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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)