These discussions are about the meaning of large ideas by exploring them from their origins in etymology, philosophy, and history and how that has created the modern context of connotations and ideologies we associate with these large ideas. While I will not be able to encompass the entirety of these subjects within one discussion, I still hope to explore the breadth and depth of these discussions as far as possible, and over time. The ultimate point of these discussions is to open the realm of ideas through deeper understanding rather than floating on the surface of unspoken social consensus. What is not the point of these discussions is to be right or decide upon an objective truth. If you find yourself disagreeing with me that’s okay. If I say things that contradict your understanding please feel free to respectfully discuss these things in the comments, the Discord channel, or DMs of any social community in which we are friends.

Skill as a Result of Learning or Practice

Art requires skill.
If it doesn’t then it’s just entertainment, either for the sake of the performer or the witness. All skills are art in the act of creation but maybe not in the outcome.
Creating is art, the creation is not.

I think much art, music, film, and everything else falls into the category of being aesthetically pleasing with no depth. The meaning is shallow and the purpose behind the creation was to gain money or attention to the ego. You can view professional skills that we don’t consider to be art in this category. A house painter may be an artisan with many high level skills but the ultimate point of a contractor's work is to 1) to make money and 2) to be perfect and thus invisible. Which brings up an interesting point about how art is in the imperfections. Being perfect at a skill is aesthetically no different than being a machine, style is in the imperfections and choices an artist makes that others would choose to avoid.

Style is a natural byproduct of medium. This is a loaded statement but nonetheless true. Woodgrain is made up of the nature of how trees grow and how we choose to cut them. A record's charm is in the scratching of diamond on vinyl. Smell and taste are intertwined. Style and nature are intertwined. When the nature of the medium is removed from or counterfeited by artistic process, then the outcome is no longer Art, even if it is aesthetic.

So if art is useful is it not art? Is utility necessarily separate?
I think no, art and utility need not be separate. What makes a chair a work of art and not a product? The time, skill, or materials spent crafting it? All of these things and yet none of them.
If a chair is handcrafted and looks exactly like one from an assembly line is it more art than the mass produced versions? I would say yes because of the skill and patience but I think most people would disagree and see no point in the artist making a chair that can be easily purchased. Was the original designer an artist? Maybe, but it’s hard to say. Most likely it’s just someone completing a job. If you take these two hypothetical chairs, put them next to each other in a museum and explain that one is machine-made in under 5 minutes and the other is handcrafted with over 25 hours of work put into it, with a little white card asking which one is art? Do both chairs become art? Yes. So art is not only in the skill but it is also in the context. Interesting.

Does money ruin art?
YES

Although art and utility need not be separate money is not utility. If the utility of the art is to make money then it is only useful as a financial asset and less useful as art.

Art as Useful idiot

Does that mean any art that makes money is not art?
No, it just means that there is a much steeper climb up with intention. It is hard to stay true to intention while concentrating on making a marketable product. The compromises made for those that provide the money are usually compromising the work directly. Producers, and investors will not allow a meaning that compromises profits, therefore nothing taboo, controversial, or offensive. Any message that seeks to make a meaningful change in this world will inevitably touch on the taboo, controversial, or offensive elements of the society in which it exists.

So art is not just entertainment or aesthetically pleasing, though it may be these things it is not necessary, but entertainment is necessary for advertising, and that’s where commerce destroys the spirituality of art. By forcing artists’ ideas, skills, and personalities to compete in the market, they are forced into a game that takes away from the spiritual pursuit of tapping into the divine message being sent to them.

Advertising can never be Art. It may be aesthetic, skillful, and poignant, but if the ultimate purpose behind an aesthetic or artistic pursuit is to make money, then its ultimate purpose cannot also be to convey a deeper meaning. It seems that the push and pull interplay of capital and spirituality are ultimately a battle between the spirit or the flesh. When the flesh wins, the spirit loses, but when the spirit wins, the flesh shouldn’t be forced to lose. This is a societal choice to separate a human's work from the divine into the subservient. There is no room for spiritual endeavors in the market as they are inefficient, and lead to lower bottom line productivity. It is a choice by society to demonize the creative. Many may wonder why I keep referring to the divine and the spiritual in regards to art and the aesthetic and it is because the power and urge to create is as primordial as existence itself. When we tap into our creativity we are tapping into the same source from which all life was born; even in the smallest and most common acts of creation like cooking, decorating, cleaning, crafts, and all activities that can rely on any amount of skill.

The world would be a better place if all things were treated as art, but the precision of efficiency and the need for uniformity forces all things into cold, lifeless, brutalist utilitarianism. Art is only to take the edge off, or to sell a non-artistic product. It’s no longer used to hold up the wall. We mostly create from necessity at the moment of need. Our schedules force us into this pattern. Utility and aesthetics are being used against each other to keep our minds separate from our bodies in a false duality.

The meaning of life is to create, whether it is in the form of children, tools, agriculture or other means of survival. Our ability to tap into the divine energies for purposes other than survival is something that sets us apart from other species on this planet, but redirecting those energies to tap into capital is a misdirection of those purposes that sours the creative experience into merely a tool with which others may promote their products and propaganda.

We cannot truly appreciate the aesthetic in this world because we are made to feel that only suffering is real, and that we must earn a right to live, struggle in order to survive, and that the act of creation must be valuable to others or it holds no value at all. Furthermore, the only measure of creative value is directly correlated to dollars and fame as the units of measure for success. Skill, talent, and meaning are only important if it can be translated to monetary value, otherwise it’s just “wasted” time and energy.

The Meaning of Meaning

Can anything be art? Who decides what is art? Who decides how that meaning should be interpreted? These are the beautiful questions that cannot be solved by money, clout, and ego. Art is not in the creation but the creating. It is not in the mere existence but in the full experience of the creation. Art cannot exist without the artist, or the witness, and yet it still remains isolated and dependent upon both.

It is hard to fully discuss the possibility of what art could be if we were allowed to express other human values with the same composability as we do finance. It’s equally hard to discuss artificial intelligence, automation, digital mediums, virtual spaces, and all forms of collaboration as all of these conversations are morally focused on the financial ramifications rather than the spiritual effects on the human psyche and the evolution of the language and understanding of art which is tantamount to the questions of our very existence. This opens us to more discussions on the meanings of legitimacy, value, and quality, all of which are beyond capital and yet forcibly entwined in our modern context.

So what is Art? It is all of the things we’ve talked about and yet none of it. The act of creation is art even when the creation is not. Art is in a life of creation with intention, skill, and dedication to learning and exploring what it means to be conscious.

Thanks for reading! If you would like to see the video version check the links below. In the video I offer a bit of impromptu elaboration on certain points and may be working from an older or newer draft than the one published above. Thanks for the support and keep diving deep inside yourself to ask the hard questions that push our humanity to the next level.

Lens Protocol via Tape:
https://tape.xyz/watch/0x019965-0x6e

YouTube:

Sources:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/art

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art

https://arydpo.com/what-is-art-history-philosophy-meaning/#:~:text=The%20term%20%E2%80%9CA%20R%20T%E2%80%9D%20comes%20from,have%20existed%20since%20ancient%20Rome

Art, Its Occult Basis and Healing Value; Merry, Eleanor C. 1961

The Mission of Art; Grey, Alex; Wilber, Ken. Publisher, Shambhala, 1998;
ISBN, 1570623961, 9781570623967