What is art?

Ken Hemingway · Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 11:27 am Post subject: What is art?

I’m going to propose an answer to this question, but first please be patient with me while I provide a little background.

I was trying to explain to someone the difference between a Secular Humanist and a Religious Humanist (I’m much closer to the religious end of the spectrum). I said that you can see the difference in their answers to the question: Is nothing sacred? The Secular Humanist will say, ‘That’s right, nothing is sacred – that is an outmoded term’. The Religious Humanist will say, “Oh no, many things are sacred. The Universe is sacred, Life is sacred, the Earth is sacred, childhood is sacred, fatherhood is sacred’.

Having given this description, I was led to wonder how, in a Humanist world, we would recognize, or acknowledge those things which are sacred. And the answer came to me – that’s what art is!

So my proposal is that art comprises those things and performances which help us to recognize and honour, to establish an emotional connection with, that which is sacred in life and the world.

Loricat · Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 12:52 pm Post subject: Re: What is art?

For me, the most sacred and beautiful work of art I've ever seen is Cirque du Soleil. Do not be fooled by their presence in Las Vegas, this is Art.

I saw the Saltimbanco show years ago, and from the opening bars of the live music and the first contortion (a family group -- father, mother, child), I was, and stayed, in tears. That was 12 years ago, and it is still a strong memory today. I think it is the height of human artistic achievement.

Lori

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

Ken Hemingway · Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 1:14 pm Post subject: Re: What is art?

Lori: I saw Saltimbanco, too, and loved it!

But, do you see what I am trying to say? That when stand in front of a Vermeer or a Botticelli and you feel yourself go very calm and you utter an "Ahhhh..." that is so quiet it is no louder than an expelled breath. Isn't that the same feeling that you imagine Romans were talking about when they spoke of entering a "sacred grove"

Kate Fremont · Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 2:00 pm Post subject: Re: Re: What is art?

This is less an answer and more of a thought process:

What is art? My first impression was that which brings beauty to our lives. That would cover the visual, auditory, and written works of art. Then I thought of a crisp, clear, star-studded night sky and fields of wild flowers, towering snow-peaked mountains. Does that mean nature is art? Certainly one who believes in a god could see it as god's art. Secularists could still accept natural beauty as art; it needn't be human-made.

Still, I've seen drawings and paintings that I would not call beautiful, yet which profoundly seize my emotions. My feelings when reading "Crime and Punishment" would also put it in that category. Beauty? It also affects our emotions, so now I'd say Art is that which engages our emotions -- but a heated argument does the same, without being art.

It seems I'm approaching a definition, but can't quite get there. Now, I think each one of us knows Art when we see it, but our perceptions of art will differ greatly from person to person.

Help me out here, folks!

MadArchitect · Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 2:32 pm Post subject: Re: Re: What is art?

Ken Hemingway: So my proposal is that art comprises those things and performances which help us to recognize and honour, to establish an emotional connection with, that which is sacred in life and the world.

The test, I would think, would be to apply this proposal to some examples. Would it apply to Batman comics, for example, or "Southpark", or even, for that matter, "Candide"?

Isn't that the same feeling that you imagine Romans were talking about when they spoke of entering a "sacred grove"

The more I dig, the more I find that classical religious notions are as often associated with horror. The Bacchant rituals, for example, or human sacrafice. The Greco-Roman notions of serene, sacred beauty are usually associated with the Apolline tradition. A good starting point on exploring the division between the Apolline and Dionysic is actually F. Nietzche's "The Birth of Tragedy".

Does that mean nature is art?

Observationally, I would say that the things we call art are almost always artificial -- hence the etiomological connection: "art-ifice". Even works of art that contain nothing but naturally occuring materials are artificially arranged, as with, for example, the traditions of gardening in Japan. That isn't to say that nature and art don't sometimes have a similar aesthetic effect on us or that they're not related, but to point to things occuring in nature and call them art seems to me intuitive only as a rhetorical device.

Ken Hemingway · Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 6:44 pm Post subject: Re: What is art?

Mad writes: The test, I would think, would be to apply this proposal to some examples.

I agree. In fact that is the exact test which persuades me that the connection I’m proposing is useful. How do you distinguish art from entertainment? Is “I love Lucy” art? I’d say usually not. But I do not think it is impossible that it may occasionally “rise to the level of art”. What does that expression mean? Well, to me it suggests that in some way a connection has been made, probably at an emotional level, to a matter of ultimate concern. That, I'd suggest is what Lori found at Cirque du Soleil.

And that, of course, is what I am proposing underlies this connection. Tillich claimed that “religion is more than a system of special symbols, rites, and emotions, directed toward a highest being; religion is ultimate concern.”

I’m not sure whether your example of a batman comic was something you think of as “clearly art” or “clearly not art” – but I would say that my answer is that if there are instances which seem to someone to qualify as art, then it is because that person has felt the connection to something of ultimate concern – and for me that is close enough to count as sacred.

Not everyone, of course, would be willing to accept Tillich’s definition of religion, or my examples of what counts as sacred. So, for them the identification of art with what is sacred may seem far too secularizing. But for those of us who want to save the word ‘sacred’ from its narrower interpreters, I think the art/sacred connection is worth pursuing.

One final note. In various places Roger Scruton talks about the need for a close connection to art for a life to be well lived. I recall seeing a review (probably on Amazon) in which this was mocked as “He thinks we should spend our lives at the opera”. I originally had some such reservation myself. But now I think I would want to reply to the critic that Scruton is not really saying that the opera is what is most important in life. Instead he is saying that the opera can evoke in us emotions and understandings which connect us to what is most important in life. And in that he is probably right.

Kate Fremont · Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 1:02 am Post subject: Re: Re: What is art?

MadA:

Quote:
Observationally, I would say that the things we call art are almost always artificial -- hence the etiomological connection: "art-ifice". Even works of art that contain nothing but naturally occuring materials are artificially arranged

Good point, and driven home to me tonight after having watched a DVD called "Winged Migration". One would be very hard pressed to find someone who's viewed this film and would not call it art. It is an Academy Award Nominee for Best Documentary Feature 2002, and is a nearly wordless filming of birds in migration, with music and natural sounds. In the opening of the film, the viewer is informed that no trick photography is used, so it closely fits the category of "nothing but naturally occurring materials". Is it "artificially arranged"? I would have to say so; the cinematography is stunningly beautiful and skillful, the soundtrack (both musical and natural) marvelously selected, and the editing topnotch. This film is so "Breathtaking!" (New York Times) and "Magnificent!" (Wall Street Journal) that in spite of being totally absorbed in nature while viewing, one cannot help being simultaneously aware of the extraordinary artistic skill involved in making it. I don't usually have too much interest in nature films, though I watch one or two now and then if it's on a subject particularly interesting to me (which birds usually aren't), but I must highly recommend this film to everyone. It is to most nature films what a Rembrandt is to a competent junior high school art project. (Jacket synopsis: "Witness as five film crews follow a rich variety of bird migrations through 40 countries and each of the seven continents. With teams totaling more than 450 people, 17 pilots and 14 cinematographers used planes, gliders, helicopters and balloons to fly alongside, above, below and in front of their subjects." Sound boring? Well, it captivated my adolescent son for the full 90 minutes, and it usually takes a fantasy or adventure film to do that!)

Ken:

Quote:
Is “I love Lucy” art? I’d say usually not. But I do not think it is impossible that it may occasionally “rise to the level of art”.

Hoo-hoo! Don't tell a serious actor or actress that their work is not art! They will differ with you most passionately.

Quote:
felt the connection to something of ultimate concern – and for me that is close enough to count as sacred

I don't believe in a deity, but I can accept the above definition of sacred. If ever I could accept a religion, it would be of the type (the term eludes me at the moment) similar to what native Americans had/have, where the sacred is the nature all around them. I have at times felt reverent awe when gazing at a clear sky full of more stars than I could ever count or seeing the amazing beauty and diversity of our world's flora and fauna. (Ah-ha, some would say, proof of Planned Design! Not for me, because I find Darwin's theory explains it more credibly. And I think Darwin's theory is a "connection to something of ultimate concern", hence art?)

Quote:
“He thinks we should spend our lives at the opera”

One could certainly do worse!

Quote:
opera can evoke in us emotions and understandings which connect us to what is most important in life. And in that he is probably right.

In that he is most definitely right! (And this comment from someone who just a few years ago couldn't stand opera.)

I have just taken a break from typing this message to wrap up a just-cooled loaf of freshly baked bread. The aroma! My children are growing up enjoying homemade bread, and I dare say that in their adult years, when they come across the aroma of fresh-baked bread, it will elicit an emotional response in them. Does that mean bread is art? Most people would say no, but I'll bet there's a good number of "artisan bakers" who would say yes. I think it is possible to come to some consensus about what art is, but a precise definition will vary from person to person. Art is personal.

MadArchitect · Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:02 am Post subject: Re: Re: What is art?

Ken Hemingway: How do you distinguish art from entertainment?

I don't. I think that's just a way of disguising the whole high-brow/low-brow dichotomy, which really strikes me as a form of aestehtic elitism. I'm the first to say when I think a given work fails to achieve greatness, but I don't think that should banish it to some non-art category.

Is “I love Lucy” art?

What, precisely, would distinguish it from art? For that matter, what would distinguish "3rd Rock from the Sun" from art?

Well, to me it suggests that in some way a connection has been made, probably at an emotional level, to a matter of ultimate concern.

The danger of making the designation of art contingent on its reference to ultimate concern is that, by doing so, you exclude so many truly great works from the category of art simply because their subject matter is too specific or their tone fails to imply the proper gravity. Are we to exclude Bulgakov's "Black Snow" on the grounds that it deals only with the subject matter of artistic aspiration, a subject that is far from being either universal or ultimate? Should we exclude Charles Schulz's "Peanuts" cartoons since they threat a rather Stoic outlook with some flippancy? A particularly sticky example, I would say, is Joel and Ethan Coen's "The Big Lebowski", which deals with far heavier themes then I think most people would assume, merely because it's tone is so crassly comedic.

Frankly, I'm a bit protective of those "lesser" works of art, works which will likely disappear within the decade, perhaps overnight, but which have some effect on a given sort of person for the brief period that they maintain currency. Even a work that merely plays with ideas, never really developing them into something even marginally profound, are worthwhile as art.

Kate, I'm glad there was a timely example to make my comments meaningful for you. I had a particular example in mind, but I couldn't remember the guy's name, which made it difficult to find any links to his work. Basically, he takes objects he finds in nature -- rocks, branches, leaves -- and arranges them into patterns or structures, usually using mud or ice as a fixative. He'll leave these sculptures up for as long as they last, and often the only record is the photographs he has taken. I don't know that I recommend them as art, but they're somewhat interesting just in terms of the immense technique and patience required to, say, fit together several hundred pieces of shale into an arch without any artificial materials.

If ever I could accept a religion, it would be of the type (the term eludes me at the moment) similar to what native Americans had/have, where the sacred is the nature all around them.

Pantheism, perhaps? or Pan-en-theism? Animism? or maybe something more specific, like Shinto?

Does that mean bread is art? Most people would say no, but I'll bet there's a good number of "artisan bakers" who would say yes.

Ah, there's a special category for "food art": cuisine. Personally, I think that culinary practicioners of the world would do better to reassert the long lost prestige of cuisine than to bother debating whether or not food can be art in the same sense that music is art. Cuisine is something special, and while it may be incapable of some of the things available to the plastic arts, it makes up for this lack in its capacity to deliver experiences that are forbidden to any other class of art.

Loricat · Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 12:34 pm Post subject: Re: What is art?

Ooh, a lively discussion!

(Ken to Mad)

Quote:
I’m not sure whether your example of a batman comic was something you think of as “clearly art” or “clearly not art”

Oh, there are comics that rise to the level of Art, when the art is just that little bit beyond the norm, when the story is well-crafted and unusual....The Watchmen was one, and
Moonshadow was another, and if you take a look at this rather loving review, you'll see this writer almost calling it Art:

Quote:
The cover was amazing. It looked like a watercolor or something, in dark blues and bright whites and fuzzy edges. Flipping through it, the inside was the same, and I couldn’t place my finger on what was really, really odd for at least a few minutes. The text: the dialogue and captions were in mixed case, italicized. Almost... handwritten.

Kate commented:

Quote:
This film is so "Breathtaking!" (New York Times) and "Magnificent!" (Wall Street Journal) that in spite of being totally absorbed in nature while viewing, one cannot help being simultaneously aware of the extraordinary artistic skill involved in making it. (kate)

So, is it about the careful manipulation of things that are natural, or normal? Or, is it how a natural or mundane thing is placed in a different context? I would say that an issue of Found Magazine has moments of true beauty -- where a picture discarded or lost finds some broader meaning.

Ken to Kate:

Quote:
Pantheism, perhaps? or Pan-en-theism? Animism? or maybe something more specific, like Shinto?

Completely off topic, but this made me laugh -- when I was in university, and newly-edumacated and cocky, I applied to be a Big Sister volunteer. I obviously, subconsciously, did not want to do it, since I filled in the blank on the form under 'Religion' with "pantheistic neo-pagan". In the interview, I still remember the woman's face when she said: "Okay, now, about religion..."

Lori

(wow, for the first time I decided to make a copy of my post, and my browser crashed! What good timing.)

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

Ken Hemingway · Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 1:32 pm Post subject: Re: What is art?

Kate wrote:

(the term eludes me at the moment) similar to what native Americans had/have, where the sacred is the nature all around them

I was going to suggest "Nature Religion". See, for example: Nature Religion in America

Ken Hemingway · Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 2:06 pm Post subject: Re: What is art?

Mad wrote:

The danger of making the designation of art contingent on its reference to ultimate concern is that, by doing so, you exclude so many truly great works from the category of art simply because their subject matter is too specific or their tone fails to imply the proper gravity.

Does ultimate concern have to be treated glumly. or even seriously? Doesn't Nietzsche have something about the laughter of the gods?

I don't really see what you mean about "subject matter is too specific". An example that works for me is Van Gogh's "Chair". The subject is prosaic, but for me, the emotion it evokes is something very close to what I think of as coming face to face with a matter of ultimate concern. It's probably not possible to say why that is. (That's why we need art, not just talk about it). If you don't know what I'm talking about, I think the best I could do would be to say that it seems to bring me closer to direct contact with what it means to exist. Does that seem absurd to you? I think a lot of paintings do that for me. Theatre too.

Kate wrote:

Ken:

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------
Is “I love Lucy” art? I’d say usually not. But I do not think it is impossible that it may occasionally “rise to the level of art”.
----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------

Hoo-hoo! Don't tell a serious actor or actress that their work is not art! They will differ with you most passionately.

Well, I did say "it may occasionally". You may be right, Kate. But I think this points out a problem. If we give the word "art" such a wide scope of reference that it includes, let's say, one of David Letterman's "Will it float" spots then we lose the ability to use the word to talk about what engages us so deeply in some works. People do use the expression 'rises to the level of art'. It's not just me. Lori used it to say:Oh, there are comics that rise to the level of Art, She is clearly implying that not all comics do that.

I guess in the end it's just a debate on what the word means - which is unresolvable because different people use it differently. In which case I'd have to rework my thesis to talk about the connection between some art and the feeling of sacredness which I believe we can (and I'd argue should) retain even after we have rid ourselves of supernatural religion.

Loricat · Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:37 am Post subject: Re: What is art?

Mad, I thought you'd appreciate that definition because it seemed reflective of the comment you made:

Quote:
Representative art depicts, and in doing so "captures" the essence, but if the essence itself were the goal would the artist not be satisfied with the thing itself, and have no need of a representation?

Lori

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

MadArchitect · Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 1:27 pm Post subject: Re: What is art?

To some extent, it does, although I think to "counteracts" of the definition you quoted draws a pretty important line. But I should also qualifiy my statements by saying that not all art is necessarily representative.

Timothy Schoonover · Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:58 pm Post subject: Re: What is art?

Re: assholes

Present company excluded of course. Please pardon the eccentricities of my rhetoric, I did not intend that statement to be interpreted as such, although given the context its hard to imagine how else I could have meant it. In my defense, even the crudest of individuals knows that the calibre of virulence appropriate to this community surpasses mere profanity and ad hominem.

MadArchitect · Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:20 am Post subject: Re: What is art?

Yessss. It behooves us to be far more sophisticated in our sadism than most of the foul-mouthed sailors and back-stabbing psychophants that roam the internet.

Heh. Heh heh. Bwahahahaha! HA!


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT