So if you look at two paintings, and are unaware of the creator or origin of either, how do you decide which is art? Do you assume both are art until you have reason to believe otherwise? Do you assume neither are art unless something prompts you to? By knowing the intent you can judge no art as art except for your own.
I may say of my own, "this piece was created in honor of my wife's love", and you would accept it as art? But what if I said that and was lying?
(Oh, and BROJ, my argument that follows also speaks against yours. I think what will follow shows that, in fact, not only does art exist, but it is not at all what you take it to be, being art only by the appraisal of the audience. I do not think this post-modern concept has much valididity to it, and I hope the following makes clear why.)
You mistake me. I am not talking about how you 'decide', I am talking in absolute terms what it is. If there is no intent behind it, it is not art, regardless of what decisions you make regarding it. That decision is irrelivant. Now, of course, everything has to have some measure of intent, but what I am speaking of is the artistic spirit.
I think you are taking a wrong line of questioning with this. I am not talking about how to be a critic. I am talking about the metaphysical concept. For me, the defenition of art is something that a human does with intent, imposing his or her will and conscious thought upon something. Whether or not they lie about 'why' they did it or not is entirely irrelivant. As is if I am aware of the creator. Again, the 'I' as the perceiver has nothing to do with making the thing art or not, and as for the judgment of if it is or not, well, it is generally pretty obvious if there is an intent behind it. Of course we are prone to mistake, and something that is not art then can masquerade as it, but that is outside the debate. Those are just pratical criticisms. I'm speaking of the concept here.
But yes, of course we make judgments. After all, if there were a lifelike model of a person, would you not, until you saw otherwise, work under the assumption that it was a person? Indeed, it may well not be, because to make a 'real' person requires many factors that a bare model simply does not have. Things such as thought and will. It is the same with a painting or some art. We work under the assumption that there is a thought and will standing behind it, making it art. Yet even as it is things such as thought and will through physical expression make a human, so too it is thought and will through media that make art what it is.
And I suppose that is the best analogy to take. You are basically taking art to be art in the same way that you could say anything that looks and makes something think it is human, IS human. It could be a model, a hologram, doesn't matter. These all are human. What I am saying is that simple appearance and the way someone sees it does not make the thing what it is. A hologram, no matter how convincing it is, no matter what it instils in the perceiver, no matter how they view it, is still not human. In the same way art halt of intent, no matter how much it might affect someone, is not art. Yet this is what you are saying. That appearances matter most, and make a thing what it is.
So to answer the question fully, our perceptive minds work under certain assumptions so yes, we naturally assume that both are art, and yes, you accept what someone says as art. It may NOT be, but in the same way... if we saw an entirely lifelike hologram, we might say 'this is human'. It might be a wrong judgment, but we work on the principle of real until proven otherwise most of the time. That goes for physical experience and art alike. However, some things can show more intent than others. A hologram that just is there, doesn't move, has form devoid of intent, will not much appeal to our sense of the real, and we will hardly be fooled into thinking it human. But one that emulates the movement and emotions and the sounds, that will likely decieve us into thinking it real (Nb. in the example of the hologram I am not counting the fact that some intent had to put IT into place. It must be viewed as an example in isolation.) And on the furthest end, a real human does have such intents. In the same way with art. Some, by our natural process of perception, will appear to have had artistic intent, but not have it. Some is easier to see than others. For example, abstract art is almost entirely absent of intent. It is, as it were, mere form without substance, like a beautiful shell of a hologram with no movement or emotion. Yes, it can appeal to the emotions, I'll not deny it. But it is not art. That is, art requires substances, else it is not art. After all, look at a rainbow. How beautiful those colours! How appealing! More than most canvasses. But guess what? For all its beauty, it is not art. Why, then? If art is merely how we percieve it, call the rainbow art! Call the trees and the clouds works of art! But look at how I phrased that. WORKS of art. Art requires work, it requires intent. And so just like the clouds and the trees and the arcs of heaven, any one of those things you mention, if there is no intended meaning, might have beauty to your eyes and ears... but it is certainly not art. Else you are forced to classify all those natural things in the same category.
That, unfortunately, is the problem you run into when you ostracise intent from the matter, when you make it a mere matter of perception. I could well to call that bright yellow sun in the sky a marvellous work of art. Indeed, it's a better work of art than any mortal artist has yet constructed! After all, I percieve it, it makes me feel a certain way, and so on and so forth, with all the same words you use for what you are calling art. Yet it is not. And the only difference is willful intent. Therefore the defining principle of art must lie upon the will, not upon the perception.
