IndieAgora

Many people say “Art is in the eyes of the beholder”. I disagree completely, and I propose a different definition for art: Art is to create with intention. That separates pollock paintings from a meaningless mess. No matter how beautiful or ugly art is, it is to create with intention. The intention is the effect of the artist, even if the intention is to create confusion or chaos. Intention should not be misconstrued as meaning! I think apparent meaningless art is still art as long as it’s creation is intentional. Art is never an accident, but it may come from accidental circumstance. It is not the circumstance itself that generates the art, but it is the artist. Meaning may be subjective in art, but not the intention behind the work itself. Art may be open to interpretation, and it’s meaning debated, but it is still created by an artist. Whether it be a portrait of a scene or person, or an abstract emotion or technique, it all serves the artist’s purpose. Meaning can also be found in ways not intended.

Therefore Art is created by human intention, and nothing else. The intention does not need to be noble to be art. Perhaps we can judge the artist’s intentions?

We select what we call art too, not necessarily intentional imo.

atreestump wrote: Thu Oct 16, 2025 4:38 am We select what we call art too, not necessarily intentional imo.

I mean artists create intentionally, that is the process of art.

Meanings and interpretations may be subjective and non intentional, but the creative process remains intentional

Do you have any counter examples?

The artist might not know their intention or may be claiming an intention that was not actually present when they were making the art, and they may or may not even be aware of that and may not be trying to lie, they just may have thought of reasons layer and then retconned it into the narrative when they were asked to recall, which was creating a new story potentially based on information and experiences that hadn't happened at the time. The person themselves isn't necessarily the best source, just the best hope anyone can have for insight that is closer than a totally random person guessing, even if the guess may end up correct and most correct, without the person even seeing the art, and we couldn't know.

So that in translation would be:

Artist puts into a piece of art an imaginary and invisible X, their intention at some point or before starting. They may even add other intentions as they progress. Then they may forget those or rewrite them, without even realizing it.

A random person who has never seen the art may by chance or however happen to guess everything correctly about the invisible intention within the art they've never seen, even the entire correct sequence of changes.

The artist doesn't know if that is true or not, neither does the random person know or have any way to verify that they are correct.

Since the stuff, X, Intention, is and remains invisible, no one has a way of verifying it.

People would tend to trust what the artist claims as their best bet, as compared to the guessing person who hasn't even looked at the art, even if the artist happens to be wrong and not saying what actually happened, on purpose or because they don't even know or remember, and the guessing person happens to be absolutely right, few would tend to believe a person or have any reason to trust them, especially considering things like their not being the artist and not even seeing the art in this extreme example.

So an artist may say: 345 is the invisible thing I put into the art.

In actuality, if there even is such a thing, it may actually be 786.

A guesser may say: 786 and be right.

People would choose the artist who said 345 or doubt him but never be sure and even make their own guesses.

So, sadly, as far as I can tell, intention remains unavailable to everyone in any way that can ever be certain for now. Even if a person recorded themselves and kept announcing their thoughts or what they were claiming were their intentions, it still may be incorrect or misleading, even on accident.

The intention can not be known by anyone. It can't be known that it was there. We can pretty safely assume a person who goes through the process of making something has intended to make something, since they don't look like they just tripped and made a mess, but went for the tools in a deliberate looking way and started using them, so there was an intention to do something with those tools, to make something. That seems like a safer guess in general, but what they are thinking or what they intended to make at any point remains totally unknown, even for them potentially as thoughts are quickly overwritten by others repeatedly, even moment to moment at a rapid pace.

Are you saying intention exists but it can't be known?

Intention isn't a FORM, so yes you are correct. Intention just means intention to create something, it has nothing to do with artistic “meaning” or “goals” or “value”. Intention is the process, not the meaning. Artists create things, the act of defecation or breathing isn’t art in my opinion because it is essential biology.

Or is everything art?

Not everything is art, but anything **can** be art.

Art can be unintentional- we can be hit by the sublime, an awe. This is something that **happens** to us, we do not intend it.

I wonder if animals feel awe.

If intention is the dividing line, then art depends on awareness — but awareness isn’t stable, it flickers. A person may act with half-intention, a pulse that arises and fades before it’s named. The gesture remains, though the artist may never return to that precise consciousness again.

To say art requires intention is to treat the artist as an executive mind steering a vessel. But art also emerges from the tremor, the misfire, the hesitation — from what the Greeks might call automaton, that which happens by itself. Some of the most affecting works feel like accidents that wished to be seen.

Maybe what we call “intention” is simply the trace we leave after the act — a story we build around the event to make it legible. The sublime, as you said, isn’t chosen; it overtakes. Yet our response — the naming of it as art — becomes its final creative act.

So perhaps:
Art = what is received as intention, not necessarily what was intended.
And awe, whether in humans or animals, is the moment when creation and perception collapse into one — the world making itself known through us.

Not everything is art, but anything **can** be art.

Yes! Exactly!
Ok so I think art can happen to you. I agree. I was trying to clarify what that means- "not everything is art"
I remember your anticapitalist videos and how someone made art by smearing shit all over a building as a "fuck you" to capitalism
I think that is art

Art = what is received as intention, not necessarily what was intended.

For sure, I never meant intention to be this static. Art can definitely be something that was unintended at first or intended as later by limitations. I think you can find inspiration. Art may mirror that inspiration, but it isn't required to. And artistic mediums do have limitations that may make art look or feel a similar way. Half intentions are still intentions to me, even if largely inspired by real life experience.

To say art requires intention is to treat the artist as an executive mind steering a vessel. But art also emerges from the tremor, the misfire, the hesitation — from what the Greeks might call automaton, that which happens by itself. Some of the most affecting works feel like accidents that wished to be seen.

I actually believe in a creative spark, and that we aren't in control of life. We are spiritual beings, and art is the Creator's kiss.
It's definitely overly reductive to say the artist's mind is in control, which is what you guys were pointing out. What if it is the artist's spirit that creates with intention? Creation is a spiritual thing to me, not a psychological operation of the mind.

https://stream.indieagora.com/w/o6VT3jdNcFzygKLjyKyKBx

Cool Vampire Chase Scene with the escalators. Was there something in the video about Art and Intention? I haven't watched it properly yet, I just read quickly and skipped through.