Forums → WEPR → What is Art?
| 18 | 4466 |
For just a moment, I think it would be nice if we could take a break from the futile 'debates' raging within the more frustrating topics to think about art once again. This time I want to ask the much broader question of what is it that makes something art. And furthermore, what is it that distinguishes good art from bad art?
These are deep, and difficult questions often sidestepped by a lazy sort of relativism. Today, a lot of people believe that art is what ever an artist happens to create. In addition to begging the question, this approach falls prey to a lapse in logic, since certainly the baker bakes cakes, but cakes are not what ever the baker bakes. We would be hardly be convinced by the baker's insistence that he has baked us is a cake if what he presents us with is a muffin or a baked rodent..or something not edible at all. We know what these things are without needing to be told by someone with the appropriate credentials. Sometimes an artist creates something that some critics might reject as art, and usually they give their reasons. Can you think of anything a self-styled artist might create as "art" that you might have difficulty accepting as art? Why or why not?
Usually we are able to recognize supposed works of art as art without knowing anything about an artist, or even being told that that person who created it is a artist. But it's the exceptions that makes things interesting to think about and may shed some light on the investigation. Arthur Danto asks us to consider the example of indiscernables - objects that are visually indistinguishable from one another, yet one is art and one is not. This is more plausible if we think about the avant-garde sort of modern art, than anything else. Already, certain assumptions about what art underpin this hypothetical situation, which people can take issue with, but it may be worthwhile to temporarily accept them for the sake of argument. Precisely what art is then becomes less about the intrinsic properties of the artwork and more about what it is "about".
I believe that art is a contextual entity in that it is exists as a medium of expression from artist to viewer. Although art doesn't have to be placed in an art gallery as a prerequisite to become art, this can set the proper context for the art to be regarded as art. While a twisted hunk of metal found in the trash is meaningless, an identical-looking piece of metal meticulously crafted by the artist could be about the torments of the industrial age. Of course the artist could attempt to express this idea through words, but art has certain elements or attributes which make it ideal for expressing certain kinds of ideas, such as those that words cannot do proper justice to, or those that must be more viscerally experienced to be adequately understood. One such element of art that I think is particularly important and certainly cannot be reduced to words is style. An artist's style imprints itself onto his work much like a signature, but one that tells us something about the artist's subjective impression of an idea that will be different from another person's impression of that same idea. In this way, the form of expression is one that is exclusively their own, and viewers of art may more compelled or inspired by one 'take' than another. I dare say that the work of art that is more convincing at portraying the lonely isolation of a soul caught amid the endless expanses of the ocean is better than another work of art that aims to do the same but where the viewer is only able take home the message that the color of the ocean matches the sky and it looks as if someone is going on a journey by sea.
- 18 Replies
Right now (as in just before I go to work), I can think of this:
Arthur Danto asks us to consider the example of indiscernables - objects that are visually indistinguishable from one another, yet one is art and one is not...While a twisted hunk of metal found in the trash is meaningless, an identical-looking piece of metal meticulously crafted by the artist could be about the torments of the industrial age.
If I were to use the very loose definition of art as a 'form of expression' (a view implicitly held by most, I assume), I would agree that context largely defines whether we look at something in terms of 'whether it is art'. Given the place of subjectivity, I might take recourse to some normative standard here- something that is intentionally removed from its 'natural' habitat or function in some way arguably extraneous may imply commentary and therefore some form of 'art'.
What I find amusing about this argument is that it is very far removed from the times where art was much easier to define, seemingly as objects unto themselves using techniques and mediums developed specifically for the purpose. Also, this definition does tend to ignore the use of 'art' in terms of a kind of 'evocative modifier', for example saying 'the art of' some skillset.
But maybe it doesn't have to. After all, one of the beautiful things about modern society is that one can find art in many places, each to their own in accordance with the individualistic philosophy that we hold now. Use the word how you will: it can denote something of great value as a reflection of life or that which seems to transcend life.
P.S. Nobody is allowed to say 'This belongs in the Art subsection' :P
Art is simply what we see as art.
Give it any definition you want, art will be what that as we see as it.
What is it that we see as art? That is the question.
Art can be what comes from one expressing themselves, but if someone plans to express themselves by showing us poo, its not art is it.
Paintings, sculptures....
Whatever it is that are brains consider art.
I guess that's kinda covered by this:
These are deep, and difficult questions often sidestepped by a lazy sort of relativism.
We're trying to articulate in more depth what it is that said minds consider art...though of course if you're going to say there is nothing more to consider I suppose that's okay too
Lol well I think its rather quite simple.
Taking down the whole essay by arguing on just that one sentence you quoted =O
Oh don't I wish.
What I find amusing about this argument is that it is very far removed from the times where art was much easier to define, seemingly as objects unto themselves using techniques and mediums developed specifically for the purpose.
For Danto, the 'telos' of art gradually evolved throughout its history as it came to understand itself. Art used to be simpler to conceive because it was primarily about representation. All this changed, however, when photography and other technologies could satisfy the goal of representation better that art, so art had to go through a period of identity crisis, so to speak, where it tried to answer for itself the question, 'what is art?' And this is where the diversity of expression exploded in many different directions as artists had very different ideas about how to address this problem.
Danto is primarily interested in the avant-garde, so one would have to have some respect for that genre of art before one can accept his assumptions about how art can take literally any form, since form gives way to "aboutness".
As for myself, I think my theory certainly has room for the goal of simple representation (with the caveat that the artist may not even be aware of the the ways in which his expression is subjectively unique), just as long as representation isn't seen as the *only* goal of art (as that would invalidate much the more abstract art found today - let alone present serious challenges for non-visual art as a whole). As well, simpler definitions of art that "old-school" artist may wish to employ are also compatible with my "art as expression" idea.
Also, this definition does tend to ignore the use of 'art' in terms of a kind of 'evocative modifier', for example saying 'the art of' some skillset.
It doesn't "ignore" it because I don't think it's relevant to discussions of fine art. At some point in western history, there was a semantic divide between art as Art, and art as 'techne', the greek word for "the implementation of skill through the application of practical knowledge", even though the word for both these meanings remained the same in English.
Well sorry but I'm not too good with big words so a lot of what you say just doesn't get to me o.o
Well, that was mostly directed at Strop who should know what I'm talking about... >.>
The way I see it. Art is derived from the practice of alchemy... turning lead into gold. alchemy is turning something plain into something of value, for example; DaVinci turning blank canvas and worthless paint into the Mona Lisa, one of the most captivating paintings today. Art is the product of Alchemy, turning lead into gold. What we see as art is something of value due to the work someone has put into it. You wouldn't scribble something on a piece of paper and sell it for millions of dollars, and if you paint a masterpiece and take months, if not years to make it, it would be unreasonable to sell it for a few dollars. Alchemy is also of sentimental value. when I write my poetry, that is of great value to me. Everyone else will read it and like it for a few seconds, but usually it means nothing. One couldn't take years to write a book or paint, and not care for it. Does that answer your question?
Art is something that is like a blank sheet. It can be anything that you think is sometihng that is art to you. It could be a Breath-Taking pastel art. It could be a tribute to Bill Clinton, entirely made of harden puke. It could be a bus load of paint cans chucked around on a big piece of paper. It is versatile and nothing that you make is the wrong way. Some people like to collect this art. From the greatest arts in the world like the Mona Lisa or for some people, crap made from a chimp who was just having fun. You can be all the same like just using paint of pastel or you can be original by using maybe blood or tears or poop. Whatever you want it to be made of. It can take you as short as a second or as long as 10 years. It can be something you just want to hug or something you just want to burn. Whatever it is, it will always be art to the most important person, you.
@thepyro
That analogy seems fair enough. At least, with that understanding, "added value" would be a necessary condition of art, but so would it for any other commodity. I think there must be more to it than that. I think we can also distinguish between the value of art and the quality of art, though the latter will influence the former. After all, it seems possible for bad art to fetch a fair price, and not just because one person has a sentimental attachment to it. And I've seen some zen art completed within a few seconds which also sells for a fair price - but this doesn't mean it's low quality. But something else must determine whether art is good or bad than how well it does in the market, or how much time or effort one puts into it..
@drakokirby
So you're saying it's the viewer who decides whether something is art or not, not the artist? What exactly possesses them to call something art in the first place?
Also, before I procrastinate more about addressing Drace's point..
Art can be what comes from one expressing themselves, but if someone plans to express themselves by showing us poo, its not art is it.
But by your logic, expressing yourself by that way ought to count as art. You have not given a reason why using the medium of "oo" invalidates the expression as art. And yes, there has been art that incorporates poo. Obviously its status as art remains controversial but if it's to be rejected, it's to be rejected for a reason.
As I am sure it has been mentioned, almost anything that expresses one's self is art.
Look at suspensions, for example. The act of hanging someone either from hooks through the skin. The only thing is supporting the person many feet in the air is the resilience of their skin. I consider that an art form. To me, it looks beautiful and awe-inspiring. And I am sure that the people taking place in the suspension are expressing the hell out of themselves.
Almost any medium can be art. I mean, right now I could collect a few things from around my room/house and make art.
Example) Take one of my empty Coca-Cola cans, fill it with motor oil, set it up on my copy of the Bill or Rights/Declaration of Independence and skewer it with my army knife(thus letting the oil bleed out on said document).
This idea just sort of popped into my head as I was reading, so I haven't thought it out fully; it may be totally flawed but here goes.
Definitions for man-made objects seem to all revolve around the function of an object: this is a chair because you sit on it, this is clothing because you wear it, etc. It can also be noted here that the form of the object has limitations based on its function i.e. a chair must have somewhere to sit, and clothing must be able to be worn. But it seems like we are trying here to define art based on its form, especially in Danto scenario. While both of these objects do have the same form, only one of them has the function of being art. Just like there are plenty of things I can sit on (my car, a rock, my girlfriend's head) but that does not make them chairs.
So then we must define art by its function, but different styles of art clearly have different functions. I think this is why we end up (consciously or not) dividing art into neat little categories such as Surrealism, Impressionism, Dadaism, Post-Modernism and so on. Each one of these styles ends up having its own function, which can loosely fall under the category of expressing something (although there is certainly art with no other function than to simply "look pretty". Because we as humans have defined these parameters for all these objects, including art, there is no normative approach to establishing what belongs where, only self referentially valid definitional approaches.
I compare art to a haircut. There are different styles of haircuts, each one with its own goals and functions whether it be a mohawk or a butt-cut. There are certainly "right" and "wrong" techniques for these haircuts based on symmetry and evenness, which are sort of classical aesthetic concerns. But under the loose definition of the function of a hair-cut as simply getting some of your hair snipped off, clearly there are many things which can fall within this category. There are certain parameters for judging both art and haircuts that are specific to each discipline but ultimately as long as they fit within a very open definition I don't see how we can reject something as not art.
I think it is just because we see that way and that is because that what we been thought.
Why is your girlfriends hair not considered a chair? Because you think of it a persons head. You are thought that a chair is something with four legs and that thingy you seat on.
"But by your logic, expressing yourself by that way ought to count as art."
By that definition of art, yes it should count as art, but we don't see poo as art. That was my point.
If we grew up in a society was poo was used for art all the time, then yes you'd even argue that poo is art against someone who doesn't agree.
You must be logged in to post a reply!