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,
Sunday, August 19, 2012
What is art?
After reading what Barrett has to say about the definition of art, can you come up with a working definition of your own based on your experiences with art?
Due Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Barrett first opens with short definitions of “What is Art?” which most define itself with the word ‘art’, or defined by a group of persons that are brought together to understand an object. This becomes much to general. Barrett also writes that “X is art, if and only if, X has a subject”. But does that mean all subjects are art? I think that all subjects have the potential to become art, if viewed in that way. Art, I believe, is subject/subjects arranged either by a singular person or by a group of people that can be viewed and criticized. Art can be a tangible painting, sculpture, or photograph focusing on issues the artist has in mind or just conveying visual aesthetics; or it can be a performance art piece which focuses hugely on political, social, and economic issues conveyed by tangible media and/or by people actually performing. One thing I really liked written in the passage was to focus more so on judging a work of art in relation to how good it is. For example, most anyone can write a story or poetry, but there is good writing and bad writing. Same with art, it’s very dependent on the viewer’s critiques. Art doesn’t need to be shared with thousands of people, as long as there is one critique – even if it is the artist of the work— because we are all critics in some way.
In chapter 1, Barrett discusses the debate over the definition of "art." He mentions how some argue that for art to be "good" the work must have aesthetically pleasing qualities. I do not believe that art has to be aesthetically stimulating to be labeled as "good." A much more essential quality is the intent behind the work. Art is formed as an expression of the creator's mind and can be anything from the start of a single, magnificent idea to an installation piece that spans miles. The creation may express the artist's inner emotions in ways words cannot or be intended to make a statement on an issue of progressive society. To me, the most important aspect of art is the spread and sharing of techniques and ideas. If art is viewed by various individuals, who each can analyze the art from their own personal perspectives based upon their prior life experiences, different interpretations can be formed, and the work can acquire a new meaning. Therefore, I believe that art can be considered "good" if it is an expression of the artist that evokes some type of reaction from a group of individuals, whether it be negative or positive.
To define art is like finding a needle in a haystack—very difficult. However, I believe art to be a form of expression and communication. This is a very broad definition, but I think it covers just about all types of art. Somewhat in-line with my definition, the book states that art should be “valued for its own sake rather than for its functionality” (4). You do not necessarily have to like a piece of art for it to be considered “art” to you. As Barrett states, one should accept the piece as art and then move forward by identifying the criteria that makes it a good or bad piece of art. I agree with this, because today the range of what we consider art is vast, so rather than argueing about whether it is or is not art I think the real purpose lies in whether or not it is good art, and is communicating what the artist has intended.
My definition of art is constantly changing and adapting based on what I encounter in the classroom as well as outside of it. That being said, there are always a few things that I think define art. I believe that there must be intention behind a work of art and that art must incite a dialogue and forge a connection between viewer and object. Much like Peter Schjeldahl’s exhaustive method of absorbing the works in a museum as mentioned by Barret, I think art needs to be interactive. This interaction doesn’t need to happen on a large scale, it can be a personal inner dialogue, but a dialogue must be initiated nonetheless. Whether it is encountered in the solace of the museum, scrawled on the sidewalk, or found in pieces in a studio – art is something that possesses intention and incites conversation.
Art is not an easily defined word as it changes from person to person and culture to culture. However, I believe art is meant to be an expression of emotion, thought, personal and social experience. This definition is very broad and there are always exceptions to any set definition of art. Barrett even points out that an artist purposely goes against what is to be considered art to break traditional boundaries. Rather than trying to pin down specifically what is and is not art, I agree with Barrett’s point that it is easier to analyze the object in question as either good or bad art. However, art’s ever changing quality allows me to revisit art I once viewed as bad or not at all as now a quality piece with meaning. This is due to a multitude of factors such as life experience, personal relationships, further studies into art, etc. Not everyone can appreciate a work as being good or being art at all. However, if the piece can resonate with its audience and someone can appreciate its qualities and find meaning in them, then I believe I can be considered art.
Art is a difficult term to define because everyone has his or her own interpretation of its meaning. Some contemporary art can be frustrating to formally declare as "art" because of its simplicity or menial composition. I, too, find myself at battle to differentiate what is "art" and what is not. I consider any means of outward self-expression to be art, whether it be fashion, makeup, painting, photography, architecture, etc. All of these things require some form of artistry and thus I am willing to acknowledge them as creative outlets, or, "art". Ultimately, I find the debate between what is art and what is not to be irritating and redundant and regardless of a concrete definition of the term, no one will ever universally agree on its meaning.
Comment: I completely agree with Clareese, for an object to be art it needs to be able to evoke meaning and dialogue. Also, depending on how meaningful the dialogue is can determine the 'goodness' of a piece.
Asking what art is is like asking what the color blue looks like. The question seems so simple, yet every person has a different perception. Literally every single person views the color blue differently. Therefore, rather than try to define what art is, I will define what I think it should be based on my knowledge of its history and my experience as an artist.
A long list of theorists have tried to define art over the years. Through honorific and classificatory definitions, they’ve created several different “examinations of art.” From realism to expressionism and formalism to poststructuralism (all of which fall under the umbrella of honorific definitions), theorists attempted to identify the honorable qualities of a good work of art, believing that this was the best way to classify what art is. Within their own branches, they had different criteria of what made this artwork good, but the meat of the theories was nonetheless that art is art because it holds certain honorable qualities that make it art.
Classificatory theorists like Danto, on the other hand, thought of art more like an equation. The artwork didn’t have to be “good” to be classified as art, it just had to meet certain requirements. “a, b and c are works of art because they hold qualities d, e, f but x, y, and z do not.” Simple, right? But even this classificatory definition of art had its opposing theories. George Dickie, the other major aesthetian within the classificatory umbrella, valued art’s theory over its function, and developed his own list of criteria for what made artwork valuable. Art=art if and only if…” it met theoretical requirements. Both Danto and Dickie had equations by which to classify art, but equation A≠ equation B. So, this brings us back to the question: What the hell is art?
To me, art is simply this: a means of expression. It tells a personal story of who we are and what drives and inspires us. It’s the manifestation of what we’ve been taught coupled with the emotion behind our experiences. What makes art “good” is the amount of thought put into the meaning, the level of skill displayed by the artist due of his years of experience and natural talent, and an overall level of innovation for the time it was created. It’s that simple.
After reading the chapter I feel that my personal definition of art relates mostly to the "Open Definition" of art. A quote that stood out to me the most from this idea comes from Morris Weitz. Weitz states, "Art is a living concept that cannot and ought not be pinned down by any set of conditions." When looking back on what is considered art throughout history, the "art world" of any given era is the governing body that defines it. But looking back throughout each era, art has constantly evolved into something new and different due to artists breaking away from the mold and testing the boundaries, or even destroying them completely as Marcel Duchamp's, "Fountain." If we set a definite criteria for art today, it will undoubtedly be completely different in a hundred or a thousand years. I understand that art criticism is necessary and unavoidable, but if someone today tries and deny an artist's work as art, they will most likely be proven wrong in the years to come. I believe that art is whatever an individual artist creates with the intention of making art. Where the challenge comes with that definition, I believe, is deciding on whether or not the artist is a true artist.
I believe that my definition of art has not changed. Not having a background in art allows me to see all art on the same playing field, I do not look too deep into the art. I believe that the definition of art is self expression through various visual avenues.
Barrett first opens with short definitions of “What is Art?” which most define itself with the word ‘art’, or defined by a group of persons that are brought together to understand an object. This becomes much to general. Barrett also writes that “X is art, if and only if, X has a subject”. But does that mean all subjects are art? I think that all subjects have the potential to become art, if viewed in that way. Art, I believe, is subject/subjects arranged either by a singular person or by a group of people that can be viewed and criticized. Art can be a tangible painting, sculpture, or photograph focusing on issues the artist has in mind or just conveying visual aesthetics; or it can be a performance art piece which focuses hugely on political, social, and economic issues conveyed by tangible media and/or by people actually performing. One thing I really liked written in the passage was to focus more so on judging a work of art in relation to how good it is. For example, most anyone can write a story or poetry, but there is good writing and bad writing. Same with art, it’s very dependent on the viewer’s critiques. Art doesn’t need to be shared with thousands of people, as long as there is one critique – even if it is the artist of the work— because we are all critics in some way.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 1, Barrett discusses the debate over the definition of "art." He mentions how some argue that for art to be "good" the work must have aesthetically pleasing qualities. I do not believe that art has to be aesthetically stimulating to be labeled as "good." A much more essential quality is the intent behind the work. Art is formed as an expression of the creator's mind and can be anything from the start of a single, magnificent idea to an installation piece that spans miles. The creation may express the artist's inner emotions in ways words cannot or be intended to make a statement on an issue of progressive society. To me, the most important aspect of art is the spread and sharing of techniques and ideas. If art is viewed by various individuals, who each can analyze the art from their own personal perspectives based upon their prior life experiences, different interpretations can be formed, and the work can acquire a new meaning. Therefore, I believe that art can be considered "good" if it is an expression of the artist that evokes some type of reaction from a group of individuals, whether it be negative or positive.
ReplyDeleteTo define art is like finding a needle in a haystack—very difficult. However, I believe art to be a form of expression and communication. This is a very broad definition, but I think it covers just about all types of art. Somewhat in-line with my definition, the book states that art should be “valued for its own sake rather than for its functionality” (4). You do not necessarily have to like a piece of art for it to be considered “art” to you. As Barrett states, one should accept the piece as art and then move forward by identifying the criteria that makes it a good or bad piece of art. I agree with this, because today the range of what we consider art is vast, so rather than argueing about whether it is or is not art I think the real purpose lies in whether or not it is good art, and is communicating what the artist has intended.
ReplyDeleteMy definition of art is constantly changing and adapting based on what I encounter in the classroom as well as outside of it. That being said, there are always a few things that I think define art. I believe that there must be intention behind a work of art and that art must incite a dialogue and forge a connection between viewer and object. Much like Peter Schjeldahl’s exhaustive method of absorbing the works in a museum as mentioned by Barret, I think art needs to be interactive. This interaction doesn’t need to happen on a large scale, it can be a personal inner dialogue, but a dialogue must be initiated nonetheless. Whether it is encountered in the solace of the museum, scrawled on the sidewalk, or found in pieces in a studio – art is something that possesses intention and incites conversation.
ReplyDeleteArt is not an easily defined word as it changes from person to person and culture to culture. However, I believe art is meant to be an expression of emotion, thought, personal and social experience. This definition is very broad and there are always exceptions to any set definition of art. Barrett even points out that an artist purposely goes against what is to be considered art to break traditional boundaries. Rather than trying to pin down specifically what is and is not art, I agree with Barrett’s point that it is easier to analyze the object in question as either good or bad art. However, art’s ever changing quality allows me to revisit art I once viewed as bad or not at all as now a quality piece with meaning. This is due to a multitude of factors such as life experience, personal relationships, further studies into art, etc. Not everyone can appreciate a work as being good or being art at all. However, if the piece can resonate with its audience and someone can appreciate its qualities and find meaning in them, then I believe I can be considered art.
ReplyDeleteArt is a difficult term to define because everyone has his or her own interpretation of its meaning. Some contemporary art can be frustrating to formally declare as "art" because of its simplicity or menial composition. I, too, find myself at battle to differentiate what is "art" and what is not. I consider any means of outward self-expression to be art, whether it be fashion, makeup, painting, photography, architecture, etc. All of these things require some form of artistry and thus I am willing to acknowledge them as creative outlets, or, "art". Ultimately, I find the debate between what is art and what is not to be irritating and redundant and regardless of a concrete definition of the term, no one will ever universally agree on its meaning.
ReplyDeleteComment: I completely agree with Clareese, for an object to be art it needs to be able to evoke meaning and dialogue. Also, depending on how meaningful the dialogue is can determine the 'goodness' of a piece.
ReplyDeleteAsking what art is is like asking what the color blue looks like. The question seems so simple, yet every person has a different perception. Literally every single person views the color blue differently. Therefore, rather than try to define what art is, I will define what I think it should be based on my knowledge of its history and my experience as an artist.
ReplyDeleteA long list of theorists have tried to define art over the years. Through honorific and classificatory definitions, they’ve created several different “examinations of art.” From realism to expressionism and formalism to poststructuralism (all of which fall under the umbrella of honorific definitions), theorists attempted to identify the honorable qualities of a good work of art, believing that this was the best way to classify what art is. Within their own branches, they had different criteria of what made this artwork good, but the meat of the theories was nonetheless that art is art because it holds certain honorable qualities that make it art.
Classificatory theorists like Danto, on the other hand, thought of art more like an equation. The artwork didn’t have to be “good” to be classified as art, it just had to meet certain requirements. “a, b and c are works of art because they hold qualities d, e, f but x, y, and z do not.” Simple, right? But even this classificatory definition of art had its opposing theories. George Dickie, the other major aesthetian within the classificatory umbrella, valued art’s theory over its function, and developed his own list of criteria for what made artwork valuable. Art=art if and only if…” it met theoretical requirements. Both Danto and Dickie had equations by which to classify art, but equation A≠ equation B. So, this brings us back to the question:
What the hell is art?
To me, art is simply this: a means of expression. It tells a personal story of who we are and what drives and inspires us. It’s the manifestation of what we’ve been taught coupled with the emotion behind our experiences. What makes art “good” is the amount of thought put into the meaning, the level of skill displayed by the artist due of his years of experience and natural talent, and an overall level of innovation for the time it was created. It’s that simple.
After reading the chapter I feel that my personal definition of art relates mostly to the "Open Definition" of art. A quote that stood out to me the most from this idea comes from Morris Weitz. Weitz states, "Art is a living concept that cannot and ought not be pinned down by any set of conditions." When looking back on what is considered art throughout history, the "art world" of any given era is the governing body that defines it. But looking back throughout each era, art has constantly evolved into something new and different due to artists breaking away from the mold and testing the boundaries, or even destroying them completely as Marcel Duchamp's, "Fountain." If we set a definite criteria for art today, it will undoubtedly be completely different in a hundred or a thousand years. I understand that art criticism is necessary and unavoidable, but if someone today tries and deny an artist's work as art, they will most likely be proven wrong in the years to come. I believe that art is whatever an individual artist creates with the intention of making art. Where the challenge comes with that definition, I believe, is deciding on whether or not the artist is a true artist.
ReplyDeleteI believe that my definition of art has not changed. Not having a background in art allows me to see all art on the same playing field, I do not look too deep into the art. I believe that the definition of art is self expression through various visual avenues.
ReplyDelete