The stuff of thought that...

[iamtime]

Hi,

After writing this thought out, I find that I have too many thats in this thought/ sentence, could you please advise - are they correctly used?

Art, at least by definition, is the stuff of thought that is made into this world for coders and encoders to interact and communicate, so it means that humans are not the only ones that create art, but also the bird that builds its nest, so does the bee and does the ant.

The reason I use that instead of who or which is that I want to generalise humans, animals, nature, insects, etc...

Thanks.

[5jj]

That does not really generalise more than who and which, in my opinion. You could always make birds, bees and ants plural.

Your thats were all correctly used, but I have suggested a couple of changes below.

Art, at least by definition, is the stuff of thought that is made into this world for coders and encoders to interact and communicate; this means that humans are not the only ones to create art, but also the birds that build their nests, as do the bees and ants.

I am not really sure what you mean by: Art, at least by definition, is the stuff of thought that is made into this world for coders and encoders to interact and communicate

[iamtime]

That does not really generalise more than who and which, in my opinion. You could always make birds, bees and ants plural.

Your thats were all correctly used, but I have suggested a couple of changes below.I am not really sure what you mean by: Art, at least by definition, is the stuff of thought that is made into this world for coders and encoders to interact and communicate

Thanks for the suggestion

I am trying to say:

Art, at least(or fundamentally/ scientifically - but I try to avoid using these two words) should be defined as, the stuff of thinking that is made into objects etc... does it make sense?

[JMurray]

iamtime.
It seems to me that you are discussing ideas towards an understanding of the nature of art, so it doesn't quite make sense to say that you already know what it is "by definition". A more hypothetical tone might work better. Does that make sense?
I'm not sure that I grasp exactly what you're getting at but here's a rewrite that might be useful for you.

"If art is the act of making our thoughts tangible in forms that others can respond to, interact with, and decode, does this mean that not only humans create art, but also birds when making nests, as do bees and ants?"

not a teacher

[5jj]

"If art is the act of making our thoughts tangible in forms that others can respond to, interact with, and decode, does this mean that not only humans create art, but also birds when making nests, as do bees and ants?"

Now that makes sense and is easy to understand. My suggestion below is possible ony because I have JMurray's version to work on.

"If art is the act of making our thoughts tangible in forms that others can respond to, interact with, and decode, does this not mean (doesn't this mean) that not only humans create art, but also birds when making nests, as do bees and ants?"

I realise that my suggestion results in two 'not's unhappily close to each other, but I feel that the negative interrogative implies a call for agreement that is more in line with the statement form of the original.

[iamtime]

iamtime.
It seems to me that you are discussing ideas towards an understanding of the nature of art, so it doesn't quite make sense to say that you already know what it is "by definition". A more hypothetical tone might work better. Does that make sense?
I'm not sure that I grasp exactly what you're getting at but here's a rewrite that might be useful for you.

"If art is the act of making our thoughts tangible in forms that others can respond to, interact with, and decode, does this mean that not only humans create art, but also birds when making nests, as do bees and ants?"

not a teacher

Thanks JMurray.

Yea you can say it is a hypothesis. But it is not actually as I picked up that 'definition' from a science documentary then I extended it.

It says that art is made into things/ object from our thinking (something like that). I agree with it, so I think this should be the fundamental/ minimalist definition for art.

Thanks.

[iamtime]

Now that makes sense and is easy to understand. My suggestion below is possible ony because I have JMurray's version to work on.

"If art is the act of making our thoughts tangible in forms that others can respond to, interact with, and decode, does this not mean (doesn't this mean) that not only humans create art, but also birds when making nests, as do bees and ants?"

I realise that my suggestion results in two 'not's unhappily close to each other, but I feel that the negative interrogative implies a call for agreement that is more in line with the statement form of the original.

Thanks fivejedjon. But I am not sure sure with this hypothetical tone as the confidence in this idea/ concept seems to be missing...

and I don't go with our thoughts I have to admit as it has become that it explains art from the human perspective and it favours human's side which I don't agree with.

What is wrong with 'the stuff of thought'? It is taken directly from this book actually - The Stuff of Thought (2007) The Stuff of Thought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But anyway, can I say it into something simpler and shorter like the sentence below?

Art is the stuff of thought that is made into tangible forms on Earth for this world; this means that the credit of art is not only to humans, but also to the birds that build their nests, as to the bees and ants.

or maybe this one is better?

Art is the stuff of thought that is made into tangible forms on Earth for this world; this means that humans are not only the credit of art, but also the birds that build their nests, as do the bees and ants.

again, I am not sure whether I have said it in a correctly English tone... on Earth for this world - is it too much and not necessary?

Thanks.

[Kameel Alwabari]

I suggest,from my point of view, some points that may help you:

1st: don't use long sentences. The shorter and clearer your sentence is , the more understandable and effective will be.

2nd: Don't use phrases like (At least by definition), you can replace it with some good ones like (in my opinion) (as scientists stated) (according to X philosophy), they will be better.

3rd: don't be too general.

I will write your paragraph once again on my way:

Art, according to iamtime's philosophy, is the stuff of thought which is made into this world mostly for coders and encoders to interact and communicate. So, humans are not the only ones who create art. Birds are artists when they build their nests, and so are the bees and ants.

[iamtime]

I suggest,from my point of view, some points that may help you:

1st: don't use long sentences. The shorter and clearer your sentence is , the more understandable and effective will be.

2nd: Don't use phrases like (At least by definition), you can replace it with some good ones like (in my opinion) (as scientists stated) (according to X philosophy), they will be better.

3rd: don't be too general.

I will write your paragraph once again on my way:

Art, according to iamtime's philosophy, is the stuff of thought which is made into this world mostly for coders and encoders to interact and communicate. So, humans are not the only ones who create art. Birds are artists when they build their nests, and so are the bees and ants.

Thanks Kameel.

But sorry that I have changed and removed the highlighted words below in my previous reply,

Art, according to iamtime's philosophy, is the stuff of thought which is made into this world mostly for coders and encoders to interact and communicate. So, humans are not the only ones who create art. Birds are artists when they build their nests, and so are the bees and ants.

To,

Art is the stuff of thought that is made into tangible forms on Earth for this world; this means that the credit of art is not only to humans, but also to the birds that build their nests, as to the bees and ants.

or,

Art is the stuff of thought that is made into tangible forms on Earth for this world; this means that humans are not only the credit of art, but also the birds that build their nests, as do the bees and ants.

Thanks.

[Tdol]

I'd say the credit for art, or something like it is not only humans who should be credited with creating art....


PS Slightly relevant quote: Language is the dress of thought Dr Johnson