn't have to be deep or profound, or even meaningful to qualify.