Post subject: Mental Masturbation - On Art and Its Boundaries
Recently returned to the site, mostly due to missing the discussions. Since no such discussions are happening at the moment, here's one.
What's the delimitation on what art is or isn't? Is it a subjective definition - whatever you think is art is art for you, but there's no objective delimitation - or is there an agreed meaning to the idea beyond which something objectively isn't art? Some definitions I've heard through the years and my opinions on them follow.
I've heard it say that for something to be art it must pursue beeauty. However, this falls apart since while there are generally agreed upon ideals of beauty, in the end it's in the eye of the beholder - who's to say what this pursues is beautiful or not? If it's specified to mean "anything that pursues its creators ideas of beauty" then it makes more sense, but then again would an exploration of "ugliness" be banished to non-art? In the same vein, the exploration of "ugly" emotions and ideas can perfectly well fall into the realm of art. If we then specify that "beauty" can also be "ugly", just like "sadness" can be a "beautiful" emotion, then by that definition anything that pursues either beauty, ugliness or anything inbetween would be art. Which is basically everything, so everything would be art. Which kind of defeats the purpose of labeling it, since it all will fall under that label.
I've also heard it say that for something to be considered art it must be made by humans. This would therefore sentence bird's chirping, elephant drawings, beautiful landscapes, anything "discovered" and whale's singing to the realm of "not art". Which seems kind of arbitrary. If some aliens visited us tomorrow and brought with them beautiful paintings made by them, would that not be as art as our paintings? I believe the statement "for something to be considered art it must be made consciously" to be better than a restrictive "humanity" tag. Then again, can we conclusively say that whales don't sing consciously and because they appreciate the sounds aesthetically? Then, we can't really rule out "nature's art" as "non art" and the "human made" definition kind of loses meaning.
Another interesting definition I've heard would be "anything that transmits any aspect of humanity withing it". Then, if a poem conveys human suffering, or if a song transmits human happiness, then it qualifies as art, whereas some birds chirping don't really convey any part of humanity within it, therefore not being art. However, any perception we do is going to be filtered through our humanness. Even if we were to experience a completely non-human sensory perception, it would be perceived THROUGH our humanness and therefore interpreted by it, gaining a "humanity" to it - not in the making of the "art", but in the receiving of it. Then, if anything we perceive or think is innately human - because we're human - then everything is art. Once again, this definition is terribly prejudiced against sentient, conscious, non-human beings - why is our species a determinant of what art is or isn't? If a Martian views some Monet and enjoys it, is that not an artistic experience regardless of whether their genome says they're human or not? In the end, anything I experience I'll interpret with my humanness, so the definition once again becomes irrelevant, since everything would be art.
The definition I'm following currently, which however is definitely not set in stone, is that art is subjective. Anything is *potential* art, but only in our minds. I mean, there's no physical, real characteristic that makes something be art or not, it's just a word - a human convention. As such, "art" can only be a label created by our minds and inexistant in reality. And as such, whether something is art or not must depend on the being experiencing and perceiving said art-or-not. In such a way, absolutely everything - be it object, idea, sound, etc. - is potentially art, depending on what I judge it to be. In such a way, it becomes impossible to judge specific things as art-or-not objectively, and we must content ourselves with knowing that everything is potential art, depending on the perceiver. This also goes in line with the idea that art is not limited to seven "high art" branches, which while a useful labeling for communication, does not exclude other mediums from being art, potentially. As such, I believe that each person can have their own meaning of what art is or isn't and that'll be just as valid as the next person's. However, I haven't decided on what I think it means to be art.
What do you think about art in general? Can there be set measures by which to determine whether something's art or not? Is art just a human label or do some objects qualify as art by themselves regardless of the observer? What does it mean to be art to you?
Post subject: Re: Mental Masturbation - On Art and Its Boundaries
Defago wrote:
What do you think about art in general? Can there be set measures by which to determine whether something's art or not? Is art just a human label or do some objects qualify as art by themselves regardless of the observer? What does it mean to be art to you?
I think the definition of art is a forever changing thing that remains fully ambiguous, and that's sort of the beauty of it all.
You've done an excellent job of laying out the arguments and counter arguments that prove to make art so difficult to define.
Personally, my view of art is that it's any creative expression/form of communication. And by creative, I mean that it's not entirely direct.
For instance, public speaking can be an art form, as it is essentially within the same realm as poetry.
Many of my favorite artists have challenged the public concept of the definition of art.
From John Cage to Andy Warhol to Marcel Duchamp, the 21st century was loaded with folks who no longer accepted the narrow definition that art is simply a construct of beauty that could be bought and sold. _________________ http://jonnyleather.com
To me art is purely about intention which means it comes back to the decision being on the creator not the audience (the quality of said art is a whole different can of worms). If someone does something and says it's art...it's art simple as that. There can not be an objectively defined criteria that it needs to be a certain way otherwise any film or song you don't like suddenly wouldn't be art.
So going by the 'intention' definition I most closely align with the idea of it needing to be made by humans (though I wouldn't put it this way). As beautiful as whale song or bird song may be on its own in the flesh it isn't art even if you are there to hear it. The birds aren't singing because they're trying to mold self expression through the guise of melodic vibrations, they're singing either to communicate or court. Now it could be argued that Art is communication (an attempt to get a message in a certain form to another human being) so therefore any talking is art but again that would falter under the 'intention' definition so I don't believe it is - it is merely information (also most art exists as a way to express the many things conversation can not). Now if a human records those birds sounds and listens back to it for their or someone else's enjoyment then it is art because then it is a recording of bird sounds not bird sounds themselves (if no one is around to hear a cuckoo cuckoo does it cuckoo? o_O). If extraterrestrials had the consciousness to contrive something with the intention of it being art (not just merely information) then it would be art. If they involuntarily squelched some green goo from some weird orifice and we appreciated what that green goo looked like - it wouldn't make it art. If we then used that green goo and put it on a canvas to be contemplated and appreciated by other human beings then it would be art.
Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.
tl;dr: If 2 men sneezed into tissues and one of the tissues was thrown away and the other was presented on his wall (even for just him to see) I believe only the second would be art. As simple as that.
So I can't vote in your poll because I think art is subjective to the creator not the perceiver.
Last edited by Wombi on 01/06/2015 17:59; edited 3 times in total
If someone does something and says it's art...it's art simple as that.
While I think you're making an excellent argument, I happen to disagree. Many creations have been declared art, although the creator never intended it to be so.
I'll give you the example of the outsider artist. Many outsiders such as a Henry Darger do not create with the intention to display or with any structured concept of what art is, they simply do it to create, or as a therapeutic device.
Similarly, children begin drawing before their brains have the depth to understand the concept of art, and yet isn't it art?
Judith Scott suffered from down syndrome, she was deaf and didn't speak, but she a highly regarded artist with an exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum. is her work not art?
To me art is purely about intention which means it comes back to the decision being on the creator not the audience (the quality of said art is a whole different can of worms). If someone does something and says it's art...it's art simple as that. There can not be an objectively defined criteria that it needs to be a certain way otherwise any film or song you don't like suddenly wouldn't be art.
So going by the 'intention' definition I most closely align with the idea of it needing to be made by humans (though I wouldn't put it this way). As beautiful as whale song or bird song may be on its own in the flesh it isn't art even if you are there to hear it. The birds aren't singing because they're trying to mold self expression through the guise of melodic vibrations, they're singing either to communicate or court. Now it could be argued that Art is communication (an attempt to get a message in a certain form to another human being) so therefore any talking is art but again that would falter under the 'intention' definition so I don't believe it is - it is merely information. Now if a human records those birds sounds and listens back to it for their or someone else's enjoyment then it is art because then it is a recording of bird sounds not bird sounds themselves (if no one is around to hear a cuckoo cuckoo does it cuckoo? o_O). If extraterrestrials had the consciousness to contrive something with the intention of it being art (not just merely information) then it would be art. If they involuntarily squelched some green goo from some weird orifice and we appreciated what that green goo looked like - it wouldn't make it art. If we then used that green goo and put it on a canvas to be contemplated and appreciated by other human beings then it would be art.
tl;dr: If 2 men sneezed into tissues and one of the tissues was thrown away and the other was presented on his wall (even for just him to see) I believe only the second would be art. As simple as that.
Ooh, forgot about that one! That's what I believed for quite a while too! It's called the differentiation between "art" and "craft", I believe. Craft being anything created for a practical use, while art being anything created for a, well, artistic use. The distinction belongs strictly to the creator, just like you said. It's a very sound definition - whatever I create, I can call art or not art as I wish. My main problem with this idea - well, 2 problems - was firstly with collaborative creations, and secondly with "accidental art".
If you and I together compose a soundtrack, and you say "it's art!" and I say "nah, that was just for the money, it's absolutely a craft" - who's right? Is it half-art, half-craft? Is it subjectively art for you, not art for me? What is it for the perceivers, then - does their opinion matter too? Can they choose which one of us believe? While most of the plastic arts are individualistic and this problem is rarely seen, with music and interpretative arts you rarely see a product which isn't made from the collaboration of many minds. If half the orchestra says it's art and the other half doesn't think so, what do we do now?
Accidental art, on the other hand, sounds like a strange term. Just like accidental comedy, which is comedy made without the intention to (and which's definition as "comedy" depends purely on the perceiver and not the comedian), accidental art happens without intention. Now, accidental art might seem like a contradiction, going by your definition, but bear with me. If I "accidentally", without meaning to, make a masterpiece. Like if I get angry and yell at someone, but everyone interprets it as performance art - very post modern. Or if I join an internet forum and all its members have cathartic experiences when communicating with me, without me realizing. Their artistic experiences and their varied interpretations of my actions are unquestionable. If they find them revlutionary, aesthetic or captivating happens regardless of my intentions. They could even have artistic epyphanies, be influenced greatly by what I consider is not art. They experience it as art, who am I to tell them "Nope, didn't mean it as art, so you didn't really experience art". Even if I control the creative part of the process, does art not exist as much (or even more) in the perceiving part of the process? To me, the important and interesting part of this communication known as art is how the perceiver receives and interprets the sensory information, more than in how or with what intent the emitter does so.
On the opposite, if I create what I think is art yet everyone thinks it's just garbage, it's still art, regardless of what you say. The subjective approach, in which "it's still art (for me)" and "it's not art (for you)" can coexist while both are subjectively valid, reconciles this point of view (of intention) with the lack of objectivity I mentioned earlier.
Definitely your definition hits very close to what I feel is accurate, though. Intentions are a very important part of the artistic process, regardless of whether it ultimately defines something as art-or-not-art.
I also forgot another possible solution - nothing is art. Art is nothing but a meaningless label. But then again that's technically true of all words, and labels are just the word-ification of underlying concepts and ideas, so it'd be a useless exercise to condemn all labels as useless and meaningless.
EDIT: Also outsider art, like meccalecca clearly pointed out, which is a wayyyyy easier way than my attempts at explaining "accidental art".
While I think you're making an excellent argument, I happen to disagree. Many creations have been declared art, although the creator never intended it to be so.
I'll give you the example of the outsider artist. Many outsiders such as a Henry Darger do not create with the intention to display or with any structured concept of what art is, they simply do it to create, or as a therapeutic device.
Similarly, children begin drawing before their brains have the depth to understand the concept of art, and yet isn't it art?
Judith Scott suffered from down syndrome, she was deaf and didn't speak, but she a highly regarded artist with an exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum. is her work not art?
Those are great points but I'm still convinced it's more to do with the creator than the perceiver. And that creator doesn't have to be the "original" creator (everything is a remix etc). If a third party takes something that wasn't intended to be art and suddenly intends for it to be suddenly what wasn't art becomes art. Like if you decide to hang up your kids drawings then that is separate from the drawing that was being done by the child. You've intervened there and turned something that wasn't into something that was.
More simply if no one had ever discovered that Darger had made all these pieces of art after he died would they still have been art? I would argue no. For starters we wouldn't even be able to make a point of him in a discussion.
More simply if no one had ever discovered that Darger had made all these pieces of art after he died would they still have been art? I would argue no. For starters we wouldn't even be able to make a point of him in a discussion.
So their art-ness depends on being discovered? Even if Darger intended them to be art, and then they were not discovered, they would not be art? Also, how can we know if they're art or not if we never asked him before he passed away?
I'd say your previously stated point would argue that Darger is still art, regardless of being discovered or not, because it's art-ness only depends on his intention and not on its discovery - it'd still be art even if they were never found!
Those are great points but I'm still convinced it's more to do with the creator than the perceiver. And that creator doesn't have to be the "original" creator (everything is a remix etc). If a third party takes something that wasn't intended to be art and suddenly intends for it to be suddenly what wasn't art becomes art. Like if you decide to hang up your kids drawings then that is separate from the drawing that was being done by the child. You've intervened there and turned something that wasn't into something that was.
More simply if no one had ever discovered that Darger had made all these pieces of art after he died would they still have been art? I would argue no. For starters we wouldn't even be able to make a point of him in a discussion.
So, you're argument is kind of the nature of:
"If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, then it must not make a sound"
So, if a third party is able to declare intention that something is art, then can the same third party declare that something is not art?
For instance. I take a shit in the woods and call it art, but I'm the only one who genuinely agrees that it's art, while the head of a major art institution says no. Who's correct? _________________ http://jonnyleather.com
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
