The Arts in NYC

To art or not to art?

Lame, yes, I know. =P

We discussed in class briefly about what was art and what wasn't. I think we agreed that art is the conscious making of something by a human. But then professor judell said there were now machines that made art and some of us considered that not art. I think we also said that if a person is using the machine consciously to make art, then it is art. (I might just be making those two statements up, but this is a good discussion nonetheless, feel free to object to these statements). Now I want to bring up an interesting question if you guys agree with these two statements. Say you are looking at a painting done by the computer. Not knowing whether the artist consciously made it or if the computer made it, is it art? How would you answer this question if you're trying to define art by how it was made?

If you have objections then consider another example. You see a painting of a blob of paint on a paper. Is it art? How do you know someone purposely put that blob there or if they had cans of paint in a truck and the paint leaked on a piece of paper (not art by our (or any probably)) definition?

Just some things to consider

-Steven