Art?
Art or No?
This journal will set out to determine what is art and what is not art, but I can pretty calmly and confidently assert that it will never hit that mark. As this is most likely the case, let it be a discourse instead on why it is but a silly question brought about by prejudices and closed minds. “Is it art?” is, in my mind a question kindred in spirit to the statement “That is not art” which is only a short skip from “That is garbage/my kid could do that.” So, let me show you how I get there and with what philosophies I battle on the way.
The first order of this business would, obviously, be to define art. And the first task to defining art in my mind is to make a distinction that nothing is art until presented as art. Secondly, let us, for clarity and expediencies sake, check a few online dictionaries to see if they concur. Wow. Well, I’ll just provide the first three:
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria
3. Generally art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind; by transmitting emotions and/or ideas. Beyond this description, there is no general agreed-upon definition of art, since defining the boundaries of "art" is subjective.
So, there seems to be some disagreement here, but I think what the composite of these definitions states is that art is an idea, activity or object which is pleasing to some sense (visual and sonic being the most typical, as they are the most accessible) and “transmits” or stimulates the formation of ideas/emotions/sense of beauty. At this juncture I feel comfortable saying art’s function is to convey an idea to or provoke thought in a sensor , and these things are individual-ideas and emotions are certainly subjective and “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” or is culturally defined-and thus cannot be denied. If some idea, activity or object generates any of the reactions described above in one sensor then no other individual may deny the reaction of that sensor.
But wait! This conclusion must be erroneous for surely there exist people and movements who do this very thing: deny that provocative and evocative sensual objects/experiences, which are presented as art, are not, in fact, art. Who do these people-Objectivists, Stuckists, Daniel Isaac , thatsnotart.com, countless other sources, both intellectual and banal- think they are? If art is as I have defined it above, than it is impossible for someone who is not me to tell me that something I think is art is not. It quite valid to discuss whether a particular work or type or movement of art is important or successful, but to say that something presented as art, with all the qualities described above is not art seems to me to be groundless.
I thought, when I embarked on this paper, that I may come to some understanding of Objectivism and all its offshoots, but I have not. Their principles prescribe a definition of art that defies my imagination and must, if it is to be correct, not just devalue but destroy much of the art made the in the 20th and 21st centuries that I personally esteem highly. In fact, much art that I myself have made “is not art.” So, while I have not really given a duality of viewpoints in this paper, I do believe I have done something that I think is quite difficult: defined art to my own satisfaction (at least at this present juncture) and defended my definition. If I went into the detail and specificity I wanted to (discussing Duchamp, Warhol, Tracey Emin, Rauschenberg, Pollock, Joseph Beuys and countless others) I would end up writing an extended essay on conceptual art, which would be inappropriate, so I will end here.
This journal will set out to determine what is art and what is not art, but I can pretty calmly and confidently assert that it will never hit that mark. As this is most likely the case, let it be a discourse instead on why it is but a silly question brought about by prejudices and closed minds. “Is it art?” is, in my mind a question kindred in spirit to the statement “That is not art” which is only a short skip from “That is garbage/my kid could do that.” So, let me show you how I get there and with what philosophies I battle on the way.
The first order of this business would, obviously, be to define art. And the first task to defining art in my mind is to make a distinction that nothing is art until presented as art. Secondly, let us, for clarity and expediencies sake, check a few online dictionaries to see if they concur. Wow. Well, I’ll just provide the first three:
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria
3. Generally art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind; by transmitting emotions and/or ideas. Beyond this description, there is no general agreed-upon definition of art, since defining the boundaries of "art" is subjective.
So, there seems to be some disagreement here, but I think what the composite of these definitions states is that art is an idea, activity or object which is pleasing to some sense (visual and sonic being the most typical, as they are the most accessible) and “transmits” or stimulates the formation of ideas/emotions/sense of beauty. At this juncture I feel comfortable saying art’s function is to convey an idea to or provoke thought in a sensor , and these things are individual-ideas and emotions are certainly subjective and “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” or is culturally defined-and thus cannot be denied. If some idea, activity or object generates any of the reactions described above in one sensor then no other individual may deny the reaction of that sensor.
But wait! This conclusion must be erroneous for surely there exist people and movements who do this very thing: deny that provocative and evocative sensual objects/experiences, which are presented as art, are not, in fact, art. Who do these people-Objectivists, Stuckists, Daniel Isaac , thatsnotart.com, countless other sources, both intellectual and banal- think they are? If art is as I have defined it above, than it is impossible for someone who is not me to tell me that something I think is art is not. It quite valid to discuss whether a particular work or type or movement of art is important or successful, but to say that something presented as art, with all the qualities described above is not art seems to me to be groundless.
I thought, when I embarked on this paper, that I may come to some understanding of Objectivism and all its offshoots, but I have not. Their principles prescribe a definition of art that defies my imagination and must, if it is to be correct, not just devalue but destroy much of the art made the in the 20th and 21st centuries that I personally esteem highly. In fact, much art that I myself have made “is not art.” So, while I have not really given a duality of viewpoints in this paper, I do believe I have done something that I think is quite difficult: defined art to my own satisfaction (at least at this present juncture) and defended my definition. If I went into the detail and specificity I wanted to (discussing Duchamp, Warhol, Tracey Emin, Rauschenberg, Pollock, Joseph Beuys and countless others) I would end up writing an extended essay on conceptual art, which would be inappropriate, so I will end here.