I wanted to have a definition that is definitive and inclusive. (The basis of the definition is that visual perception takes the outside world in directly. Thus the definition can only be used on an object that has been perceived – it can not be used to describe a genre or movement.)

Beuys quip is a sentiment – which I like – but a definition must exclude something.

A.C Danto includes universality and a historical/cultural component in his thoughts of art.

Intent:

Intent might eliminate paintings of an elephant, a computer, or a 4-year-old child. Intent might eliminate The Velvet Elvis, but would include Marcel Duchamp’s urinal.

Structure of space:

I was reading a blog about Joe Frank’s work. They were discussing a guy who took Joe’s words and re-wrote them sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph. They couldn’t decide whether this was plagiarism because they didn’t understand that there is a structure to Joe’s work. Just changing the words didn’t negate plagiarism of that structure.

Visual allegory:

The concept of the visual allegory gets arcane, but it comes from Rudolf Arnheim’s The Power of the Center: A Study of Composition in the Visual Arts (1982).

That there are three possible types of allegory, stemming from an assertion that artistic motivation comes from inner conflict,

is my contribution.

The structure of an image can be described in terms of one of three visual allegories:

The expression of conflict

The resolution of conflict

The suspension of conflict

http://www.chuckclose.coe.uh.edu/life/gallery.html

In portraiture the visual allegory is found in the gaze/expression of the sitter. Run your cursor up and down the titles and the image appears at right on Peggysue’s link above – notice anything about the gaze(s)? There are two that jump out at me as different from the rest.

Chuck’s self-portrait is exactly the gaze I coaxed from a sitter for the expression of conflict.

Note the infant: resolution or suspension?

Don’t you mean “jousting” rather than “jesting?”

(That was my attempt at humor. If for no other reason than to show how poorly humor travels over the ‘internets’. Hence the creation of the ubiquitous smileys. Some attempt at indicating the author’s tone. I’d like to suggest that we all use the ‘wink” smiley if we’re being humorous. It looks like this: ; ) (that is, a semi-colon and close parenthesis (or a semi-colon and capital D for a big smile.) Many, many parts of threads have become heated due to an attemp to inject humor which was not read as humor by other posters. Just a thought about how to keep things light…..)

Women are not intended to be real, but contra-man.”

With this I can completely agree. I also liked the quote from the director of “Breaking the Waves” where he saw the female character as himself. I can certainly accept that men explore a piece of themselves in the female characters they create.

But, if this is the case, then it argues for the premise that a film created by a man is inherently different than a film created by a woman. And, that, if we are to all experience the full perspective of human experience, we need to hear/see that which comes from women, as well.

Yes, a well done ribeye (especially bleu) can be definitely termed a work of art, the Camry as well.

and then ventures a credo to my query as to his definition of art: good luck with this: Visual art is, by way of an artist’s intent, the structure of space into a visual allegory: expression, resolution, or suspension of conflict.

I meant ART in the META sense encompassing all sensual experience of ART but I’ll start with visual and pose a few questions.

Is intent necessary for a work to be ART? Is the intent implicit in creating the vision (which rules out unintended n-order consequences?) Is the defining the structure of space necessary to the ART (I assume you mean negative as well as positive space?) Is ART required to be allegorical or can it just be?

Expression is the meat of Joseph Beuys’ definition. Why resolution? Suspension of conflict? I suppose that harks back to your confrontational style of self edification: Confront, resolve, suspend conflict. I say “Work” to differentiate from “mother nature’s art” (and she is a spectacular artist – even employing her humans in her quest for beauty but I don’t count those efforts as ART – you could say that the intent is missing) and “well done” to allow for the infinite perceptions of others.

Peace

There are more favorable comparisons, however. Have a look at Jacques-Louis David’s The Intervention of the Sabine Women or Poussin’s Tancred and Erminia. I guess my point is a rather broad a non-controversial one: there are multiple traditions in western art and there are not a few examples out there too help us rethink the most traditional and dominant forms of male and feminine aesthetics.

Of course, we still have the problem of all male artists.