What is art?

MadArchitect · Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 2:37 pm Post subject: Re: What is art?

Loricat: Mad, you've taken it upon yourself to be our devil's advocate, or just the voice of the experienced philosopher, questioning all of our attempts at defining what Art is. I appreciate this, it's a great challenge.

I hope that's the spirit you'll continue to take it in. I realize that my method can be a bit frustrating at time, but it's purpose is really just to put pressure on your ideas so that they develop. And I'm really only testing them on two grounds: 1) internal consistency, and 2) fidelity to the evidence.

Sakis Totlis: In regards to the alternate definitions that you've quoted, we may lump 3a. and 3b. with my point, along with 7 and 8. The use of the terms "vivid" and "tableau" in all of those indicate a direct and limited relation to the visual. That leaves:
4. A person or object bearing a marked resemblance to another: She's the picture of her mother.
5. A person, object, or scene that typifies or embodies an emotion, state of mind, or mood: Your face was the very picture of horror.
6. The chief circumstances of an event or time; a situation.
Of which, only 5 is partially related to art -- the others are applications of an art term to every day life. The use of picture in 4 is a form of analogy, as though to say, "She resembles her mother but is not her mother, just as a picture would resemble something that it is not." Definition 6 is also an analogy, this one to the notion of a moment frozen in time: we sometimes use the term "map" or "schematic" in the same sense, and both of those uses are obviously the result of colloquial borrowings from specialized fields, just as with the use of "picture". Definition 5 follows more or less the same pattern, and I only make an exception of it because the notion that a given set of elements may represent something with almost archetypal resonance is useful to the functions of art. But the definition itself is clearly intended to apply to situations outside of art itself, and is another example of the borrowing of a specialized term for colloquial use.

I really want to avoid dragging this dead end on any longer, as I think it could potentially slow down an interesting discussion, so let me say that my objection to the use of the term picture is not an objection to any particular point you've made. I'm merely trying to save us all from the use of a potentially confusing term. The more quickly we replace the term "picture", as you've attempted to use it, with a more applicable term, the more quickly we can get about to evaluating your definition of art.

misterpessimistic: Is Warhol's 'Soup can' art?

I'd say so.

Loricat · Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:20 am Post subject: Re: What is art?

So, I will try to distill Mad's thoughts down into a short statement, for myself (and for Mad to argue with

):

For something to be considered Art, it should be created by an artist for an audience, usually an analysis of some subject (albeit from a personal perspective) that is often of universal concern, but not necessarily so, as it only (!) needs to elicit a response either of the imagination or of the emotions. While we want to avoid the dichotomy of high/low Art, there still needs to be some concensus of quality on the part of the viewing public.

What do you all think?

Lori

"All beings are the owners of their deeds, the heirs to their deeds."

MadArchitect · Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 12:20 pm Post subject: Re: What is art?

Thanks for keeping the ball rolling, Loricat.

For something to be considered Art, it should be created by an artist for an audience

So far so good. Of course, this raises a kind of chicken-egg problem in that, someone isn't properly an artist until they've produced art. But we can work that out later on.

usually an analysis of some subject

This is a little more problematic, and I realize that I've introduced the problematic term. So long as we're using the word "analysis" in the context of Bergson's philosophy, this makes sense, but once we lose sight of Bergson "analysis" takes on all sorts of connotations that aren't really proper to art. Art is not like a chemical analysis, for instance. So what I would say is, that art is based on observation.

that is often of universal concern, but not necessarily so

I wouldn't go so far as often, and in fact, we may go so far as to ask when it is ever universal. Which calls into question what we mean by "universal."

as it only (!) needs to elicit a response either of the imagination or of the emotions.

No, I wouldn't say that response is the primary objective of art. Art engages the imagination by default, and it often engages the emotions, but that doesn't strike me as its end.

While we want to avoid the dichotomy of high/low Art

We can still delve into the dichomoty of high and low art, but I don't think it serves as a sufficient defining factor, such that one would be art while the other would be something else.

there still needs to be some concensus of quality on the part of the viewing public.

Not a consensus on quality but on qualities. In other words, we're not defining art based on its relative merit, but based on what characteristics all arts share.

So, given those qualifications, here is how I would rewrite the synthesis you made of my previous post:

For something to be considered Art, it should be created by an artist for an audience, rooted in the observation of some subject (albeit from a personal perspective) that is not necessarily of universal concern, and which engages the imagination and often the emotions. While we want to avoid defining art according to the dichotomy of high/low, there needs to be some concensus on the part of the viewing public as to what qualities are common to all art.

Loricat · Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 6:49 pm Post subject: Re: What is art?

ooooo...(the audible hum of brain waves overheating)

Cool. A tidy place to (re)start.

I understand wanting to stay away from a word like 'analysis', but we do need something more than 'observation'. Anyone can observe a tree, it's the talented spin that an artist puts on a tree, representing some conclusion s/he has made about the nature of the tree that makes it art

From the American Heritage dictionary on my computer:

observation

1. a. The act or faculty of observing. b. The fact of being observed.
2. a. The act of noting and recording something, such as a phenomenon, with instruments. b. The result or record of such notation: a meteorological observation.
3. A comment or remark. See synonyms at comment.
4. An inference or a judgment that is acquired from or based on observing.

When I think about it -- observation is usually subjective, as everyone takes note of different elements, and has differing priorities.

Just for fun: analysis comes from Medieval Latin, from Greek analusis, a dissolving, from analuein, to undo : ana-, throughout. See ana- + luein, to loosen.

Oops. Unfortunately, I've just looked at the time, and I've gotta blow this popsicle stand -- more later. $:\$

Lori

"All beings are the owners of their deeds, the heirs to their deeds."

MadArchitect · Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 9:56 am Post subject: Re: What is art?

Well, in the place of "observation" or "analysis", suppose we substitute "experience"? That will, I think, require some further qualification, though. So we might say that works of art are, among the other qualities we've named, the result of filtering experience through imagination. Does that hold true when we apply the formula to examples of art? In most cases I would say that it does, but can we think of any exceptions?

Loricat · Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:43 am Post subject: Re: What is art?

filtering experience through imagination
Hmm, nicely poetic. (we should get Tim into this discussion) I like it though -- there is no reason that a definition of art shouldn't be artistic.

You raised an interesting question, Mad, about is an artist an artist before s/he has created a work of art. I would say yes -- this is not really the chicken or the egg question. An artist can long identify as an artist before creating a piece of art. Unless we want to specify that an artist can only be identified as such after his/her first work.

Lori

"All beings are the owners of their deeds, the heirs to their deeds."

MadArchitect · Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:51 am Post subject: Re: What is art?

I would think that you'd have to at least be engaged in making a piece of art before you can rightly call yourself an artist. I think most people have artistic tendencies to one degree or another, but unless they're working on something, I'd hesitate to call them artists.

In fact, you could extend that notion even farther and say that a person is only an artist in the presence of one of their artworks. We blur the linguistic boundaries a lot, and for good social reasons. But when Andy Warhol was sitting in the bus station thinking about what he wanted for lunch, I'm not sure that he was, at that moment, an artist.

When someone asks what you do for a living, and you say that you're a neurosurgeon, do you mean that you're always a neurosurgeon, or that you're a neurosurgeon when you're doing your job? We present it as the former, but I think that we sort of mean the latter.

Loricat · Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:48 pm Post subject: Re: What is art?

Good point, Mad.
It is a fine distinction to define yourself with verbs instead of nouns. "I'm a teacher" is a limiting statement, as I'm discovering while I try to change careers...while "I teach" is only one of the verbs that I embrace. A neurosurgeon would not, as a habit, wear her/his neurosurgeon hat on a continuous basis -- changing the noun hats is harder than just using a different verb.

So, an artist is someone who engages in art, who does art, who creates art, but who also works in a bookstore and cooks for friends.

Lori

"All beings are the owners of their deeds, the heirs to their deeds."

Timothy Schoonover · Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 9:05 am Post subject: Re: What is art?

I've always felt that the best way to understand art is to create it or to observe it directly. To me, this Bukowski poem speaks volumes.

The Genius of the Crowd

there is enough treachery, hatred violence absurdity in the average
human being to supply any given army on any given day
and the best at murder are those who preach against it
and the best at hate are those who preach love
and the best at war finally are those who preach peace
those who preach god, need god
those who preach peace do not have peace
those who preach peace do not have love
beware the preachers
beware the knowers
beware those who are always reading books
beware those who either detest poverty
or are proud of it
beware those quick to praise
for they need praise in return
beware those who are quick to censor
they are afraid of what they do not know
beware those who seek constant crowds for
they are nothing alone
beware the average man the average woman
beware their love, their love is average
seeks average
but there is genius in their hatred
there is enough genius in their hatred to kill you
to kill anybody
not wanting solitude
not understanding solitude
they will attempt to destroy anything
that differs from their own
not being able to create art
they will not understand art
they will consider their failure as creators
only as a failure of the world
not being able to love fully
they will believe your love incomplete
and then they will hate you
and their hatred will be perfect
like a shining diamond
like a knife
like a mountain
like a tiger
like hemlock
their finest art

Loricat · Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 9:41 am Post subject: Re: What is art?

Thanks, Tim.

On a similar note, a line from my favourite Bukowski poem: "to the whore who took my poems"

"...
but as God said,
crossing his legs,
I see where I have made plenty of poets
but not so very much
poetry."

Lori

"All beings are the owners of their deeds, the heirs to their deeds."

Timothy Schoonover · Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:34 pm Post subject: Re: What is art?

Here's another good one.

The Loser

and the next I remembered I'm on a table,
everybody's gone: the head of bravery
under light, scowling, flailing me down...
and then some toad stood there, smoking a cigar:
"Kid you're no fighter," he told me,
and I got up and knocked him over a chair;
it was like a scene in a movie, and
he stayed there on his big rump and said
over and over: "Jesus, Jesus, whatsamatta wit
you?" and I got up and dressed,
the tape still on my hands, and when I got home
I tore the tape off my hands and
wrote my first poem,
and I've been fighting
ever since

Edited by: Timothy Schoonover at: 4/19/05 3:34 pm

MadArchitect · Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 12:36 pm Post subject: Re: What is art?

From my point of view, his poems are art. Whether or not they're worthwhile art is a matter for debate, but that doesn't place him outside the category.

capecodindependant · Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 10:37 am Post subject: Re: What is art?

Art is anything that is sprung from a creative mind.Art are masterpieces,art can be anything.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT