As the term comes to a close, I would like to give some final reflections on this class.
Freud is still a Fraud, and still failed to contribute meaningfully to this course.
Nelson Goodman's "Ways of Worldmaking" will keep my thoughts occupied for the next twenty years.
I still need to finish Plato's Republic.
I must pick up and read some more Weitz, and some Wittgenstein while I'm at it.
And lastly... what is Art? (I know I have offered my own definition, but the question still stands, and probably will for as long as conscious thought prevails).
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Approaching the Finale: My Definition of Art
First, I would like to revise the definition of Art I gave in my previous post. Art is the Intentional exercise of Original Creative thought to Express an Emotion and/or an Idea through some medium, be it language and the written word, music, performance, paint and canvas, ink, sculpture, architecture, or some other means I may have neglected to mention or some other medium yet to be conceived, presented in an aesthetically gratifying way.
Given this revised and updated definition, I shall clarify a few points within it. The Original Creative clause may seem at first glance to be synonymous. How can something be Creative and not Original, or Original without being Creative? Allow me to use an example to illustrate. Suppose an art student wants to create a copy of the Mona Lisa. To do so, the student develops a special way of painting in which to produce an exact copy of the painting. It certainly has an element of Creativity - this student developed a new style of painting to copy the original. However, because it is a copy, it lacks Originality. Therefore, specifying Original Creative endeavor limits the definition to new works rather than including Creative copies of other works.
Aesthetically gratifying may seem a bit rocky. At first glance, it may feel like a throw-back to Formalism and the Aesthetic Emotion summoned by Significant Form. However, this is not the case. I do not argue, indeed do not believe, the Artwork summons any "peculiar feeling" that only Art can summon. Rather, it summons the everyday emotions. It summons the familiar feelings of joy, sadness, anger, love, loss, and the myriad of other emotions. While an artwork may certainly communicate an idea within its context, it must by necessity convey emotion, so that the idea, the message of the piece, is not lost. It must be something the public will WANT to view and consider, and for this to happen, it must convey emotion, not a peculiar emotion, but one, or perhaps the full range, of emotions that humans are capable of feeling. In a sense, this may be beauty, but beauty in not merely was is aesthetically pleasing, but what might be ugly, as well, so long as it triggers an emotional response. If an Artwork does not trigger an emotional response, it has failed as a piece, and cannot be considered art.
This definition is by no means universal. Indeed, no definition of Art CAN be universal. But it provides a framework from which to judge Art, or whether something is indeed Art. If it fits the criteria given above, it is, in my humble opinion, Art.
Given this revised and updated definition, I shall clarify a few points within it. The Original Creative clause may seem at first glance to be synonymous. How can something be Creative and not Original, or Original without being Creative? Allow me to use an example to illustrate. Suppose an art student wants to create a copy of the Mona Lisa. To do so, the student develops a special way of painting in which to produce an exact copy of the painting. It certainly has an element of Creativity - this student developed a new style of painting to copy the original. However, because it is a copy, it lacks Originality. Therefore, specifying Original Creative endeavor limits the definition to new works rather than including Creative copies of other works.
Aesthetically gratifying may seem a bit rocky. At first glance, it may feel like a throw-back to Formalism and the Aesthetic Emotion summoned by Significant Form. However, this is not the case. I do not argue, indeed do not believe, the Artwork summons any "peculiar feeling" that only Art can summon. Rather, it summons the everyday emotions. It summons the familiar feelings of joy, sadness, anger, love, loss, and the myriad of other emotions. While an artwork may certainly communicate an idea within its context, it must by necessity convey emotion, so that the idea, the message of the piece, is not lost. It must be something the public will WANT to view and consider, and for this to happen, it must convey emotion, not a peculiar emotion, but one, or perhaps the full range, of emotions that humans are capable of feeling. In a sense, this may be beauty, but beauty in not merely was is aesthetically pleasing, but what might be ugly, as well, so long as it triggers an emotional response. If an Artwork does not trigger an emotional response, it has failed as a piece, and cannot be considered art.
This definition is by no means universal. Indeed, no definition of Art CAN be universal. But it provides a framework from which to judge Art, or whether something is indeed Art. If it fits the criteria given above, it is, in my humble opinion, Art.
Monday, December 8, 2008
On Appropriateness of Creativity
There is one point that I feel we did not get enough time to discuss in class, indeed could not have discussed to the length which I would have preferred, and that is the definition of "appropriateness" of Creativity.
What is "appropriate" practice of Creativity? Clearly, definitions of what is "appropriate" or "proper" will vary from culture to culture, and indeed even from person to person within a culture. And of course, as we touched upon in class, what is appropriate is constantly in flux, evolving with time just as culture does.
If it is necessary for "Art" and the Creativity requisite for it to be "appropriate," and there can be no universal definition for what is proper, how, then, can we formulate a universal definition of Art? We cannot. But does that mean that Art is therefore indefinable? Was Weitz correct in saying that Art defies definition?
I do not believe that this is the case. The idea that Creativity must be applied appropriately to be Art is, in my humble opinion, absurd. It is by defying what is expected or appropriate that Art evolves, that it expresses ideas, pushes boundaries, communicates whatever it seeks to communicate. "Art" does not need to be "appropriate" by any means.
And so, I shall attempt to offer my own definition of Art. Art is the Intentional exercise of Original Creative thought to Express an Emotion and/or an Idea through some medium, be it language and the written word, music, performance, paint and canvas, ink, sculpture, architecture, or some other means I may have neglected to mention or some other medium yet to be conceived.
What is "appropriate" practice of Creativity? Clearly, definitions of what is "appropriate" or "proper" will vary from culture to culture, and indeed even from person to person within a culture. And of course, as we touched upon in class, what is appropriate is constantly in flux, evolving with time just as culture does.
If it is necessary for "Art" and the Creativity requisite for it to be "appropriate," and there can be no universal definition for what is proper, how, then, can we formulate a universal definition of Art? We cannot. But does that mean that Art is therefore indefinable? Was Weitz correct in saying that Art defies definition?
I do not believe that this is the case. The idea that Creativity must be applied appropriately to be Art is, in my humble opinion, absurd. It is by defying what is expected or appropriate that Art evolves, that it expresses ideas, pushes boundaries, communicates whatever it seeks to communicate. "Art" does not need to be "appropriate" by any means.
And so, I shall attempt to offer my own definition of Art. Art is the Intentional exercise of Original Creative thought to Express an Emotion and/or an Idea through some medium, be it language and the written word, music, performance, paint and canvas, ink, sculpture, architecture, or some other means I may have neglected to mention or some other medium yet to be conceived.
Friday, December 5, 2008
On Innovation
I feel it is necessary to clarify my definition of Innovation to contribute to our on-going discussion of the three concepts of Imagination, Creativity, and Innovation.
First, in addressing the complaint of my mass marketing mentality. It is necessary to expound on what I refer to as "Mass Marketing." The object in question is produced on some large scale for which it can be used daily.
This is not to imply that it is readily available to anyone. To address the concern of missiles, of course you or I won't be able to go down to our local Wal-Mart and purchase a missile (yet). But the government produces more of them every day. It uses some (do not forget that the US is technically fighting two wars, perhaps a third if you count the new US action against pirates off the coast of Somalia), and some it sells to other countries. It may not be something the average person can use, but it is produced on a large scale. It is an innovation.
On a more practical scale, an airplane is also an Innovation. Many of us don't fly or travel in a plane every day, but the fact is that every day, planes are being used all over the world, and they're being produced and sold to commercial airlines, militaries, and a few private individuals who can afford the luxury of a plane. Just because most people don't use these every day or purchase them for use like they would a car does not diminish the fact that they are an Innovation.
In other words, an Innovation is something that is manufactured and reproduced for some sort of practical use, be it as a weapon of war or mass transit. This also explains why Art is not Innovation, as Art's function is purely for a mental capacity, to satiate the mind rather than to aid in a task. Innovations do things. Art is an outlet for human emotion.
First, in addressing the complaint of my mass marketing mentality. It is necessary to expound on what I refer to as "Mass Marketing." The object in question is produced on some large scale for which it can be used daily.
This is not to imply that it is readily available to anyone. To address the concern of missiles, of course you or I won't be able to go down to our local Wal-Mart and purchase a missile (yet). But the government produces more of them every day. It uses some (do not forget that the US is technically fighting two wars, perhaps a third if you count the new US action against pirates off the coast of Somalia), and some it sells to other countries. It may not be something the average person can use, but it is produced on a large scale. It is an innovation.
On a more practical scale, an airplane is also an Innovation. Many of us don't fly or travel in a plane every day, but the fact is that every day, planes are being used all over the world, and they're being produced and sold to commercial airlines, militaries, and a few private individuals who can afford the luxury of a plane. Just because most people don't use these every day or purchase them for use like they would a car does not diminish the fact that they are an Innovation.
In other words, an Innovation is something that is manufactured and reproduced for some sort of practical use, be it as a weapon of war or mass transit. This also explains why Art is not Innovation, as Art's function is purely for a mental capacity, to satiate the mind rather than to aid in a task. Innovations do things. Art is an outlet for human emotion.
Imagination is NOT Creativity
Today, someone suggested that Imagination is equal to Creativity. This is not the case.
Imagination is, by its very nature, free and unstructured. Imagination damns the constraints of the real world and simply wanders, it thinks without boundary, creates without creating. This is not to be confused with Creativity.
Creativity is the act of bringing structure to Imagination. Creativity tames Imagination and manifests the ideas generated by Imagination into an object in the real world. Creativity restricts Imagination to the limitations of reality (such as gravity) and produces an object within that world.
To call Imagination the equivalent of Creativity is to overlook the fundamental difference in the two: Imagination is unbounded. Creativity expands reality by taming Imagination to fit the constraints of the real world.
Simply put, Creativity is Imagination, but Imagination is NOT Creativity.
Imagination is, by its very nature, free and unstructured. Imagination damns the constraints of the real world and simply wanders, it thinks without boundary, creates without creating. This is not to be confused with Creativity.
Creativity is the act of bringing structure to Imagination. Creativity tames Imagination and manifests the ideas generated by Imagination into an object in the real world. Creativity restricts Imagination to the limitations of reality (such as gravity) and produces an object within that world.
To call Imagination the equivalent of Creativity is to overlook the fundamental difference in the two: Imagination is unbounded. Creativity expands reality by taming Imagination to fit the constraints of the real world.
Simply put, Creativity is Imagination, but Imagination is NOT Creativity.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
On the Nature of Beauty
Well, here it is. The long awaited post on Beauty, and my thoughts on the subject. But where to begin this discussion?
The dictionary shall be my starting point. Dictionary.com's definition of beauty reads the following: the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest).
This definition gives a good starting point, but it leaves open the question of what exactly that quality is that creates that feeling of pleasure.
I shall postulate here that the qualities of beauty are a combination of nurture and nature. From nature, some reactions must necessarily arise. Such emotions as fear, anger, love, and compassion come directly from nature in order to contribute towards the survival of the species. These primal emotions are triggered by certain characteristics. It is because of this nature that a sad song indeed sounds sad, that a carefully selected color scheme and texture in a painting can draw out our deepest emotions, or, on a human level, that the face of a baby can draw out the parental instinct of (especially female) older humans (which I shall casually refer to as the "awwwww! factor").
Nurture is a much tougher nut to crack. Environment will have an impact on what a person finds aesthetically pleasing. To an older person, the Beatles may have sounded like useless noise as their children wore out records listening to their favorite songs, and we (by which I refer to people of my generation) listen to and enjoy music that our parents may not be able to stomach. In this example, the music we grow up with affects our taste.
How, then, does this relate to Art? Art tries to capture these aspects. Through various means, be it the written word, colors, shapes, hues, tones, chords, etc, Art seeks to capture this spirit of Beauty. I am afraid to call it a mysterious force, but I must, because its ultimate source, the human, is a mysterious being. Is Art Human? No. But it is an extension of humanity, one of the many ways by which we exercise our humanity, our capacities to think, our emotions, and the full range of aspects that set humanity apart from other animals.
The dictionary shall be my starting point. Dictionary.com's definition of beauty reads the following: the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest).
This definition gives a good starting point, but it leaves open the question of what exactly that quality is that creates that feeling of pleasure.
I shall postulate here that the qualities of beauty are a combination of nurture and nature. From nature, some reactions must necessarily arise. Such emotions as fear, anger, love, and compassion come directly from nature in order to contribute towards the survival of the species. These primal emotions are triggered by certain characteristics. It is because of this nature that a sad song indeed sounds sad, that a carefully selected color scheme and texture in a painting can draw out our deepest emotions, or, on a human level, that the face of a baby can draw out the parental instinct of (especially female) older humans (which I shall casually refer to as the "awwwww! factor").
Nurture is a much tougher nut to crack. Environment will have an impact on what a person finds aesthetically pleasing. To an older person, the Beatles may have sounded like useless noise as their children wore out records listening to their favorite songs, and we (by which I refer to people of my generation) listen to and enjoy music that our parents may not be able to stomach. In this example, the music we grow up with affects our taste.
How, then, does this relate to Art? Art tries to capture these aspects. Through various means, be it the written word, colors, shapes, hues, tones, chords, etc, Art seeks to capture this spirit of Beauty. I am afraid to call it a mysterious force, but I must, because its ultimate source, the human, is a mysterious being. Is Art Human? No. But it is an extension of humanity, one of the many ways by which we exercise our humanity, our capacities to think, our emotions, and the full range of aspects that set humanity apart from other animals.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Art Is NOT Innovation
Creativity, Innovation, and Imagination. Each of these concepts are intimately related, with Imagination at the very core. But where does Creativity become Innovation, and how does this relate to our overarching discussion of the nature of Art?
Creativity and Innovation require Imagination. Without Imagination, the other two cannot possibly exist. Creativity flows from Imagination, and Innovation from Creativity. And Art, of course, requires, first and foremost, Imagination.
Of course, Imagination does not Art make. Imagination must be tamed and captured, expressed, brought into the world by Creativity. And this is where Art ends. Art is Creative; it is not Innovative.
Why? Because of the nature of what Innovation is. Innovation involves taking a creation and mass marketing it, making it readily available for practical, everyday use. To draw an analogy, the cotton gin was first a creation. When it went into production and became widely used in growing cotton, it loses the status of "Creation" and instead gains "Innovation." It is no longer unique.
To draw another analogy, apple pie. The first apple pie was a creation of some imaginitive baker. To make an apple pie NOW is not an act of Creativity unless you are making a new recipe, and even then, it will lose that status of being "Creative" as soon as you copy it and make it a second time, or someone else copies it. Then it is "Innovation." "Creativity" produces a unique, one of a kind object that can never be reproduced. "Innovation" by its very nature is reproducable and reproduced.
Art cannot (and SHOULD NOT) be reduced to the mass-market, watered down status of Innovation. It must by necessity end at Creativity.
Creativity and Innovation require Imagination. Without Imagination, the other two cannot possibly exist. Creativity flows from Imagination, and Innovation from Creativity. And Art, of course, requires, first and foremost, Imagination.
Of course, Imagination does not Art make. Imagination must be tamed and captured, expressed, brought into the world by Creativity. And this is where Art ends. Art is Creative; it is not Innovative.
Why? Because of the nature of what Innovation is. Innovation involves taking a creation and mass marketing it, making it readily available for practical, everyday use. To draw an analogy, the cotton gin was first a creation. When it went into production and became widely used in growing cotton, it loses the status of "Creation" and instead gains "Innovation." It is no longer unique.
To draw another analogy, apple pie. The first apple pie was a creation of some imaginitive baker. To make an apple pie NOW is not an act of Creativity unless you are making a new recipe, and even then, it will lose that status of being "Creative" as soon as you copy it and make it a second time, or someone else copies it. Then it is "Innovation." "Creativity" produces a unique, one of a kind object that can never be reproduced. "Innovation" by its very nature is reproducable and reproduced.
Art cannot (and SHOULD NOT) be reduced to the mass-market, watered down status of Innovation. It must by necessity end at Creativity.
Monday, December 1, 2008
On Creativity and Art
Forgery. It is generally frowned upon by artists and the general public. Even if someone composes an exact copy of a painting, a perfect replica, a perfect forgery, it lacks the same impact of the original. Why is this? Why should this perceptually indistinguishable entity be any less powerful than the original?
Simple. The copy, the forgery, lacks one crucial element that only the original has: creativity. It takes no creativity, only patience and skill to produce a copy of a work already produced; to produce something new requires creativity.
So, then, how does one determine the level of creativity in an object, and what differentiates the art object from the mundane, everyday object that clearly required some creativity at its conception to produce the concept for?
The wikipedia article on creativity gives a good answer to this question in differentiating between "creativity" and "innovation." To paraphrase, creativity is the birth of the idea; innovation is to take the idea and turn it into something practical, usable. This is not to imply that artwork, which is inherently creative, is useless. But innovation generally connotes an object meant for everyday use in everyday tasks; the use of art is in its aesthetic as well as creative value.
Creativity and aesthetic value must go hand in hand to create art. That is not to imply, however, that a high degree of creativity will translate into equal or greater aesthetic value. A very creative person will not always create an aesthetically pleasing piece. This is human nature - imperfection. This does not imply that artwork must be perfect; it merely implies that some work is simply better than others.
How, then, can we determine whether a work is sufficiently creative and aesthetically valuable to earn the honor of recognition as a work of "Art?" I shall leave that to you, my readers, to speculate while I contemplate the question, myself.
Simple. The copy, the forgery, lacks one crucial element that only the original has: creativity. It takes no creativity, only patience and skill to produce a copy of a work already produced; to produce something new requires creativity.
So, then, how does one determine the level of creativity in an object, and what differentiates the art object from the mundane, everyday object that clearly required some creativity at its conception to produce the concept for?
The wikipedia article on creativity gives a good answer to this question in differentiating between "creativity" and "innovation." To paraphrase, creativity is the birth of the idea; innovation is to take the idea and turn it into something practical, usable. This is not to imply that artwork, which is inherently creative, is useless. But innovation generally connotes an object meant for everyday use in everyday tasks; the use of art is in its aesthetic as well as creative value.
Creativity and aesthetic value must go hand in hand to create art. That is not to imply, however, that a high degree of creativity will translate into equal or greater aesthetic value. A very creative person will not always create an aesthetically pleasing piece. This is human nature - imperfection. This does not imply that artwork must be perfect; it merely implies that some work is simply better than others.
How, then, can we determine whether a work is sufficiently creative and aesthetically valuable to earn the honor of recognition as a work of "Art?" I shall leave that to you, my readers, to speculate while I contemplate the question, myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)