In his blog, Jacob Wheeler asked the excellent question, "How do you define art?" I spent a good portion of Art & Philosophy trying to figure out how I would answer this question (as my posts for that class attest), but I will restate it here: Art is the Intentional exercise of Original Creative thought Expressing some Idea or Emotion in some Medium.
Intention indicates that there is an active, conscious effort by the artist to create a work of art. It doesn't "just happen."
Original, Creative thought indicates that the piece is unique. There is nothing else quite like it, and it is purely the product of the artist's imagination.
Expression of an Idea or Emotion indicates that art is a communicative act. It exists, not for itself (hence my hatred of some "modern art," "art" undertaken for "art's sake"), but for the viewer. It must share an Emotion or Idea.
The Medium is the route through which the Emotion or Idea is expressed. It can be the written word, marble, paint and canvas, or sound, but whatever it is, it is something that can be perceived by the viewer, and thus completes the communication of the art.
Now that I have defined "art," I will address the question Betsy posed: "Is philosophy an art?"
I will not argue that philosophical works could certainly be works of art. There is no reason that a work filled with philosophical undertones could not be a grand work of art. But is the subject itself art? I do not believe so. Philosophy can certainly be expressed in art, but I would not call the subject itself art. When philosophy is expressed in a medium, it then has the potential to be art, but only if there is the CONSCIOUS INTENTION of the philosopher/artist that it BE a work of art. Lacking this intention, a philosophical work is not also a work of art.
To end with a question: What value, if any, is there in an "authentic" musical performance, or is it merely a matter of differing tastes?
Showing posts with label definition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label definition. Show all posts
Friday, September 25, 2009
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.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Art: Is it definable?
What is Art? That is the question. We seek to understand, to know. But can a solid definition of Art ever be arrived at?
Weitz would argue not. Just as there can be no solid definition for what is a "game," the concept of Art is open, constantly evolving, and thus a universal definition would be, by necessity, impossible.
Is this really true? Does Art truly escape definition? There is certainly some validity to this claim. Let us explore it.
Reflecting back on every definition of Art we have looked at previously, each adds a dimension to this concept of Art. (As Freud did not contribute anything to the definition, he is irrelevant to the current discussion.) Plato and his copies of copies, Dewey and intentionality and nature, Tolstoy and communication of feelings - all of these certainly add to the discussion of what Art is, but none can really be exactly placed on Art.
Art can be said to fit every definition. And of course, as new types of Art are created, some critic somewhere will doubtless write a new definition of Art to fit in the new style.
Thus, Art is - gasp! - like a living thing, constantly evolving with the intellects of its creators, and constantly eluding a solid definition. Should we thus stop trying to define it? Absolutely not. It is this constant defining and re-defining that gives Art its nature. And while we will never have a truly solid definition for it... we can certainly try.
Weitz would argue not. Just as there can be no solid definition for what is a "game," the concept of Art is open, constantly evolving, and thus a universal definition would be, by necessity, impossible.
Is this really true? Does Art truly escape definition? There is certainly some validity to this claim. Let us explore it.
Reflecting back on every definition of Art we have looked at previously, each adds a dimension to this concept of Art. (As Freud did not contribute anything to the definition, he is irrelevant to the current discussion.) Plato and his copies of copies, Dewey and intentionality and nature, Tolstoy and communication of feelings - all of these certainly add to the discussion of what Art is, but none can really be exactly placed on Art.
Art can be said to fit every definition. And of course, as new types of Art are created, some critic somewhere will doubtless write a new definition of Art to fit in the new style.
Thus, Art is - gasp! - like a living thing, constantly evolving with the intellects of its creators, and constantly eluding a solid definition. Should we thus stop trying to define it? Absolutely not. It is this constant defining and re-defining that gives Art its nature. And while we will never have a truly solid definition for it... we can certainly try.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)