WHS^

I'm reading a book by V.S. Ramachandran about (among other things) the neurological reaction to art, and how they can on the one hand say art is definitely art because it stimulates these particular neurons the way art does, and yet also predict that person X won't like art style Y because their inferior parietal sulcus or whatever is smaller than average and didn't fire when they did this other thing to it. It's a really good book.

FWIW, my perspective is that if it is interpretive or spontaneous dance, then the dancer is an artist. If it's choreographed, then the choreograher is the artist and the dancer is a technician.
It's worth as much as some sucker is willing to pay ;)

sexo, moving on from inessential, "creativity that appeals".

Creativity, i.e. creating: art is making something that was not there before. But not just --

"I hit this piece of wood with a hammer, and now there is a dent in it, so I am creative".

That doesn't count; that creativity has to be directed at appealing.

"I made this dent to show how imperfection stands out amidst sameness."

It's intent, then; my creativity was directed at, not creating something appealing as in pleasant and tasteful, but something that appeals to us, calls on our senses and emotions and whatnot.

Yes, it's not just that a woman takes off her clothes; rather, the way she appeals it off that makes the strip tease a performance art which calls on our whatnots.

(the debbil made me do it)

xob "creating something that pleases yourself, but I can't see the division between art and craft"

"Pleases yourself" removes the audience entirely. And here is where it goes right into navel-gazing. Does it count if there's no audience?

If you play an amazing musical piece in the practice room, with nobody but yourself, was that art? If you paint an amazing painting, but show it to nobody, is that art?

In the theatre, the audience is the whole thing. It's played at them, it's lit for them, etc. and each performance is different and usually they are a big reason why.

So you're saying in order to be art it has to be done for someone else? I'm not buying that line for a moment.

No but it does give the art new meaning. Much more meaning in some cases.

It's like, masturbation counts but it's a whole different thing with other people!

New meaning? Sounds like approval, pats on the head, needing reassurance from others, or is it recognition from others. How about if you get paid for it, that's certainly affirmation of approval, when it's a job, is it art? If more people like it does that mean it's better art, you're a better artist? No, if I paint a picture and never show it to anyone, vs hanging in a museum, I'll miss out on the hosannas and cash, but it's the same damn painting, the difference is my ego, not the art.

The expression Art for art's sake comes to mind. Wikipedia has an entry for it that deals mostly with the separation of art from utilitarian function; but, also touches on art for oneself versus for others. A couple of excerpts:

Point;

Counterpoint;

It seems to me that the implications of Poe just about brings it into the realm of spirituality while Sand's implications just about brings it into the realm of commercial success; but, both stop short.

The end product from the spark of creativity is art to me regardless of how many get to experience it. Sometimes the impact on the few; or the one, is greater than the impact on the many.

I believe one can conclude, with a high degree of probability, that it depends on what your definition of is, is.

"approval, pats on the head, needing reassurance from others, or is it recognition"

Any reaction at all. It might make them run from the room, or vomit, or cry, or be confused, or curious, or angry. To bring about any emotion at all would be the most meaningful goal an artist could shoot for imo.

If you create something meaningful and don't share it with others, that is sad. If people who see/hear/read your art bring their own meaning to it, and find new meaning, that elevates the work.

If a critic says they don't like it, guaranteed their will be a dozen people who will say they like it just to be contrary. If the critic says they like it, guaranteed 1000 people will gush like it's the new sliced bread. What are the critics and indeed the public doing, comparing my work to someone, everyone, else's work, to see how well I stayed within the lines, their lines? See how close I came to what they wanted to see?

NO, the work does not change, regardless of how many emotional attachments people heap on it, or causes it gets attached to. A piece of art might get elevated in importance sociologically, but that doesn't make it better or more important art. The poster of Rosie the Riveter has all kinds of emotional attachments to many causes, but the poster is the same as the day it made.

I've been told (not here) that this isn't a poem.
To me is is.

This Is Just To Say

I have eaten
the plums
that were in
the icebox

and which
you were probably
saving
for breakfast

Forgive me
they were delicious
so sweet
and so cold

(William Carlos Williams)

So if someone else decides that [visual] art is art, I'ma not gonna interrupt.

This is my favorite of this type of poem.

Driving to Town Late to Mail a Letter

It is a cold and snowy night. The main street is deserted.
The only things moving are swirls of snow.
As I lift the mailbox door, I feel its cold iron.
There is a privacy I love in this snowy night.
Driving around, I will waste more time.

—Robert Bly