This question include all sort of arts : fine arts, visual arts, dance, theater, performances, architecture, cinema, videos, etc.
Depends what kind of boundaries you mean, I guess. Boundaries of perception of art or boundaries of making art? There are of course cultural conventions, artistic traditions and genres as formalistic boundaries to art. Philosophically speaking it would be relevant to ask why art should have boundaries or how boundaries affect art. In some cases art explicitly aims to push at (e.g. the early performance art of Abramowic) or to transgress boundaries or do away with boundaries (e.g. free jazz) almost like a political statement. Perhaps art needs some boundaries in order to be perceived and be meaningful or even to be pleasurable? This will surely develop into a fruitful discussion, Oujlakh!
There are existenial boundaries: Sounds that cannot be heard or that are so loud that they provoke pain.
The boundaries of human perception are the natural boundaries of art.
Modern art of the 19the and 20the century has crossed all boundaries of every kind, to boldly go where no man has gone before!
The problem today is that there are no boundaries to break anymore.
Anything has been done already, and there is an artist's name that stands for it - it is as asking are there still dark spots on the globe?
Today there are no uncharted territories anymore.
Not on the globe, nor in art.
The question of boundaries in art is one of the past.
Unless you should mean: Western centralism?
Today art is global, may be there should still be some territorial political boundaries to be broken?
Often they become discovered when encountering resistance.
Artists will show us this in the following years
It depends. Generally, art, in an aesthetic and functional sense, has no boundaries.
Nothing can compare to creating characters and worlds out of thin air with your friends and making a book exactly the way you think it should be made, pure creative freedom, purity of intention, with no boundaries.
- Rick Remender
Cinema has no boundaries...we all belong to the same artistic community.
- Bruce Willis
I come from the theatre where there are no boundaries to the style you're doing; you're doing Molière, then you're doing Chekhov and then you're doing Arthur Miller in a season and no-one bats an eye.
- Mark Ruffalo
Thank you all for your answers. Yes I guess that this question is an old question nowadays. But the fact is that still right now, some kind of arts as fiber art or contemporary glass art for instance are strangly unknow in France. So, I assume that the boundarie between fine art and craft are still available (strong). I work on that with some of my students, and clearly made a difference between an art work and a craft is not an easy thing to do. Well, to me, most of the people still recognise in art almost canvas or drawings on papers. More precisely people who are not artists, critics or art students ignore completely the notions of performings, or for instance the body art. As if the time stop in 1950, or even in 1900. In the common mind, the global spirit art is still a beautiful thing, a pleasant thing, useless. So...according to me there is one boundarie we really need to cross : the one which separate people in their true knowledge or ignorance of actual art, which is very multifaceted.
Pas loin de chez toi, l'un des plus grands maîtres verriers d'Europe, Louis Leloup à Liège. Il fait des choses exceptionnelles avec le verre, du jamais vu et il aime l'innovation https://www.lavenir.net/cnt/dmf20140908_00525086
I'm afraid the art market, including the museum's cultural system, has created a kind of last boundary. More about this question in my paper Kunst als Striptease (available here at ResearchGate).
I don't think art has any boundaries. It is a creation with mind which is full of thoughts and thoughts have no boundaries.
It's not a question of opinion, of course art has boundaries. That's what's interesting about it.
"How can I (as an artist) challenge my own or society's boundaries"
Art is a political act. It is the act of breaking boundaries, borders and barriers. It is a way of re-imagination and a new way of thinking. Art is the liminal space of the in-between.
Yes that's of course the intention and in some way what I said earlier. But that's the challenge and not all ways the outcom. To break boundaries is a goal. The in between is a place for artistic courage to do wrong and sometimes without attentional awareness create new.
Boundries? no.
Definitions? perhaps, but even that is complicated. In many ways, art is the most human of practices. Once you start thinking things through, giving form and meaning to a given project, you function artistically, for the very finished produc will have esthetic and plasitc value in the way the problem has been addressed. Embellishment is part of the process.
Finally, what makes a work a work of art is another matter all together!
We may need to have a common definition of boundaries before adress this matter further. I'm convinced we all have boundaries inside that we sometimes are afraid of and sometimes not. The society (standing in this matter for everything outside the artist in) have both systemic and symbolic boundaries that we as artists sometimes adress and se and sometimes not adress or identify. It's a simplification to think that the thoughts are unconstrained. If so, we have no need for art at all, one can argue.
Boundaries are in our culture, our minds, in what Foucault called discource and in – why not – tast.
Further more, I think boundaries are a necessity for artists. And society are depending on art for adressing them.
An ageless question, which perhaps many (if not all) artists must confront in their daily practice. Artistry implies an artist and so emphasises the aspect of agency, i.e. that someone or something (in the case of computer-generated art, for example) is the originator of the work. The next step is when the artwork is released into a public space, when the dialectic between agency and structure begins to operate. Perhaps the question is then more directed at who or what determines the boundaries and decides the work is 'acceptable' or 'interesting' or 'creative.'
In this respect, when one turns the conventions of agency and structure upside-down to focus on the societal structures that allow us to say an artwork is acceptable and so on as Bourdieu does, the light then falls on his concepts such as cultural capital, the habitus, 'taste,' and so on. Perhaps he's regarded in some quarters as old-fashioned nowadays, but these concepts may give your question some traction beyond the aesthetics of agency (the individual) into how the wider world (structures) assess the work, which seems to me to function as a dialectical process and does not depend on notions of art's autonomy (not necessarily what you were proposing at all).
With PB, if you are interested, "Outline of a Theory of Practice" and "Distinction" are tough but valuable starting points for his elaborations on capital and the habitus. Thanks, great question.
Everything has boundaries, even art. At any given time, artistic experience is somehow limited. There are many different boundaries in art: boundaries of style, material boundaries, cognitive boundaries, aesthetic boundaries and so on. But that does not mean that the boundaries are fixed, permanent or even precisely made. They shift all the time and can be highly vague or blurred on purpose. Mostly by artists' creativity. To acknowledge the boundaries of/in art is an important act, for by producing boundaries, we produce meaning. And what would art be without meaning? :-)
Boundaries are basically a definition (the literal sense of the word). Definition gives shape and coherence, and with that meaning. If we all come with our own personal ideas of what 'art', or any other concept for that matter, should be, the result is chaos...
To find what the boundaries of art are (and to see how elastic they can become), it may help to ask the opposite question: what is NOT art?
Art has boundaries when the artist is ruled by his/her culture, religion, race, immediate environment or any other factor. These if allowed, become the obstacle that cage the artistic process and for that matter the final product- art.
Peter Sinapius : What do you mean by "I can treat everyday situations as if they were art." ? I really like this approach, but i'm not so sure to understand...
Mr. Sinapius' story adds an interesting point.
There is a difference between artistic expression and a work of art. Art is a means of expression, of communication if you will. One that is not necessarily intellectual, verbal or even rational. But it remains a mean to create a link between people.
Much of what we call art is in fact an echo of that communication: a painting, a novel, a symphony... The work of art. A work remains a means of communication so long as there is someone to receive that communication, someone for whom that work has meaning.
We may not completely understand the originally intended message, but we clearly recieve one when faced with the work. We can only guess at what the cave paintings could have meant to Paleolithic Man. We already have difficulty grasping what a mural painting can mean to Medieval Man. But both convey a message on the relationship between Man and His environment... One that adresses our own relationship...
But in all cases, we receive a message, a meaning which everyone of us can interpret.
A peom becomes a poem when we hear it as such. When we, the audience give it poetic meaning....
A short answer to this conversation:
Art is to deal with boundaries at all sort.
Dear @Francis and @Ulf I would say it differently: art is to give form to feelings.
Before Newton apples fel from the trees - but Newton discovered the law that governs it - same for any artist: he or she looks at things that lay there all of the time - undiscovered until they came along.
Whether art has boundaries or not perhaps depends on cognitive optics. In cognitive sociology, fuzzy mind is associated with art and creativity. Fuzzy mind presupposes absence of boundaries or at lest high level of their permeability or transgression. Boundaries, when exist, are temporal and highly changeable. On the other hand, science is, in contrast, founded on rigid mind, which is obsessed with making boundaries and prone not to change them once settled. As a social scientist, I assume art has boundaries, otherwise I cannot produce a plausible theory about art. However, since cognition is inevitably part of artistic creativity, art playfully set its own boundaries, demolish them when appropriate, and is thus constantly in the process of escaping or perhaps only over taking science, this is me and my understanding of art. :-)
Art has definition, which is not exactly the same thing as boundaries.
What is the difference between doggerel, word play and poetry? There is of course a certain amount of truth in saying 'art is what I say it is': a work of art becomes a work of art only when perceived as such. Few people look at television commercials, billboards or even scholarly works as works of art. Yet, placed in different contexts, they become works of art. A good example of the trasformation is when furniture enters a museum. It ceases to have it functional capacity and is looked upon for esthetic or sociological purposes. Do the faithful look at statuettes of the Madonna and Child for their aesthetic value? Or is that value only a means to an end?
We fall into a trap when we try to separate the work form its function in society, and try to create a 'superexistence' of art for its own sake, whereas the true value of art is pricesly how it creates a series of cultural references. The great works become great because that cultural reference - that resonnance - remains valid over time.
Tomaž Krpič
I am not so sure when it comes to comparing art and science in the way you do.
In a certain sense artist and scientists discover laws of nature - for the one they lay in the "objective world" for the other in the "subjective" or aesthetic domain, but are they really that separable?
Both artists and scientists need approval: They need a public, a school, an authority that acknowledges their claims: that accepts the proof of a mathematical formula or an aesthetics statement, an artwork.
"fuzzy mind is associated with art and creativity" sounds rather fuzzy to me..
Was Leonardo a "fuzzy mind" or was Einstein? I wonder.
May be there is one difference: a formula can be proved or counter proved while a work of art needs to be open for interpretation.
Heaven and earth meet in the music of J.S.Bach, but nobody never can prove which is which - J.S Bach a fuzzy mind?
I don't think so...
On fuzzy, rigid and flexible mind, I suggest the readings listed below:
Zerubavel, Eviatar. 1997. Social Mindscapes: An Invitation to Cognitive Sociology. London: Harvard University Press.
Zerubavel, Eviatar. 1991. The Fine Line: Making Distinction in Everyday Life. The University of Chicago Press.
art defines as: A = w (p . i)
Art = Art
Art = Artist x Artwork
Artist = Artwork (w) x Art-world
Art-world = Art-Public (p) x Art-Institution (i)
Art = Artwork x (Art-public x Art-Institution)
A = w (p . i)
I guess that creation is everywhere, but my question is still available, and this is good for me. As a researcher we need to be kind of...insecure?
Tomaž Krpič
X = multiplication of the art factor (it could be quantized)
My little joke of cause - but after all, that's what algorithms do.
Indication by quantification - why not for art if it goes for scientific publications?
;)
Willy
I am not sure that quantification goes well for scientific publications. And I prefer qualification over quantification, although i do not oppose the second. And I do not know if I am the right person to set a definition of art. I am a researcher of theatre and performance and if you ask me how I know that a particular play or performance is art, I have to say that I do not know for sure. I have doubts and fears. Researching art is also about constant negotiation whether an art work or art event actually is art. :-) I use several indicators...
Even if you use several indicators there is always the element of time and place.
Art is temporal and localized. Art has a time and a place.
But thought of as being general - universal- as the beauty judgment is (Kant).
We think of beautiful things as being beautiful to everybody, but the fact is: in the moment of appreciation they are beautiful to us and we don't know of the judgment of others.
I agree but I'm also asking this question about psychological and symbolic boundaries. So, there is of course places and moments for showing art, but what about the way we consider the boundaries of creation?
I agree about time and space; everything has its time frame and space location. :-) I also agree that we inclined to make generalizations, especially when we build theories. Even in social science and arts and humanities. However, in this respect, a safety measure is needed; theories about art are only temporal and highly changeable over time.
But when we speak about symbolic boundaries, we should always have in mind that specific art work or event relates to a distinct cultural, social and political environment. Although I do not think it is separated; it is in interdependent complex relationship.
Art is symbolic, even when factual, it stays on the symbolic level.
Art extracts things out their function (ready made).
Art is symbolic but never general in it's symbol.
Every artwork is specific.
Every work of art is it's own specific symbol - one could say
So Oujlakh Bahéra, you're question is not so much a question about art, than about the use of practical things. How far can an artist go in using existential things, living beings, political statements, ... As Tomaž Krpič writes: it is in interdependent complex relationship.
Indeed boundaries cannot to be drawn sharply.
At a certain level i't's what artists do ("did" - I should say because it's a typical for modernist) they draw new demarcation lines for art.
So it will always stay a question.
What if boundaries in art where imposed by an authority?
On which authority?
The State? The art world? The public? The museum?
Every work of art is it's own specific symbol
- in that way art is existential, never general.
Becoming a not-generalizable symbol
Hi Oujlakh
Art has no limits, but it needs to be understood, and in that context the need to express it leads to experience sensations and to build concepts, which do not always have to be demolished under the rigors of scientific reason, can be assumed from a reflective reason, capable of stimulating the creativity inherent in the human condition.
Art itself may have no limits, but it is understood as such only within a given context: parameters which lead us to perceive art as art.
Ethical and aesthetical boundaries should exist in art for sure, unless it is an art for moral freaks and criminals.
There is a difference between : to think art, to make art en to read art.
Sol LeWitt said: "A work of art may never leave an artist mind" (expression).
But that means only artists can understand there artwork truthfully.
If art is on the level of aesthetics - or more general - of communication - it has the boundaries every language has.
It's has to have a readability of a kind.
Saying "art is eternal" sounds nice, but it doesn't mean a thing.
it"s easy to say a lot af things about art that don't make any sense.
People like to do that, I wonder why?
Without boundaries to push or transgress there would be no avant-garde art.
I believe in art as an individual vision and work, irrespective of whether decent or vulgar boundaries of the actual expression. Collective forms of art - it's something of a lesser interest to me.
I always find such discussions curious as they highlight anxieties of constriction, which is implied in the very question with the use of the word 'boundries'.
Yet, I would suggest as a useful point of departure the opposite question: what is not art? And then move inward towards one's conception of 'art'.
A tree is not art.
Is the concept of Pi art?
What is the difference (if any) between a work of art and art as a concept? Is art an activity? Is art merely the perception of human expression? Does that perception require technical, esthetic, or moral qualities?
To reuse the line from Gilbert and Sullivan song
'if everyone's somebody, then no one's anybody'
If everything is art, then nothing is and art dissolves into the genereic essence of (human) activity - that of transforming the environment around us.
If however, art is a didactic or esthetic conceptualisation, the art does have boundries: those that give the concept meaning.
When I was student in Fine Arts at Bordeaux, there was a seminary about "L' Œuvre d'art totale" ( Gesamtkunstwerk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesamtkunstwerk) by Prof. Patricia Falguieres (PhD) https://ehess.academia.edu/PatriciaFalguieres
The main ideas of this course was that Art has its limits and this idea comes from philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel idea that Great Art is dead.
Second point was that in the Opera art (Wagner), each art has its own limits that we need to identify to let them complete each other.
But as limit is not really a concept but a notion, the interpretation of "art has boundaries" which implies "art has limits" is not easy to define. And, a concept like the Parergon (réf. below ; La Vérité en peinture, Jacques Derrida) let Artists to play with limits of pieces of art as a part of the pieces of art (ex: in installations you don't know where the work starts and finishs). So you can see the limits / bounderies as a parergon and extensions of Art like interfaces between pieces of art (a bit like in Artist Matthew Barney's Cremaster cycle, or master pieces like Kurt Switcher's MerzBau and Joseph Beuys's Social Sculpture).
After, in Modern, Conceptual, Contemporary art and Actual art, we can see that art boundaries move depending of the culture, the technology or economics of the arts (ex: the way an artist can produce or sell things change the way he produces or decide to show his work). Public politics can change the way artists live and work.
Fine Arts education programs could decide that students will learn design and art by reducing bounderies between the disciplines or decide that Art is like projects in commercial world.
ex: The End of Art Education as We Know It https://kunstkritikk.com/the-end-of-art-education-as-we-know-it/
So, we could conclude by saying that Limits of Art depend of Art of limits. Art redefines its own topology and bounderies dynamically over time.
References:
Definition of Parergon: Parergon (paˈrərˌgän, plural: parerga) is an ancient Greek philosophical concept defined as a supplementary issue. Parergon is also referred to as "embellishment" or extra. Derrida cited parergon in his wider theory of deconstruction, using it with the term "supplement" to denote the relationship between the core and the periphery and reverse the order of priority so that it becomes possible for the supplement – the outside, secondary and inessential – to be the core or the centerpiece.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parergon
Kurt Switcher's MerzBau reconstruction: The legendary Hanover MERZbau was created by Dada/Constructivist artist Kurt Schwitters in his apartment in Hanover, Germany in 1931-33, and was destroyed in 1943 during an allied air raid. In 1981-83 Peter Bissegger reconstructed the MERZbau through extensive calculations and research, and with the help of Ernst Schwitters' memories (Kurt Schwitters' son.) Information about the long adventure of reconstructing this lost classic of modern art can be found at www.merzbaureconstruction.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cF2Qb4bNm0
@Laurent Berry : merci pour le lien vers le PDF de ce séminaire, cela va compléter mes connaissances pour mon cours d'esthétique sur Hegel.
Bahéra Oujlakh au cas où ça vous soit utile, dans le dernier numéro de la revue Artpess il y un article "Gestes techniques, gestes technologiques ? / Technical Gestures, Technological Gestures? " de Magali Nachtergael qui parle d'Esthétique Frontière page 63-66. Le numéro est en vente donc vous pouvez peut-être jeter un œil pour voir si ça rejoint votre problématique.
https://www.artpress.com/2020/05/22/sommaire-du-n477-78-mai-juin-2020/
I remember Manny Farber publications about White Elephant Art vs. Termite Art.
For Manny Farber the "termite-tapeworm-fungus-moss art is goes always forward eating its own boundaries".
Termite Art is an aesthetic of art boundaries.
(en) White Elephant Art vs. Termite Art, Manny Farber, Film Culture, n°27 (Winter 1962-63)
https://www.moca.org/storage/app/media/cropped-images/02_White%20Elephant%20Art%20vs.%20Termite%20Art.pdf
(fr) Manny Farber Critique Termite, Bice Matthieussent, Art Press 300
http://www.artpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2090.pdf
(en) Termite Art and the Modern Museum
What is the place of work that dances around, or deplores, the spectacle side of today’s moneyed art world?
[...] In 1962, he published “White Elephant Art vs. Termite Art,” in Film Culture. “A peculiar fact about termite-tapeworm-fungus-moss art is that it goes always forward eating its own boundaries, and, likely as not, leaves nothing in its path other than the signs of eager, industrious, unkempt activity,” he wrote.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/termite-art-and-the-modern-museum
Bahéra Oujlakh,
the french artist Robert Filliou said that "art is what makes life more interesting than art". It's a good way to understand the seminary made by Patricia Falguières at Beaux-Art de Bordeaux and the exhibition "Hors limites, L'art et la vie, 1952-1994" made at Centre Pompidou from 9 novembre 1994 - 23 janvier 1995 and that the seminary explores.
You can elaborate a reflection between:
- ART Termite of M. Farber,
- which is like the almost living-fetiche-artifact Merzbau of K. Schwitters https://www.academia.edu/5140828/_D%C3%A9s%C5%93uvrement_de_Kurt_Schwitters_catalogue_Kurt_Schwitters_Paris_%C3%A9ditions_du_MNAM_1994_151_160 ,
- with "total or universal work of art" (Dead / End of Art from Hegel to Wagner)
Chapter The creative destruction of the total work of art. From Hege...
- Birthday of Museum, white cube of gallery and Art as an autonomous field and activity
- how ART makes Life more interesting that ART based on R. Filliou assertion (last real liberty space in LIFE),
- and maybe deduce that the opposite of ART and the boundaries of ART are not "What is NOT Art" but "simply" LIFE as a container of all experiences and expressions without ART as an "ornament of LIFE" (L'ornement est un crime dixit Adolf Loos?) included in LIFE as a (sub or epiphanic) dimension.
(en français) Je n'ai pas de lien vers un document pour ce séminaire qui s'est tenu aux Beaux-Art de Bordeaux. Il me faudrait reprendre mes notes de cours de l'époque ; l’alternative pourrait être de contacter Patricia Falguières qui est présente / active sur Académia pour une interview à distance https://ehess.academia.edu/PatriciaFalguieres
Cependant, j'ai ces précisions à apporter qui vous seront probablement utiles :
- le séminaire s'appuyait sur l'exposition "Hors limites, L'art et la vie, 1952-1994" au Centre Pompidou, 9 novembre 1994 - 23 janvier 1995 https://www.centrepompidou.fr/cpv/ressource.action?param.id=FR_R-6ddbd31d84e40db497483df67693ed5¶m.idSource=FR_E-84ed5bdadd3a34a3640c0efc1c78f7f
- le séminaire mettait en perspective justement les limites de l'art / l'art des limites que l'exposition explorait https://www.centrepompidou.fr/media/document/01/b6/01b6f3030d125773fee07a7557fdabfc/normal.pdf
- La phrase de Rober Filliou illustre bien ce jeu des limites de l'art (avec celles de la vie et pas celles de l'art à mon sens d'où le titre Hors limites, l'art et la vie) : "L'art est ce qui rend la vie plus intéressante que l'art", disait Robert Filliou.
- Ce document du catalogue Kurt Schwitters est à lire sur ce thème d'autant que le Merzbau avait été beaucoup évoqué et que le mélange de l'art et de la vie dans cette oeuvre était importante (notamment le fait que des rongeurs se déplaçaient dans l'oeuvre originale qui se trouvait dans l'atelier de Kurt Schwitters) https://www.academia.edu/5140828/_D%C3%A9s%C5%93uvrement_de_Kurt_Schwitters_catalogue_Kurt_Schwitters_Paris_%C3%A9ditions_du_MNAM_1994_151_160
Cette émission est très intéressante sur le thème la fin de l'art par Hegel:
"Bonne ou mauvaise nouvelle là n’est pas tellement la question, car c’est une analyse. On le méconnaît souvent, mais Hegel est très proche des réalités. Ce qu’il est en train de décrire c’est la naissance du musée. C’est ce qui se passe à la fin du XVIIIème siècle : l’art est pour la première fois considéré comme une chose qui finalement n’a plus de fonctions dans la vie, et donc on construit des maisons pour les choses qui ne servent à rien. Ces lieux qui se créent forment une institution qui s’appelle le musée. Et c’est une institution bizarre, c’est une hétérotopie. En effet, ce qui est bizarre c’est que depuis ce moment-là, on y va et on n’en est pas sorti. Mais le musée c’est le début de l’art et de l’art autonome. Le début de quelque chose qui porte dorénavant son but en soi. Et qui est évidemment, d’une certaine façon, le dernier lieu de la liberté, peut-être le seul qui reste." Bruno Haas
https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/les-chemins-de-la-philosophie/quoi-hegel-quest-ce-quil-a-hegel-14-la-mort-de-lart-0
Livre (trouver la meilleure traduction) : https://www.les-philosophes.fr/hegel/site-achat-livre/hegel-esthetique.html
Archives et documentation
EXPOSITIONS DU CENTRE POMPIDOU : REPORTAGES EN ARGENTIQUE (1953-2003).
http://archivesetdocumentation.centrepompidou.fr/ead.html?id=FRM5050-X0031_0000074&c=FRM5050-X0031_0000074_FRM5050-X003188947#!{%22content%22:[%22FRM5050-X0031_0000074_FRM5050-X003188947%22,false,%22%22]}
Within a particular genre of art there's no limitations. Whenever a painter begins playing music - in most cases, it's not art anymore but just an individual creativity.
In quite rare cases, some people creating a new genre of art, and that can be proven only by an eventual wide public recognition. As an example - Amadeo Modigliani!
There is something to investigate with what Nathalie Heinich said about Christo's work. The boundaries could be mainly defined by what people accept to define as Art (in the social space) when they experiment new artefact (we don't expect to find art everywhere) like Christo's Le Pont-Neuf à Paris emballé project. Art don't care with boundaries ; it's just an activity at the beginning.
"Cette proposition est emblématique de ce que fait l'art contemporain : il déplace les frontières. Il déplace la frontière entre art et non-art, entre un ouvrage d'art, un pont, et une oeuvre d'art. L'artiste propose un jeu de transgression des frontières traditionnelles, de ce que le sens commun estime devoir être." Nathalie Heinich
in https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/linvite-culture/la-sociologue-nathalie-heinich-explore-lappropriation-de-lespace-de-loeuvre-de-christo-a-sa-propre
In english: "This proposal is emblematic of what contemporary art does: it shifts borders. It shifts the border between art and non-art, between a work of art, a bridge, and a work of art. The artist offers a game of transgression of traditional boundaries, of what common sense believes should be. "
There are interesting ideas about boundaries of art in the book, L'artiste en habits by Carole Talon-Hugon (in french), page 138 https://www.puf.com/content/Lartiste_en_habits_de_chercheur
The definition of Art has become one that has remained controversial. One finds it difficult to set boundary for art in that the wide scope of works that can be classified as Art according to Tolstoy should not only be classified under Aesthetics. Art should move beyond aesthetics to issues of morality.
This therefore means that anything that fulfills these two purposes can be classified as Art hence, no boundary as regards courses can be set for Art
For a contrarian Objective definition of art, see Ch. 6, "The Definition of Art" [https://www.aristos.org/whatart/What%20Art%20Is%20-%20Ch.%206%20(The%20Definition%20of%20Art)%20-%20full%20text.pdf] in 'What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand' [2000] [https://www.aristos.org/editors/booksumm.htm], which I co-authored.
See also: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy >Ayn Rand https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayn-rand/] > 4. Aesthetics > Bibliography > Works by Others > Torres, L. and M. Kamhi, 2000, What Art Is. . . .
All art is determined by its limits
- because every work of art determines its own limits: in time and space, in language and signification - without boundaries no signification
As far as new art ideas is concerned - art doesn't have strict boundaries. However, it's a rare event, when an artist opens up a whole new art direction. On the other hand, every huge artistic talent is a unique and unrepeatable phenomenon. Charley Chaplin, Pele, Leonardo da Vinci, Luciano Pavarotti, etc. are all absolutely unique and unforgettable.
without limits there is no identity in general, at the same time identity is relational , that is, there are interfaces, mirroring, exchanges and changes in reality, and so with art
No, I don't think it has boundaries, or at least I think they shift and need to shift. However that doesn't mean that anything goes, or that art doesn't have characteristics and qualities and standards of excellence. There are many kinds of art. I also think the boundaries between some of these categorisations need to dissolve a bit too, but without losing quality. Why the question?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Communications (Networks)
- Simulators