RpNation

Well, if you want the serious answer... because intention is necessary for art (not sufficient though). I may admire the beauty of a view, but that view by itself is beautiful but not art, not unless you're looking at it from the perspective of "this was created this way".

intention is not necessary for art, art can be absolutely unintentional, and beautiful things can be art without just being a view. there are many intentionless things which can be considered art, i really don't see your point here

granted, art is subjective, but there is no part of it which requires intention

"There are many intentionless things which can be considered art" such as? Can you give me an example which is at least generally considered art that is entirely unintentional?

best example? snowflakes. they are considered art by many, from the uniqueness of it and its meticulous geometry, but you can in no way claim that a snowflake has intent in it's art

but i can give you examples all day, in the end my point is that niether intent nor the beholder matters in art (or more accurately, both matter but in different ways), i just think people lost the intent of it long ago and dont even care to find it- and that is upsetting because many things can be learned from it

art overall is an abstract human concept which doesn't have to hold much meaning to be appreciated and vice versa, my opinion on this is that people should try and see both sides before making concrete opinions- just because they never cared enough

Do they consider it "art" though? Or do they simply think of it to be "like art"?

what would constitute the difference between art and like art? i would say they are the same, many would agree with me and many would disagree, but i believe there is no difference- because what says nature isn't an artist of its' own kind and intent?

and if intent matters- then what kind of intent? is every flap of a butterflies' wing art or is it not simply because the butterfly didn't say so, or is it the human who finds it beautiful and thinks it art that defines it? i think this is a debate way beyond the two of us

The intent to create art of course, at least that's what I was referring to. "like art" is merely possessing certain qualities of art, and being able to be appreciated for those. Being art is something people would actually consider art. Nature is often considered like art for its beauty, but to actually call it art is often an exageration at best.

art

noun

the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

Paintings, sculptures, and digital pieces are art.
Plants, animals, and nature are things that are aesthetically pleasing, but not considered art.

definitions do not make for answers to a debate, just as they make general banter less fun, the primarily question i was asking here is why things people consider aesthetically pleasing cannot be considered art, like why is a photograph of something considered art but not the thing itself. the answer idea provided is intent, so i countered with saying that i do not believe intent really matters

nature's intent is often described as illusory but why would it be any more real than the intent of a human?

Aight, whatever. I gave my two cents. I'm out.

Because "nature's intent" is just wordplay on patterns found in nature or otherwise retroactively fitted to its occurrences. Human intent preceedes the action, and thus can cause and shape the action.

are humans and the way we think so outside the spectrum of nature that the things we do aren't considered as such anymore? is human intent unnatural and are we not part of 'nature's intent'? even if a human can do things with intent, i dont think an actual intent for 'art' has to be required when it's so subjective

Well, there's several layers to that.
-->Are humans anomalies among nature? Yeah, we are. I gave this long and hard thought, especially as it comes to AI for instance, which isn't natural but appears to replicate human intelligence. I've concluded that our capacity to abstract, this is to conceive of concepts which have no immediate basis on what's around us or our experiences. This would require an infinite

regression of causation to process, AKA infinite brain matter and brain power, by natural law. It is thus my conclusions humans transcend what one would consider nature.

--->"Nature's intent" isn't an intent at all. We only call it "intent" due to our tendency, as humans, to describe things through words that help us make sense of things. To take "nature's intent" as an intent, is like taking drops of rain as actual

cats and dogs.

--->"Art is subjective" is problematic. To a degree, I guess all words are subjective, so you have a point that far. However, I wouldn't say the quality of art, nor the perfect concept of art (perfect concepts being the precise idea of a category, as described by Plato), would be subjective. This is because they have impact and describe things outside of one's own personal experience, thus art cannot