On this blog, we will explore several major aesthetic theories from realism to postmodernism and engage in a dialogue about the very nature of art. Key contemporary artists will be explored in depth as each theory is unpacked and examined.
Each response should be between 150-250 words in length. These are due on the date listed at the top of each entry,
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
What is Art?
After reading what Barrett has to say about the definition of art, write down your thoughts about it. What is art?
Due Wednesday, August 24th
I think that the purpose of art is to creatively express an idea. The entire concept of art is using your imagination to create something that will engage a viewer. When considering if something can be considered art, I think we should take into account if the work has been created by the artist, with intent to display to others and with the hope of conveying some sort of idea. However, these are not boundaries with which all art must be placed. Post modernism continues to expand making a definition of art even more generalized. As a result the viewer should be allowed to come to their own conclusions about what is art rather than being restricted to the “artworld’s” views. Looking at art can be a personal experience especially now that it is everywhere around us. If something has been painted on the side of a building rather than presented in a gallery, the viewer should still be able to label the work as art rather than waiting for the “artworld” to concur. Art should never be about conforming to a set of rules because rules by nature conflict with creativity, no matter how broad the boundaries. Therefore, in some respects I think the definition of art is down to each individual.
What is art; a simple enough question, with a long complicated answer which no one seems to be able to agree upon. When we are children looking at, say a painting, we don’t question the legitimacy of what we are looking at, but rather declare our opinions as to whether we like it or not by its aesthetical value alone. In this most simple of critiques we are asking ourselves if it is good art, the similar question is asked by the aesthetician Weitz, when considering the open definition of art. Honorific definition of art tries to categorize art into a familiar grouping of art that already exists and can be compared to. Often this modernist view of art will discount any work that serves as functional, limiting fine art to traditional media and ideas. Another attempt to define art is to classify it. In this definition, the system within the artworld works together to label the work as art or not. In my opinion it is not just one system of defining art that should be used, but a little bit of each system. Part of the great thing about art is the ability to speak to different people through different means. No two people will come to view an artwork with the same background, insight or feelings. Sure it is true that there can be ways to appreciate a work of art more, such as Broudy’s “enlightened cherishing”, but that is not to say that one person or system will be able to make the call for the rest of us.
The concept of what qualifies art has been shattered; we cannot deny any one object as a work of art, no matter how seemingly insignificant or how poorly created an object may appear. Perhaps art was once so easily defined as something man-made that had been installed in an institution with the sole intention to be viewed by an artworld public, but that notion no longer appears to have true legitimacy in my opinion. The rise of Dadaism, arguably led by Marcel Duchamp who proudly introduced his "readymade" sculptures of everyday premade objects, objected the preconcieved views of what is "art" and legitimized the "meaningless." Art cannot be defined, only recognized or overlook. I believe that art surrounds us, and that it is up to the individual to choose to comprehend that fact or not. If we must define art, I would suggest that art is any object that utilizes any of the elements or principles of art. Considering nearly every visible object contains one or more of these elements/principles, I would argue that anything can be defended as art.
For me, the sole criteria for something to be labeled as art is that at least one person honestly calls it art. Such a definition might sound like a copout, a way around thinking deeply for this prompt, but I have reflected on this question a lot in my lifetime and it’s my sincere opinion on the matter. What really struck me about this chapter from the beginning was when, in the introduction, Barrett talked at length about how the subject matter of the book is a strong mixing of past and present theories and ideas. When something is quite new, it’s easy to define and to create specific guidelines and the like for it. Once it’s been around for much longer, things shift. People think of different angles to come at it from. So old definitions exist and new ones exist, commingle, and even more definitions result from that as well. It’s never ending! The thing becomes more elusive and harder to nail down with one set definition because there are so many floating around (and bumping into each other and spawning new ones). In the instance of art, that doesn’t make one theory or viewpoint more right than the other. In the past people thought everything revolved around the earth and now people think that the earth revolves around the sun and it can be proven which one of these theories is true and which one is false. With art, in my opinion, the words true and false don’t function in the same capacity. And so, I reiterate my answer to the point: if at least one person calls something art and actual believes their claim, then that thing is art. I also firmly believe that official or respected critics are not the only ones that can label something as art. Power to the people.
I like that this reading mentions two kinds of art instead of going straight into classifying things as art and not art. I have a hard time saying things aren't art. Art is such a large subject matter to classify that it may be easier to identify things as different types of art rather than saying they are not art. The reading seems to identify art based on how it is judged/criticized, how it is made, and how it is perceived. These are all reasonable ways of identifying types of art however I don't believe they are enough to rely on when it comes to judging whether or not something is art. It seems that no matter how many readings I read about what art is I never come closer to making a decision. My main concern is the question of aesthetically pleasing versus having a meaning. Is one type of art more important to the other and is it still art if one aspect is sacrificed for the sake of the other. That is to say is it ok to make something visually beautiful and sacrifice any meaning and is it ok to sacrifice visually beauty to give something meaning? I believe both forms are art. As an example, my mother and my stepmother are both artists. My mother works in pastel and oil paint and she is very good at what she does. Her paintings are about composition and color and visual beauty but they lack any statement or underlying meaning. My stepmother makes three dimensional works of art out of different materials and most of works are not visually beautiful when first looked at. However she sometimes sacrifices the visual beauty to make something have a meaning. I believe both of these are forms of art. People in the small town where I live think my stepmom's work is too out of the ordinary and that my mom's work is beautiful. In New York City a critic may think that my mom's work is too boring and therefore not as good. I think there are far too many opinions in the world classify anything as art or not art.
There is no simple answer to “What is art?” I had always thought of art as a creative outlet to express emotions, a cause, a belief, or just because someone felt like making something. Art has always been a release for me since I was little, as a child scribbling on a piece of paper may have been what I considered art, and now professional artists can do scribbles on a piece of paper and have a series in a gallery. After studying about different forms of art, eras of art, and the explanations between “high” and “low” art; I have come to realize that art can be interpreted by anyone who is willing to go beyond just what they see. Viewers often submerse themselves further in a work of art to find other meanings rather than just what they see in front of them. Most of the time there is an intended meaning or emotion that an artist wants to evoke. Art is an abstraction of an idea and it can be something that we all relate to or choose not to relate to. The beauty of art is the freedom that an artist has when choosing what they want to do and what they want it to mean as well as further meanings developed by an audience.
Art can be a lot of different things. However, imagination and creativity are important to determine whether something can be considered art or not. I believe that imagination and the ability to think out of the box is very important for an artist to be able to get inspired and create a piece of art that viewers will appreciate and enjoy. Also, I feel more content when the thing or creation that people call art, evokes feelings to the viewers, negative, positive, or even neutral, it was created by the artist through responses to his/her emotions, it has to do with ideas that he/she feels are important to them or the public, and it has a reason for which the art was created. Although I have a broad range to what I can consider art, I do not however consider everything “appropriate” or “good art”. For example I do not agree, and do not find aesthetically pleasing to look at art that exhibits dead animals. On the other hand this evokes some kind of feelings, and even though I do not approve or like this form of art, I can consider it in some way to be art.
After I finished the chapter I felt that it is pointless for us to try to define “art” because its meaning is very diverse and different people will have different opinions on it. However, I personally feel that anything can be considered as an “artwork” as long as one can explain why it is one. For example, one can consider mathematic as a form of art (the art of calculation) and thus the mathematician would be the “artist” and his/her mathematical formula would be consider as the “artwork”. Although my definition of art might be overly simplified I believe that in this case, less is more. This is like the example given in the book when people tried to define philosophy, despite the effort to come up with an “interesting and profound [definition of the term]… the shortest definition, and it is quite a good one is that philosophy is thinking about thinking.” (Barrett 5).
What is Art? The more you try to define art, the less accurate you become. Art is not something that can be pigeon holed by education and evaluation, but it can be further understood. After reading this article, I do not feel that I could definitively say that anything is not art, but I would challenge if it is can be seen as “good” art or not. This also becomes very hard to state qualifiers as to what fits in the high or low spectrum of art. Generally artists, art critics, and art philosophers have an understood definition of art that is constantly challenged. For example, Duchamp challenged classic definitions of art and shocked the refined world of museums with the “fountain” where his concept was the forced question “what constitutes as art?” Where is the line drawn? Almost a century later, the question has still yet to be put in concrete terms, and it might never be able to be. The definition will have to remain answered on an individual person’s own understanding and will constantly evolve.
The definition of art has always been in a state of flux, but in more recent years it has undergone a complete transformation. During the Renaissance, it would have been easy to define art as an object, created by the artist with the intent of conveying a certain message to the viewers. This work would have to fit the canon of “high art” and be stylistically similar, at least at a basic level, to other accepted works. The present definition of art is much harder to pin down. For me, I would define art as a work that invokes emotion and thought in the viewer, created by the artist with the intent to convey a message. Whether or not the artist understands the true meaning of their art is not longer important, the viewers have the power to bestow meaning and interpret the art for themselves. In terms of subject matter, media, and presentation, almost anything can be considered art as long as it is made with some sort of creative intent. Rather than conforming to the standards of high art, modern art encompasses a whole sphere of new techniques. Whether or not the work is considered “good art” or even art at all is left to the viewer to interpret. Without a clearly defined message, art has become a more personal and individual experience for the viewer, who now has the power to interpret art in any way they see fit. Art can be almost anything, as long as a single viewer can find meaning in what they see.
To define art, as it is to define life, is impossible. Art is more than just looking at pretty pictures, memorizing dates and artists, and learning facts. Art should make us question life and never stop questioning. Perhaps before one can define what art is, one might want to point out what it is not. Art is not art until a person interacts with it, contemplates it, and places a meaning on it. Until then, it is just materials that an artist combines together, such as paint on a canvas, fresco on a ceiling, even stainless steel, soil, combined with live flowering plants, etc. Meaning emerges with each individual viewer, even though they may not arrive at the same meaning or even the meaning that the artist intended. A point that Barrett brings up throughout the first chapter, which I agree with, is that art not only has to do with intelligence, but also feeling. Harry Broudy calls this “enlightened cherishing” (7). Joanna Frueh writes that “knowing is being alive, wholly, not just intellectually” (10). I believe that something can be called art not only if it makes us question life, but also if it makes us feel.
When one tries to define art it seems that rather than a solid answer one only finds more questions. My definition of art is going to be very different than another person's and their definition will be different than the next person's. Ultimately the definition of art is personal. For me, art is essentially everything. I look outside and see purposeful and accidental art. it isn't like the very interesting tree i am looking at thought this morning, "hey i think it will be art today." It just is art today because of my perspective. Basically, it comes down to interaction for me. If there is an object, a space (any space, it doesn't have to be defined as a museum), and an audience then anything can be art. I come from not only a visual art background, but a theatre and dance backgrounds as well. The lines of these three mediums with in the art world have become very blurred recently. I don't think you can define "art" without thinking of other venues besides visual arts. Sure, you can specify and say visual art is x, y, and z. Then there comes this question of "WHY?" and this is where it gets personal. People will always have a something to say about whether x is art (though they are mainly discussing whether it is good). If everyone in the world were to have the same answer to the question, "What is art?" then art would get boring and fit in a box until one day someone would say, "what box?" and this discussion would begin all over.
"What is art?" has always been a difficult question for me to answer, and (truthfully) the fact that it's such an issue of debate makes me feel better about my confusion. Barrett offers several definitions, but they seem lacking in a lot of ways. Dickie's definition seems problematic: it's very first assertion is that art must be an artifact, which completely ignores the existence of performance works. He also claims that it is the "art world" which dubs something art or not, which I find myself having difficulty accepting completely. I suspect there is something essential that makes art, art. For me, art is visual language. It is the intent to use images to convey an idea, and good art is the kind that promotes discussion and provokes emotion. Technical skill helps a lot, because it allows the artist greater control over the imagery shown, allowing them to (usually) better express an idea. I liked the idea of "enlightened cherishing" by Broudy; it stated that both emotion and intellect are essential in appreciating a work of art. Art, in a more sentimental way, has always made me feel more alive. Art inspires emotion and thought, and those are the characteristics that mark us unique in this galaxy, at the very least. Then again, I'm probably going to be constantly revising my thoughts on this question throughout the next few months. Maybe I'll come to agree with Weitz, that art is a "living concept" and unable to be truly defined, that there is no truly essential quality to it.
I don't think that we need philosophers or aestheticians to help us define what 'art' is, rather I would defend 'art' as in the eye of the beholder. If it was made as art with a passion and a purpose and the artist intended for it to be a piece of art, then why shouldn't it be part of the art world? Yes, the term 'art' is vague but why should there be strict guidelines? After-all, it is the attitude of most artists in the first place to defy rules and go against the grain. It is the nature of 'art' and especially contemporary art to not always be definable. Let us not define or criticize art; accept it whether you like it or not. Like Warhol said "art is what you can get away with," so push the boundaries. I say push the boundaries whether its minimalism or a scattered array of paint that makes someone's head turn. Art, to me, is the visual representation of issues and emotion, passion and place, space and talent, thoughfullness and purpose, specific or unintended. Art is, afterall, what you make it.
Art is an entity that is difficult and almost impossible to define. I closely agree with Morris Weitz’s definition of art. I think that it makes sense that art be considered an “open concept” since works of art differ greatly in what they mean and how they look. Art has changed a great deal over time. Pieces created today would not have been created 500 years ago so I don’t think that a concrete definition is adequate; however, I do feel that there are some guidelines that an object must adhere to in order to be considered art. A work must be created by a person in order to convey a message or represent some sort of idea. These are the only guidelines that are fair to have because artists today challenge preconceived notions of what art is all the time. I agree with Barrett’s suggestion that we accept most works as art and we then judge whether or not it is good art. An open definition of art makes sense because people could essentially argue whether or not a piece is a work of art or not forever.
Art seems to be a very difficult thing to define with the intention of appeasing everyone. What I mean is if I were to define Art, most likely I'd only really define it for myself, but leave fine artists and contemporary artists without a proper definition. In some way, art can only be defined by the basic elements which make it up: line, shape, form, space, texture, value and color.
From my perspective, art is all about the feeling that it instills within the creator (or destroyer, depending on what sort of art is being made), and as such can be applied to literally everything that ever existed, since someone got pleasure out of creating it, or at least appreciates that it exists in the first place.
I just think that every artist needs to find their own definition of what art is, and only rely on other people's definition to guide them to their own.
I think that the purpose of art is to creatively express an idea. The entire concept of art is using your imagination to create something that will engage a viewer. When considering if something can be considered art, I think we should take into account if the work has been created by the artist, with intent to display to others and with the hope of conveying some sort of idea. However, these are not boundaries with which all art must be placed. Post modernism continues to expand making a definition of art even more generalized. As a result the viewer should be allowed to come to their own conclusions about what is art rather than being restricted to the “artworld’s” views. Looking at art can be a personal experience especially now that it is everywhere around us. If something has been painted on the side of a building rather than presented in a gallery, the viewer should still be able to label the work as art rather than waiting for the “artworld” to concur. Art should never be about conforming to a set of rules because rules by nature conflict with creativity, no matter how broad the boundaries. Therefore, in some respects I think the definition of art is down to each individual.
ReplyDeleteWhat is art; a simple enough question, with a long complicated answer which no one seems to be able to agree upon. When we are children looking at, say a painting, we don’t question the legitimacy of what we are looking at, but rather declare our opinions as to whether we like it or not by its aesthetical value alone. In this most simple of critiques we are asking ourselves if it is good art, the similar question is asked by the aesthetician Weitz, when considering the open definition of art. Honorific definition of art tries to categorize art into a familiar grouping of art that already exists and can be compared to. Often this modernist view of art will discount any work that serves as functional, limiting fine art to traditional media and ideas. Another attempt to define art is to classify it. In this definition, the system within the artworld works together to label the work as art or not. In my opinion it is not just one system of defining art that should be used, but a little bit of each system. Part of the great thing about art is the ability to speak to different people through different means. No two people will come to view an artwork with the same background, insight or feelings. Sure it is true that there can be ways to appreciate a work of art more, such as Broudy’s “enlightened cherishing”, but that is not to say that one person or system will be able to make the call for the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of what qualifies art has been shattered; we cannot deny any one object as a work of art, no matter how seemingly insignificant or how poorly created an object may appear. Perhaps art was once so easily defined as something man-made that had been installed in an institution with the sole intention to be viewed by an artworld public, but that notion no longer appears to have true legitimacy in my opinion. The rise of Dadaism, arguably led by Marcel Duchamp who proudly introduced his "readymade" sculptures of everyday premade objects, objected the preconcieved views of what is "art" and legitimized the "meaningless." Art cannot be defined, only recognized or overlook. I believe that art surrounds us, and that it is up to the individual to choose to comprehend that fact or not. If we must define art, I would suggest that art is any object that utilizes any of the elements or principles of art. Considering nearly every visible object contains one or more of these elements/principles, I would argue that anything can be defended as art.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the sole criteria for something to be labeled as art is that at least one person honestly calls it art. Such a definition might sound like a copout, a way around thinking deeply for this prompt, but I have reflected on this question a lot in my lifetime and it’s my sincere opinion on the matter. What really struck me about this chapter from the beginning was when, in the introduction, Barrett talked at length about how the subject matter of the book is a strong mixing of past and present theories and ideas. When something is quite new, it’s easy to define and to create specific guidelines and the like for it. Once it’s been around for much longer, things shift. People think of different angles to come at it from. So old definitions exist and new ones exist, commingle, and even more definitions result from that as well. It’s never ending! The thing becomes more elusive and harder to nail down with one set definition because there are so many floating around (and bumping into each other and spawning new ones). In the instance of art, that doesn’t make one theory or viewpoint more right than the other. In the past people thought everything revolved around the earth and now people think that the earth revolves around the sun and it can be proven which one of these theories is true and which one is false. With art, in my opinion, the words true and false don’t function in the same capacity. And so, I reiterate my answer to the point: if at least one person calls something art and actual believes their claim, then that thing is art. I also firmly believe that official or respected critics are not the only ones that can label something as art. Power to the people.
ReplyDeleteI like that this reading mentions two kinds of art instead of going straight into classifying things as art and not art. I have a hard time saying things aren't art. Art is such a large subject matter to classify that it may be easier to identify things as different types of art rather than saying they are not art. The reading seems to identify art based on how it is judged/criticized, how it is made, and how it is perceived. These are all reasonable ways of identifying types of art however I don't believe they are enough to rely on when it comes to judging whether or not something is art. It seems that no matter how many readings I read about what art is I never come closer to making a decision. My main concern is the question of aesthetically pleasing versus having a meaning. Is one type of art more important to the other and is it still art if one aspect is sacrificed for the sake of the other. That is to say is it ok to make something visually beautiful and sacrifice any meaning and is it ok to sacrifice visually beauty to give something meaning? I believe both forms are art. As an example, my mother and my stepmother are both artists. My mother works in pastel and oil paint and she is very good at what she does. Her paintings are about composition and color and visual beauty but they lack any statement or underlying meaning. My stepmother makes three dimensional works of art out of different materials and most of works are not visually beautiful when first looked at. However she sometimes sacrifices the visual beauty to make something have a meaning. I believe both of these are forms of art. People in the small town where I live think my stepmom's work is too out of the ordinary and that my mom's work is beautiful. In New York City a critic may think that my mom's work is too boring and therefore not as good. I think there are far too many opinions in the world classify anything as art or not art.
ReplyDeleteThere is no simple answer to “What is art?” I had always thought of art as a creative outlet to express emotions, a cause, a belief, or just because someone felt like making something. Art has always been a release for me since I was little, as a child scribbling on a piece of paper may have been what I considered art, and now professional artists can do scribbles on a piece of paper and have a series in a gallery. After studying about different forms of art, eras of art, and the explanations between “high” and “low” art; I have come to realize that art can be interpreted by anyone who is willing to go beyond just what they see. Viewers often submerse themselves further in a work of art to find other meanings rather than just what they see in front of them. Most of the time there is an intended meaning or emotion that an artist wants to evoke. Art is an abstraction of an idea and it can be something that we all relate to or choose not to relate to. The beauty of art is the freedom that an artist has when choosing what they want to do and what they want it to mean as well as further meanings developed by an audience.
ReplyDeleteArt can be a lot of different things. However, imagination and creativity are important to determine whether something can be considered art or not. I believe that imagination and the ability to think out of the box is very important for an artist to be able to get inspired and create a piece of art that viewers will appreciate and enjoy. Also, I feel more content when the thing or creation that people call art, evokes feelings to the viewers, negative, positive, or even neutral, it was created by the artist through responses to his/her emotions, it has to do with ideas that he/she feels are important to them or the public, and it has a reason for which the art was created. Although I have a broad range to what I can consider art, I do not however consider everything “appropriate” or “good art”. For example I do not agree, and do not find aesthetically pleasing to look at art that exhibits dead animals. On the other hand this evokes some kind of feelings, and even though I do not approve or like this form of art, I can consider it in some way to be art.
ReplyDeleteAfter I finished the chapter I felt that it is pointless for us to try to define “art” because its meaning is very diverse and different people will have different opinions on it. However, I personally feel that anything can be considered as an “artwork” as long as one can explain why it is one. For example, one can consider mathematic as a form of art (the art of calculation) and thus the mathematician would be the “artist” and his/her mathematical formula would be consider as the “artwork”. Although my definition of art might be overly simplified I believe that in this case, less is more. This is like the example given in the book when people tried to define philosophy, despite the effort to come up with an “interesting and profound [definition of the term]… the shortest definition, and it is quite a good one is that philosophy is thinking about thinking.” (Barrett 5).
ReplyDeleteWhat is Art? The more you try to define art, the less accurate you become. Art is not something that can be pigeon holed by education and evaluation, but it can be further understood. After reading this article, I do not feel that I could definitively say that anything is not art, but I would challenge if it is can be seen as “good” art or not. This also becomes very hard to state qualifiers as to what fits in the high or low spectrum of art. Generally artists, art critics, and art philosophers have an understood definition of art that is constantly challenged. For example, Duchamp challenged classic definitions of art and shocked the refined world of museums with the “fountain” where his concept was the forced question “what constitutes as art?” Where is the line drawn? Almost a century later, the question has still yet to be put in concrete terms, and it might never be able to be. The definition will have to remain answered on an individual person’s own understanding and will constantly evolve.
ReplyDeleteThe definition of art has always been in a state of flux, but in more recent years it has undergone a complete transformation. During the Renaissance, it would have been easy to define art as an object, created by the artist with the intent of conveying a certain message to the viewers. This work would have to fit the canon of “high art” and be stylistically similar, at least at a basic level, to other accepted works. The present definition of art is much harder to pin down. For me, I would define art as a work that invokes emotion and thought in the viewer, created by the artist with the intent to convey a message. Whether or not the artist understands the true meaning of their art is not longer important, the viewers have the power to bestow meaning and interpret the art for themselves. In terms of subject matter, media, and presentation, almost anything can be considered art as long as it is made with some sort of creative intent. Rather than conforming to the standards of high art, modern art encompasses a whole sphere of new techniques. Whether or not the work is considered “good art” or even art at all is left to the viewer to interpret. Without a clearly defined message, art has become a more personal and individual experience for the viewer, who now has the power to interpret art in any way they see fit. Art can be almost anything, as long as a single viewer can find meaning in what they see.
ReplyDeleteTo define art, as it is to define life, is impossible. Art is more than just looking at pretty pictures, memorizing dates and artists, and learning facts. Art should make us question life and never stop questioning. Perhaps before one can define what art is, one might want to point out what it is not. Art is not art until a person interacts with it, contemplates it, and places a meaning on it. Until then, it is just materials that an artist combines together, such as paint on a canvas, fresco on a ceiling, even stainless steel, soil, combined with live flowering plants, etc. Meaning emerges with each individual viewer, even though they may not arrive at the same meaning or even the meaning that the artist intended. A point that Barrett brings up throughout the first chapter, which I agree with, is that art not only has to do with intelligence, but also feeling. Harry Broudy calls this “enlightened cherishing” (7). Joanna Frueh writes that “knowing is being alive, wholly, not just intellectually” (10). I believe that something can be called art not only if it makes us question life, but also if it makes us feel.
ReplyDeleteWhen one tries to define art it seems that rather than a solid answer one only finds more questions. My definition of art is going to be very different than another person's and their definition will be different than the next person's. Ultimately the definition of art is personal. For me, art is essentially everything. I look outside and see purposeful and accidental art. it isn't like the very interesting tree i am looking at thought this morning, "hey i think it will be art today." It just is art today because of my perspective. Basically, it comes down to interaction for me. If there is an object, a space (any space, it doesn't have to be defined as a museum), and an audience then anything can be art. I come from not only a visual art background, but a theatre and dance backgrounds as well. The lines of these three mediums with in the art world have become very blurred recently. I don't think you can define "art" without thinking of other venues besides visual arts. Sure, you can specify and say visual art is x, y, and z. Then there comes this question of "WHY?" and this is where it gets personal. People will always have a something to say about whether x is art (though they are mainly discussing whether it is good). If everyone in the world were to have the same answer to the question, "What is art?" then art would get boring and fit in a box until one day someone would say, "what box?" and this discussion would begin all over.
ReplyDelete"What is art?" has always been a difficult question for me to answer, and (truthfully) the fact that it's such an issue of debate makes me feel better about my confusion. Barrett offers several definitions, but they seem lacking in a lot of ways. Dickie's definition seems problematic: it's very first assertion is that art must be an artifact, which completely ignores the existence of performance works. He also claims that it is the "art world" which dubs something art or not, which I find myself having difficulty accepting completely. I suspect there is something essential that makes art, art. For me, art is visual language. It is the intent to use images to convey an idea, and good art is the kind that promotes discussion and provokes emotion. Technical skill helps a lot, because it allows the artist greater control over the imagery shown, allowing them to (usually) better express an idea. I liked the idea of "enlightened cherishing" by Broudy; it stated that both emotion and intellect are essential in appreciating a work of art. Art, in a more sentimental way, has always made me feel more alive. Art inspires emotion and thought, and those are the characteristics that mark us unique in this galaxy, at the very least. Then again, I'm probably going to be constantly revising my thoughts on this question throughout the next few months. Maybe I'll come to agree with Weitz, that art is a "living concept" and unable to be truly defined, that there is no truly essential quality to it.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that we need philosophers or aestheticians to help us define what 'art' is, rather I would defend 'art' as in the eye of the beholder. If it was made as art with a passion and a purpose and the artist intended for it to be a piece of art, then why shouldn't it be part of the art world? Yes, the term 'art' is vague but why should there be strict guidelines? After-all, it is the attitude of most artists in the first place to defy rules and go against the grain. It is the nature of 'art' and especially contemporary art to not always be definable. Let us not define or criticize art; accept it whether you like it or not. Like Warhol said "art is what you can get away with," so push the boundaries. I say push the boundaries whether its minimalism or a scattered array of paint that makes someone's head turn. Art, to me, is the visual representation of issues and emotion, passion and place, space and talent, thoughfullness and purpose, specific or unintended. Art is, afterall, what you make it.
ReplyDeleteArt is an entity that is difficult and almost impossible to define. I closely agree with Morris Weitz’s definition of art. I think that it makes sense that art be considered an “open concept” since works of art differ greatly in what they mean and how they look. Art has changed a great deal over time. Pieces created today would not have been created 500 years ago so I don’t think that a concrete definition is adequate; however, I do feel that there are some guidelines that an object must adhere to in order to be considered art. A work must be created by a person in order to convey a message or represent some sort of idea. These are the only guidelines that are fair to have because artists today challenge preconceived notions of what art is all the time. I agree with Barrett’s suggestion that we accept most works as art and we then judge whether or not it is good art. An open definition of art makes sense because people could essentially argue whether or not a piece is a work of art or not forever.
ReplyDeleteArt seems to be a very difficult thing to define with the intention of appeasing everyone. What I mean is if I were to define Art, most likely I'd only really define it for myself, but leave fine artists and contemporary artists without a proper definition. In some way, art can only be defined by the basic elements which make it up: line, shape, form, space, texture, value and color.
ReplyDeleteFrom my perspective, art is all about the feeling that it instills within the creator (or destroyer, depending on what sort of art is being made), and as such can be applied to literally everything that ever existed, since someone got pleasure out of creating it, or at least appreciates that it exists in the first place.
I just think that every artist needs to find their own definition of what art is, and only rely on other people's definition to guide them to their own.
(pardon for the tardiness)