Sunday, August 27, 2006

What is art?

Since definitions aim at setting limits, Dominic made a good point when he said that a work of art “is a man-made thing,” an artifact -as distinguished from an object in nature. A sunset is beautiful, but it's not art. A piece of driftwood may have aesthetic qualities, but it is not a work of art. On the other hand, a piece of wood that has been carved to look like driftwood is not an object of nature, but of art. Is it intention or “purpose” what characterizes art? Even that was challenged by Duchamp’s objets trouvĂ©s. Even though “Fountain” is a urinal, it could be that the act of recontextualizing it, i.e. setting it in a different space (re)defines it as art. Could art relate to a kind of heightened interaction with a particular environment? Historian Rhonda Roland Shearer has argued that exhibiting a found object “is already a modification from its natural state” (think of an installation of sea shells inside a gallery entitled “Wisdom”). According to this definition, paintings, sculptures, buildings, furniture, automobiles, ships, etc, can be seen as art. Arthur Danto (well-known critic and philosopher of art) has suggested that “art” should be kept open, as “an evolving concept” (as coincidentally one of you suggested on Wednesday). In addition, you advanced these other functions for “art”: (1) Self-expression (Jason?), (2) A way of presenting problems (Ernie?), (3) A means of human communicaton (visual perhaps? (Michele), (4) Is “art” innate? (Maria) Some of your suggestions point to important themes in aesthetics: (1) is the thesis of Italian philosopher Benedetto Croce in his book The Essence of the Aesthetic, (2) defines the manner of aesthetic investigation for Martin Heidegger in his essay The Origin of the Work of Art. (3) characterizes semiotics as a discipline in the Human Sciences. As per (4) I think of Jung's quote: “Art is a kind of innate drive that seizes a human being and makes him its instrument.” The issue points to an old debate, which still goes on. I side with evolutionary biology. This post addresses our first art issue. Please, find time to respond by (the latest) Tuesday, so we can have an interesting online discussion. Thanks to all for further problematizing existing problems.

19 comments:

Dominic Halley-Roarke said...

I think it is interesting to observe that when a definition of "art" is sought, there is a sense that it must imply that this is a special, elevated, or at least out-of-the ordinary class of objects. When those proposing the definition are artists, this may be even more so, since we naturally believe that what we are dedicating ourselves to is of special significance (and of course, there are no doubt those who may not believe it themselves but want the their egos fed by those who do). This creates a somewhat uneasy situation when we seek to formulate a definition that includes what would seem to be fairly ordinary objects that have been minimally altered. For example, the realistic painter may not want to include the (mere) arranger of found objects in the "artists" category out of the fear that this will devalue their status.
On another line of thought, Croce seems to have had a concept of art as an idealization (if I understand the linked article)--which suggests to me that it would include only representational art (Ayn Rand had expressed something of the same idea). It seems to me that leaving out abstract and decorative arts as such definitions do denies the importance of qualities that are pleasing for their sensual impact. If colors, lines, texture, etc., are a significant part of what contributes to making a representational work "art", then why would they even when separated from any representational content, not be sufficient to constitute a work of art?
I tend on this basis to prefer a definition that is based on an intentionality to affect the senses at a non-linguistic level (to exclude mere text or ordinary speech); although it need not be the primary purpose of the object, as in industrial or product design.

Anonymous said...

Wow... I love this class. Can I take it?
M.P.

A.T. said...

Good point Dominic. Croce’s doctrine is that our desires and repulsions, or, in a word, our passions, are in themselves blind (yes, we may be said to feel them, but that only means we are shaken and moved by them). The only way in which we know our feelings is by embodying them or expressing them in words (or something else that is sensuous and apprehensible). For Croce “art” is a kind of language that expresses and makes recognizable what before was vague, fleeting, and merely felt.

Bryan F. said...

In reference to "found objects" I think it can be difficult to classify much of it as art. The relocation of a single object merely results in a different or potentially new perspective of the object. This by no means turns this once ordinary object into a work of art. If I took a blank canvas and turned it on its side, or lay it on the floor, would you call that art. After all, few thing relate to art more than a blank canvas. My answer, of course, is a resounding 'no'. I think it is necessary to create something that was not there when the creative process began, not to merely manipulate it in the most basic conceivable manner. If the physical state of a "found object" were altered in some way, maybe deconstructed and put back together, that could certainly qualify as a work of art.

A.T. said...

Bryan: Lucio Fontana belongs in your worst nightmare: Blank canvas & slashed. A powerful statement of the 1960's.

Maya Aujla said...

In response to Arthur Danto’s suggestion that art is “an evolving concept,” I have always strongly agreed with this statement. Over the centuries art has evolved from classical paintings in the 1800’s to today’s time where multimedia projects and architecture are now considered forms of art. I believe that the world needs variety in all aspects of life. Art would not be as interesting if paintings had continued to be viewed as the only form of art. I think that the evolving of concepts in art were inevitable. Artists tend to gravitate to societies that are open minded about new ideas and concepts. They are taught to ‘think outside the box’ and living in a liberal society it was bound to happen that the definition of what is considered art would expand.

Christie Llorente said...

I don't know that I necessarily agree with historian, Rhonda Roland Shearer's statement "that exhibiting a found object is already a modification from its natural state." I don't believe that it could be called art. I feel as though one would have to do something more to the piece itself than merely putting it in a gallery. Then what distinguishes an artist from someone who is not an artist, if we could all do this?? As artists I feel that we strive to separate ourselves perhaps from what we call "ordinary." I think that we try to bring out the extra-ordinary. On the other hand, I absolutely agree with Arthur Danto's statement that "art" should be kept open, as "an evolving concept." I believe that without evolution art would not be able to progess and/or change. Its natural for humans to evolve, so it only makes sense that the art would have to evolve - because we are the ones creating it.

A.T. said...

Christie: I'm going out on a limb here for Roland Shearer, but I don't think she wants to say that finding a sea-shell and arranging it at a corner in a gallery “automatically” qualifies as art if (1) such action is not done by an artist and (2) only if it meaningfully redefines the object in its new context. Actually, in the case of Duchamp, we know he didn't want people to take his ready-mades for art. Only later he elaborated this possibility.

Steph Hurst said...

Intention is the key factor in classifying modern art. Anything goes; many artists focus on creating something unprecedented. If the artist considers it art, then it is. The art world can be as large as everybody, or as small as my own standards. Do critics, curators, and 106 teachers validate art? Art has grown beyond us, and we’re always waiting for the next mind-blowing thing. Two different questions, really, what is art, and what is art nowadays. Art is something. The first relationship is between the artist and her art. It’s impossible to compare a Mahler symphony and Vermeer painting. They’re both art, but they belong to different subgroups. Different genres have different aims. It’s worthwhile to compare Vermeer and de Hooch, but pointless to compare Mahler and Vermeer. We can perhaps relate the latter, but comparisons wouldn’t help us qualify them within their respective genres. The exercise of trying to define art makes me realize that I can’t pin down the concept. Does art have to be worthwhile? How do we set standards of worth? It’s infinitely regressive. Found objects make a statement about the modern world, and the artist working within it. Whether the viewer sees the objects in a fresh way is irrelevant. Sometimes the concept surpasses its reception. I don’t currently use found objects in my art, but I do appreciate their role in artmaking. Generally, subgroup classification is useful. But, personally, I determine my own standards--some static, others evolving loosely. I’m not married to them; I’m waiting for the next thing that’ll change my mind.

Anonymous said...

Would it be wrong to say that there is no convincing answer to the question: “what is Art?” If there is perhaps anything which makes sense out of these discussions is the statement made by Arthur Danto: that “art should be kept open, as an evolving concept”. Also agreeing with Christie’s comment, it only makes sense that Art must constantly evolve because, we, humans naturally evolve. With that said, it is unattainable to establish a well-defined description of what “art” is. I am not troubled with the idea that “art” cannot be defined. Art should be free of anything which makes it limiting, and so categorizing it, separating it, labeling it, brings limitations. I know that what I may consider to be “art” will not always be agreed with by the rest of the world…
-J. Tao

inah said...

Art is ever evolving over time, as is our definition of art. You briefly went over it during the last class, however art exist in many forms; art as healing, art as magic, art as sex or politics, or for that matter sex and politics, etc…Yet the common thread that holds all art together seems to be art as communication. It is a form of describing ourselves and the world around us. Art is in many ways similar to religion. For every form of art there are believers and non believers. Take for instance the topic which came up during class, of whether music is art, or writing is art. Some believed it was, others believed it is more so a craft or skill, than art. The definition of art is as controversial, and for that matter, responsible for as many prejudices as religion. Personally I consider Nam June Paik an artist, whom created art. There is a complex concept behind his art, communicating to the viewer who he is as a person and expressing the world that existed around him. Eduardo Kac summed up Paik’s concept well by saying it was, “his search for an art that expresses contemporary life in the age of media” Paik Interview Personally I need a concept behind art. Or at least would like a concept behind it. Yet I can appreciate art for its aesthetic value as well. Though my views may be unfounded to some, this is my belief. Although art should be kept open, I don’t think it necessarily is. And art will continue to change and evolve, and the constraints and prejudices on art will continue to expand and contract as the world evolves; What is art to us today will not be art as us tomorrow.

Francisca said...

Paul Klee said it best, "Art does not reproduce what we see, it makes us see." It is the personal aesthetic expression of an artist, deliberately constructed and presented. It is the intention of the artist; it doesn't happen by accident. We cannot attribute a blanket acceptance policy to anything and everything. It's important, regardless of preferences or prejudices, to maintain the integrity of art; to appreciate it as an artist's deliberate attempt to convey her unique vision to the rest of the world.

Dominic Halley-Roarke said...

The idea of comparing Mahler and Vermeer is at least a challenge--although I agree that it might not help qualify them in relation to other works within their respective disciplines, I think its going too far to say it would be "pointless" or "impossible".
Comparisons between works in different disciplines of the arts is at least possible, because we use some of the same terminology when describing them and the same kind of emtional responses can be produced. We talk of the texture of both a visual art work's surface and of a symphony's orchestration or an instrument's tone; color combinations and musical notes are both spoke of as being in harmony or discordant, etc. Could this similarity say something about how the mind reacts to certain stimuli?
I think it also says something about the potential basis for comparison between the musical and visual arts that a number of professional musicians have also been visual artists. For example, Arnold Schoenberg painted in a non-traditional style that some would see as analogous to his experiments in tonality in music.
So yes, its questionable to compare accross artistic displines for the purpose of qualitative judgements within each discipline. However, I think it could be of value for understanding how and why the human mind responds emotionally to art as it does.

Caro_Marquez said...

I was in New York visiting the MoMa a few years back. I went with a friend (fellow Art lover and writer) and my mother (fellow aesthetic art lover). While we were in the museum my mother kept complaining about the lack of depth in the pieces exhibited. Forgive my ignorance, but I can't remember names...however, I do remember the pieces she was referencing. The first being a stacked pile of hay, and the other two ordinary hanging clocks titled "Love". When I first looked at the piece I too laughed and criticized the absurdity of such a piece. My initial thought was that anybody could hang two clocks side by side, give it a name and call themselves an artist. Why would anyone do such a thing? Then I realized that although the two clocks displayed the same time, the seconds hands were not ticking at the same pace. It all made sense, Love (as I perceived it) is two people meeting at the same point in time and existing simultaneously in the same place and time. And yet, this co-existance is subject to change, as one of the pair is inevitably going to go at a different pace. There exists a lag between the two, which in time will only increase and the two will grow further apart until one eventually dies (or in the case of the clocks, its batteries die). I find this to be quite a profound concept...and I truly believe "Love" to be an exceptional work of art.
So, what is my point you may ask? Do I simply mean Art is love? No. As Prof. Triff included in one of his comments, "'art' is a kind of language that expresses and makes recognizable what before was vague, fleeting, and merely felt." Art is all encompassing. It is timeless (pun intended), it is natural (as it is a product of humans, and we in turn are products of nature), it is ordinary and extraordinary...it is what it is INTENDED to be...I return to my argument made in class of Art being innate, and re-quote jung by saying "Art is a kind of innate drive that seizes a human being and makes him its instrument." It is an attempt to communicate emotions, which cannot be taught, only felt...hence the innate, we are born with the ability to feel, and feelings are what drive/guide our lives. Therefore, I believe that as long as there is an emotion, an intention, a concept, behind an action/expression...art is present. My argument may be incoherent, but yet again, so is art.

Lisette Betancourt said...

I dont agree with some "art" definitions that were given in class or with the Rhonda Roland Shearer one because "art" can be controversially defined and showed. I also believe that art can be interpreted in many different ways because all human beings think and act differently. A good definition that was pointed out in class by Michelle was that art is " A means of human comunication" , maybe because artists have many different ways of showing their work as they evolve. If art is such a broad subject how do we find the best definition for "art"?... This is something that will change through the years by having 'artists' constantly evolving .

Jessica Sanders said...

At the risk of making some graphic designers angry, I would like to pose the question of the difference between art and design. Is design art? Is it a subset of art, as painting or drawing may be considered? I certainly consider it an applied art, like architecture, but often find myself not considering many things graphic designers create art. As a ceramic artist myself, I often come upon the question of functionality as a determinant of what art is. I believe something that is functional can also be art, but it must be created with the intent of being art. A water bottle is functional and was designed by someone, but I do not consider it art. Where is the line between functional art teapot, functional plastic water bottle, and magazine advertisement layout?

--Jessica Sanders

Ernie Marc Selditch said...

Comparing a Rodin bronze sculpture to a brass lamp of a naked lady with a clock in her belly raises some serious questions: which is more valuable, which is more carefully executed, which has the more profound subject, are both pieces art? The elephant being described by six blind men is an excellent analogy to attempts at defining art as a finite entity. It may be that art cannot be defined but only categorized and critiqued. It may be that art can only be mapped in a Darwinian taxonomic fashion. One trend ends another begins, some trends manifest by evolution some trends by revolution. Possibly it's a history of survival of the fittest or perhaps (more likely) survival from the critics.

Kelly Flynn said...

Art is an expression of ones self trying to figue out how they fit into this world. For me, art is my voice or vehicle to express my inner-self about how I feel or want to make others feel. It can be a healing process as well. For instance, I use self-portraiture a lot because I am uncomfortable with my body and how I preceive myself on the outside. When I am in front of the camera, all thoes fears go away and I can become myself - it is very freeing.

A.T. said...

Possibly it's a history of survival of the fittest or perhaps (more likely) survival from the critics That's pretty funny Ernie.