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.

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.

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.

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.

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.