redgreenvines said:

nahh...
just expressing is just expressing
you need to intend to express artfully to create art.

---

I don't think that is necessarily true, actually. What draws the line between expression and art, then? I cannot see the intention for the expression to be art to be what marks this distinction that you propose, as no one is privleged enough to know another's intention (or unintentions) behind their expression. Art is defined just as much by the creator of art as by those who observe it - intention does not transfer between perspectives.

In order to distinguish between expression and art, one has to judge what is art and what is not. The observation and interpretation of expression is very subjective and does not have any objective substance. To some, breathing itself is an art. Others have limited conscious awareness that they are even breathing at all.

Art is expression, conveyance, representation. One doesn't have to set out to create art to make art.


Peace.

redgreenvines said:

some accidents are part of art.

not all expressions are art.

---

A good arguement as well (:D), but others do not hold such a refined, distinct sense of what constitutes art as others might. I agree with what you say about having a subtle sense of intention and meaning that can detect hints of intention and meaning in others expressions, and I also agree that the passion, intensity, emotion, or meaning that artwork conveys as a result of conscious intention and purpose placed in that artwork is really what's its all about, in fact, I stress conscious intention and purpose being put into everything a person does, but my point is that the presence of intention or meaning does not distinguish art from general expression.

I feel that making this distinction does not work as the definiton of art is not limited by this distinction, and that any difference is implied by ourselves (if we choose to do so). To make this distinction requires holding a standard for what qualifies art, and then judging this art to see if it meets standards. Since art is an expression, there is no seperation between the expression itself and that which expressed it. The expression exists only in its own context, its an entirely unique perspective, in its own realm. Considering it in its own perspective would seem to not allow for any standard, objective judgement.

To judge expressions in this manner would also mean that art is only art if that which expressed it also meets certain requirements. Not everything that expresses itself is capable of consciously placing intention into its actions. Nature itself is living art, and a considerable defintion for art is human's imitation of nature and its forces. All art really is a representation of nature. Does nature consciously place intention in the same way that humans do when they sculpt? Does the fact that it doesn't negate the artistic, aesthetic values in nature's expressions (that is, the expression of itself... technically, all expression is an expression of itself)?

I cannot perceive of any context that an expression can be put into that disqualifies that expression of its artistic value.


Peace.