NJH wrote in message
om...

"William Graham" wrote in message
news:IG5eb.639734$uu5.102483@sccrnsc04...

NJH wrote in message
...

"William Graham" wrote in message
news:nhKdb.624579$uu5.100533@sccrnsc04...

NJH wrote in message
m...

"William Graham" wrote in message
news:Ocndb.600021$YN5.443639@sccrnsc01...
[ . . . ]

on a map) And there are many other examples of
projects/disciplines
that
take years and years of practice and study to learn. Can you
quantify
the
difficulty of the medium that is required before you are willing
to
give
it
the distinction of, "a fine art"?

The fine arts as far as I'm concerned are pretty much limited to
the
traditional ones: painting, drawing, sculpture and related
procedures
as
far
as image-producing stuff is concerned.

Cinematography can surely be an art, and a very important one, but
I
can't
see it as a fine art.

"Art photography" makes pretensions to being a fine art and to
some
degree
is accepted as such, which makes its categorization more
difficult.
But
Westons and Adamses will never be regarded as Rembrandts and
Michelangelos,
and will never even come close.

Other photos, including lovely images of sunsets, pretty flowers,
etc.
that
are sometimes presented as "art" by the people who took them, are
not
art,
fine or otherwise.

Neil

Well, then. at best, you have to admit that the definition is,
"fuzzy"......

There are several definitions for "art," as with most words in the
English
language. Some of them require that the definition be somewhat
"fuzzy."
That
does not mean that the definitions can be discarded.

In the field of politics for example, do you suppose "liberal" means
exactly
the same thing to all people? Or "conservative"? Those terms are
defined,
but what they mean EXACTLY, in detail, depends to some extent on one's
political position and viewpoint.

Some words are less likely to be argued over. We discussed frying eggs
before. It is unlikely we'd ever get into an argument over what
"frying
eggs" means. ;-)


As a mathematician (my degree) I tend to think in
absolutes....I don't like fuzzy definitions, although I have to
admit
that
they exist....But I always try to bring any discussion to its
obvious
extremes.....Sort of, (in mathematical terms) investigate the end
points,
or
inflections of the equation.....I instinctively reject the idea that
there
are only five fine arts, for example......

Those five make up what are called "the fine arts." In this usage
"fine"
does not mean "better than any other kind of art" necessarily (though
they
do generally have that sort of stature), it is just used to
distinguish
those five arts from all other kinds.


I think that the neurosurgeon that
you mentioned above, will sometimes create wonderful artistic work
inside
of
the heads of some of his patients.....

One hopes he does good work, but it isn't art. Millions of people do
very
good work that isn't art.


It's just a pity that we can't see it,
or know about it, because we weren't there to see it done, and/or
haven't
got the capacity to understand it if we were......I guess what I am
trying
to say is that the world is too complex a place to be able to pin
the
definition of "fine art" on only 5 or 6 disciplines......

The definition is what it is. It may be expanded to include something
else
at another time; who knows?

Neil


Again, I sense that the work of the neurosurgeon isn't art to you
because
it
has a useful purpose other than just the amusement of the observer. You
believe that fine art can't have any practical value.

Again, art (any real art, or any of the fine arts) does "have . . .
practical value"--if it did not, no one would bother doing it. But having
practical value does not make a thing art.

Neil


Well, now I don't understand your definition of, "practical value".......How
does a painting have practical value? It is only decoration.....The wall it
hangs on has all the practical value......