4. Different Ways to Define Art
“You will find that most pro’s would rather swallow live rats and have them gnaw their way back out than get involved in discussions like this.” ––Tristan Elwell
It may surprise you to hear that many artists, perhaps most of them, don't worry overly much about the definition of art––what constitutes art and not art. Most artists simply do what they love and hope that it's good enough, that it looks right (whatever that means). This is a topic more relevant to critics and philosophers.
And, it is an engaging intellectual exercise. It's exciting to me because it's funny how so many people can be both right and wrong, when trying to answer a seemingly innocent question. It's a great equalizer - it seems no amount of education or philosophy can guide anyone to a "correct" answer. You see, art has multiple definitions and they're all problematic; each one is illogical in its own way. And, there are so many situations where an artwork blurs the lines, from one definition to the next. In the end, it's up to you to make up your own mind for each piece, based on your own criteria, as I previously stated here. As Sarah Green explains in this video, art is fluid and evolving, to meet the needs of those who make and view it:
Video Discussion Questions:
1. Which quotes did you enjoy the most? Which were most thought provoking?
2. Were there any quotes you disagreed with?
3. What about Sol LeWitt, who said you don't need to make anything, so long as your idea reaches the mind of another. Is the communication all that matters?
4. If art requires risk taking, what's at risk?
5. Which quote best encapsulates the kind of art you want to make?
Let's go over some popular historical definitions of art:
1. Art is Mimesis (Realism)
Ginza Line 2, Tokyo, by Robert Gniewek, 1988
(This is a photorealist painting, oil on canvas, exactly copying a photograph)
This means art is realistic––it is a copy of something real, trying to look as precisely like the original as possible. This is what most people mean when they think of skillful art. They say, “Wow! That painting looks like a photo!” (They're usually wrong).
Discobulus, by Myron, 460-450 BC
This definition comes from ancient Greece, a culture where painting and sculpture had reached new levels of naturalism and beauty. And, it was actually used by philosophers to discredit visual arts as a lesser art than music, poetry, and philosophy. It was the work of a day laborer, who can never create something as true or perfect as the real thing. This was the argument made by Plato (428-347 BC) and Seneca (Roman philosopher, 4 BC - 65 AD), who stated, "All art is an imitation of nature." But, it wasn't just their opinion. In Greek mythology there were between 3-9 muses of the arts and not a single one represented visual art. They were all about poetry, theatre, music and dance. Even history and astronomy got a muse, but not art.
Luckily, Aristotle (384-322 BC) disagreed with this. He saw potential in art to teach people, because people react more strongly and emotionally to an image than text. Visual art holds people's attention better and lasts in the mind longer than simple facts. Picasso said much the same thing 2000 years later when he stated, "Art is a lie that tells the truth." While the particulars of a story (written or painted) may be fictional, the best of them illustrate universal truths and wisdom.
John Ruskin, by John Everett Millais
Others have also defended this position. John Ruskin (English philosopher, 1819-1900) supported visual art as a way to study and understand nature, stating there was nothing dishonest about it, if you truly paint what you see.
The problems with this definition:
First, if all that matters in art is copying nature, why draw or paint? A photograph is so much faster and more accurate. And then, why take photos when a video camera captures so much more of reality? And, if that sounds silly, then what is it that painting and sculpting do that technology can't?
There has to be more to art than just rendering. As painter Stapleton Kearns says, “You can’t observe composition into your painting.” And, as Kev Fererra says, "All a camera notices is a split
instant of light, and makes no emotional distinctions between the light from a
face and the light from a vase."
Fragment of the Alps, by John Ruskin, c. 1854-6
Funny enough, John Ruskin continued painting long after the invention, and his personal use, of photography. His style changed, it became even more technically precise––and yet, his work never looked like a photo. Look at the playful way he exaggerated colors in the watercolor above.
Second, is it really fair to say that non-representational work isn't art? At all? Some people say yes, if it doesn't look like something real, it's junk. But, that leaves out a lot of human creativity that I, personally, find impressive, expressive, and beautiful. Have a look:
Altar Piece, by Hilma Af Klint, 1915
Dance, by Aleksander Rodchenko, 1915
On White No. 2, by Wassily Kandinsky, 1923
Sun & Planets, by Auguste Herbin, 1941
Blaze, by Bridget Riley, 1964
And, this definition ignores a great many beautiful patterns, decorations, and designs:
vase by Eduoard Honore, 1844
Is this not a work of art?
2. Art is Skill
“The only reason for an artwork to exist is that it be excellent.” - Stapleton Kearns
Cotopaxi, by Frederick Church, 1862
This is how most people define art. You hear this all the time. “If I can do it, it's not art. Wow, I could never do that! That’s art!” People who say this get confused when they see modern art in a museum. They say, “My five-year-old could do that! That’s not art!”
The Italians, by Cy Twombly, 1961
Today, most artists and curators roll their eyes when they hear this, but it's worth pointing out, Many of the old masters, including Da Vinci, saw painting as a set of skills to be taught, as if it were a kind of science.
Diorama made by Satoshi Araki
The problem with this definition:
There are two. First, there are many skills levels, so there’s a grey area. How skilled must you be before your work can be called Art, and who decides? Who do we choose as arbiter? At what point does a work cross over from being bad art:
Sketch of a House in Truro, MA, 1994 I painted this in oil when I was 16.
to being not art:
Title Unknown, by Bjarne Melgaard
In a free society, no authority could dictate a "satisfactory" level of skill. It's up to each of us to decide for ourselves, so this definition gives no logical way to form a consensus as to what is or isn't art. You could say Bjarne Melgaard's work above is skillful enough to be art, and no one can make a logical argument against you.
Second, is skill all that matters in art? Is that why we make art? To show off? I believe there are other more valid reasons for making art, although it is worth mentioning, certain professors like Jared Diamond and Denis Dutton propose a very Darwinian theory to both art and beauty, and how the creation of art may help a person attract a "mate". Which leads us to the third common definition:
3. Art is Beauty
"Art is the unceasing effort to compete with the beauty of flowers––and never succeeding." ––Marc Chagall (1887-1985)
Title Unknown, by Jeremy Lipking
You also hear this often. “Oh wow, that’s beautiful!” It’s impressive when an artist achieves great beauty in his art, and it is a highly praised skill. It involves more than simply copying what you see. A beautiful artwork often requires a selective color palette, one that may deviate from reality to better highlight a figure or subject:
detail from Moment to Reminisce, by Dan Gerhartz
It also requires a balanced composition, and may trigger a pleasant memory, like the sound of the sea we may hear when viewing Lipking's painting above. There are many examples of art that portray such a profound sense of beauty that it can fill us with awe.
Caroline, by John Michael Carter
Peonies, by Charles Courtney Curran
Olive grove near Torbole on Lake Garda, study, by Edmund Kanoldt, 1883
Often, it is considered part of an artist's job to be able to find beauty in everything, even rocks:
A Landscape with Creek & Rocks, by Asher B. Durand, 1850's
Roger Scruton (1944-the Present) is a philosopher who says art should be about beauty, that beauty is noble, and that life is meaningless without it. He says beauty is caring about things other than yourself, like the joy of holding a baby, when you put all your attention to contemplating the baby, and none on yourself. He considers modern art ugly, creating a "spiritual desert".
The philosopher Nietzsche (1844-1900) agreed, stating, "The essence of all beautiful art, all great art, is gratitude."
The philosopher Nietzsche (1844-1900) agreed, stating, "The essence of all beautiful art, all great art, is gratitude."
Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968) was the most famous Dadaist artist. He disliked the idea of beautiful art, which he called "retinal art". He wanted art to engage the mind, and not just be eye candy. His works were called anti-art. They were a form of social and political protest.
Duchamp with his Bicycle Chair, 1913
The problems with this definition:
First of all, this definition is very broad. There are many beautiful things that people don’t consider art––a sunset, waves crashing on the beach, the way a hummingbird darts around in the air, a smile from the one you love, etc. So, then you have to start adding conditions: it must be the product of a conscious effort to produce or arrange some elements to make something beautiful––to reproduce beauty.
Secondly, as with skill, so with beauty. There are gray areas. For example, what if a person paints a piece of trash, but in a remarkably beautiful fashion?
Title Uknown, by Dan Adel
Or, how about an overpass?
On the Way Home, by Seth Engstrom
Can a skilled painter find beauty in places we typically think of as dirty and ugly? And if so, again, who chooses?
Then there's another concern; is beauty all there is to art?
Bust of a Woman, by Pablo Picasso, 1944
The Ugly Duchess, by Quentin Matsys, c. 1513
Apart from this, there are times when an artist wants to portray people and topics that are, well ugly, to highlight problems of oppression, discrimination, and violence. At times like these, you don't want to hear the audience say, "Wow, how beautiful." You want them to experience a bit of the hurt that others are feeling in the real world:
City Limits, by Philip Gustin, 1969
This painting, by Gustin is meant to portray an ugly view of the world created by hate, specifically that of the ku klux klan.
4. Art is Expression
Germany's Children Starve, by Kathe Kollwitz, 1923
This definition considers art a form of communication. Artists speak to the viewer through their work. This is closest to the "standard" definition you'll find in a dictionary. Wiktionary, for example defines art as "the conscious production or arrangement of . . . elements in a manner that affect the senses and emotions . . ."
St. Francis of Assisi said it this way, "He who works with his hands is a laborer. He who works with his hand and his head is a craftsman. He who works with his hand and his head and his heart is an artist."
Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910) defined art as the transference of emotion from one person to another.
Leo Tolstoy by Ilya Repin, 1901
The problem with this definition:
Just as with beauty, it's too broad. There are many forms of expression that we don’t consider art. You might kick a wall and leave a mark, or smash a bottle in the road. The act, by itself might be meaningless, but record it in a film with a deeper story, and it could take on a more powerful expressive significance. So, like with beauty, you have to add conditions, i.e. the use of the elements and principles of design to form and arrange a picture, sculpture, film, etc.
Paradoxically, this definition can also be too narrow. Most people who espouse this view feel that certain forms of creativity are not art, because they do not constitute (what they feel to be) true self-expression. This includes "mere" decorative arts:
paperweight by Gingham by Compagnie de St Louis, c. 1845-55
Any abstract art considered too decorative (more appropriate for a necktie than a canvas):
Nataraja, by Bridget Riley, 1993
And even illustration:
Red Suit, by Jon Foster
There are people who refuse to call any of this art.
And then, this definition raises another dilemma, that of miscommunication. If your art doesn't express to viewers what you wanted, is it a failure? Is it even art at all?
And then again, what if you didn't make the work for others? What if you only made it for yourself? Artists do this all the time. Emily Dickinson only ever shared a few poems with others, and she requested that when she die they all be burnt. Her family went against her wishes in publishing them. We find a great treasure of meaning in her work, but what if we don't always understand it? Were we meant to?
5. Art is Original
5. Art is Original
"An original artist is unable to copy. So, he has only to copy to be original." - Jean Cocteau (1889-1963)
Suit of armor, made for a cat, by Jeff de Boer, c. 2000-2010
John F. Carlson (1875-1947) once said, "Convention is craft. Invention is art. In art, knowledge assists invention."
Winter Morning Mists, by John F. Carlson
People value original ideas. This is why so many modern artworks are popular in museums today. They were the first to have their ideas, so they're considered historically significant.
Orange, Yellow, Red, by Mark Rothko
The problem with this definition:
First of all, just because an idea is new, doesn't mean it's a good one:
There's a joke about a group of artists arguing who was first to sign a blank canvas.
Then there's the question of what constitutes a truly original idea? After so many millennia of art making, it's hard to think of anything that hasn't already been done. Often, what seems like an original idea was really inspired by a previous artist (who you may not have heard of). Picasso once famously said, "Good artists copy. Great artists steal."
There's also a difference between originality and gimmickry, an idea that, however original, is simply a trick to gain attention and/or money. Simple gimmicks often include working very small or very large::
a microscopic 3D-printed figure, by Jonty Hurwitz
Pick, by Claes Oldenberg, 1982
We're Fryin Out Here! by Andrew Hankin, 2014
Another fashionable trend in post-modern art is to turn the picture upside down:
Portrait of Elke I, 1 of 6 by Georg Baselitz 1969
As with skill and beauty, there is also a grey area with ideas. Sometimes it can be hard to say if an idea is worth pursuing, or if its meaningfulness merits our attention:
I have no idea who this is, sorry.
Millie Brown drinks milk mixed with food coloring, and then vomits directly on her canvases.
Pawprint by Nicola Nobo, made by simply folding back the pages.
body painting, by Johannes Stötter
Sewn Leaves, by Susanna Bauer
This is subjective. There's no way to argue logically, unequivocally that the idea behind a work justifies it as art. These works also raise the question of authenticity––if they were made for the love of it, or merely for shock value. These questions can be quite hard to answer, and you have to decide all this for yourself.
Then, there are other complications. Many artists, like Rembrandt and Goya, are famous for printmaking––each picture is an original artwork, made and approved by the artist, even though there are many copies––usually around 200.
St. Jerome Sitting by a Tree, by Rembrandt van Rijn, 1634
Then, there's classical music, where musicians play someone else's work, but add their own interpretation. There are countless examples in visual art where artists do the same thing––original interpretations of earlier styles, and subjects. At this point, it's difficult not to borrow from previous artists in some way or another, which is why Picasso once said, "Good artists copy, great artists steal." But, we typically call it art unless an exact copy is made (plagiarism), or if the artist lies and claims it was made by another, more famous artist (forgery).
6. Art is Useless
"The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely. All art is quite useless." ––Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)
"The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely. All art is quite useless." ––Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)
What Mr. Wilde meant is that art is typically impractical. You can't change a flat tire with it. This is a definition some artists use to try to keep art simple. If something is useful, it’s a craft.
The Birth of Venus, by Hodgett, Richardon, & Sons, 1877
If you have a vase, and you use it to hold flowers, then it’s not art. But, if you put it on a pedestal and only look at it, then it becomes art. A quilt on your bed is a craft. Hang it up on a wall, and it’s art.
a quilt from Kentucky, circa 1890-1910.
The problem with this definition:
First of all, is any art really useless? Scientists who study evolution are quick to point out that a painting might not fix a flat tire, but it can make you more attractive and more likely to pass your genes to future generations, and there are many similar scenarios in the animal kingdom, like a peacock's feathers. They offer no advantage to natural selection––they actually make the peacock easier to catch and kill. But, a bird with a big strong tail must be quite virile and healthy to survive, so the females take note. Hence, they aid in sexual selection, a crucial part of evolution.
Second, this definition creates a paradox, because, no matter where you put an object, it's still the same object. So, how can the placement change its definition? As the Culture Critic on Twitter recently posted, "Art that has to be in a gallery to be art is not art." Imagine if we tried doing that with anything else in the world? "No, that's not a car, that's a bottle of ketchup, I'm gonna put it in my fridge." It’s absurd, it wouldn't fit in the fridge. So, why do artists get away with it?
Placement is merely a form of recognition, and art should have some intrinsic value regardless of whether it's underrated or overrated. Think of the "Street Test" - you see an item sitting in the street, waiting for the garbage men to collect it. Is it worth saving? The answer depends not on recognition, but it's skill, beauty, craftsmanship, message, it's overall power. Some art has this, some does not.
7. Art is relative
"Art, n. This word has no definition." ––Ambrose Pierce, from The Devil's Dictionary
"Art is anything you can get away with."––Marshall McLuhan
This means art is whatever you want it to be. Another version of this is that it's Institutional––it's whatever the major art institutions say it is: the schools, museums, galleries, and major publications. You hear this a lot with post modern and contemporary art. It’s a way of encouraging experimentation. With this definition, if you want to put a water bottle on a pedestal, that’s your art. If you want to film someone shooting you in the arm with a rifle, that’s your art:
shoot, by Chris Burden, 1971
If you want to lay down a big orange rug, and let people walk on it, that’s your art.
Untitled (Orange Carpet on Floor), by Rudolf Stingel
This is a way of defining art championed by the late Prof. Arthur Danto, from Columbia University, as well as philosopher George Dickie. Some artists see this as empowering, giving them total freedom. In theory this also leads to variety in art, so everyone can find something they like.
The problem with this definition:
It’s not really a definition, is it? There’s no agreement, no consensus. To quote painter Chris Bennett, “So, when one person says something is art, and another says it’s not... what is it? Both things at the same time? Half art, half not art? Neither?” It's a paradox based on the supposition that all opinions are equal. But, they're not. An opinion is only as valid as the logic behind it.
It's also problematic in that it defines art as whatever people choose as a consensus––there's no intrinsic qualities that make anything art. But, then how do people and institutions choose what is and isn't art? There must be some basis for choice because people make these kinds of decisions all the time. Just because intrinsic value is hard to define, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
And who’s right, by the way? Is every definition arbitrary? Or, is there one right answer? This is one of the major questions in the art world today, and in many ways has created a crisis. Illustrator Ben Carman says, “The word art has lost its power.” And this dilemma leads many to say...
8. Everything is Art
Some people appreciate the beauty in a sunset, waves on the beach, a person’s smile, etc., and they feel it should be considered art, just like a painting. They feel you can find something special and beautiful in everything around you, and it doesn’t have to be made by hand. It doesn't have to last more than a moment. I used to say that my favorite work of art was the Earth.
The problem with this definition:
First of all, most people would disagree. How can a sunset be an artwork if it doesn’t last, or if no one even sees it? Can art exist for only a moment? And sunsets aren’t made by people. So who’s the artist? God? Nature? And does nature even know what it’s doing when it produces a sunset? Does it mean anything? There’s no answer to this question, but it does raise another question.
Why call anything art? What’s the point?
One reason is linguistic. We name things to make sense of the world and so we can understand each other. How much sense does it make to say, “Wow, look at that puddle in the street! What a beautiful work of art! Look at the line of slime made by that snail. It’s art!” If everything is art, then do you even need the word? In fact, some cultures don’t have a word for art, as it is tied into everything they do.
Another reason is to make a value judgement. Art is something people respect. It’s special. It’s a label that people love to use, even when it doesn’t fit. In any profession, whether it’s a cook, a banker, a mechanic, a car salesman, a thief, you will find someone who describes what they do as an art form.
So, is everything art? That’s for you to decide, but here’s food for thought. Illustrator Ben Stahl once said, “Nature is everything but an artist. Only a human can appreciate art. Only a human can create art.” I wouldn’t rush you to agree or disagree, but think about it.
9. Art is Visual Metaphor
This is the response that artists Kevin Ferrera and Chris Bennett hope will make art simpler to understand and appreciate. The idea here is that every mark is two things at once––strokes of color on a surface, and the illusion of a picture, whether representational or abstract. And, every mark and stroke is the product of a conscious decision by the artist. This definition tries to tie together everything that’s right about the previous ones: everything that makes a work of art impressive, expressive, one-of-a-kind, and revealing about the artist.
Chris Bennett says, "The primary metaphor in painting is between the surface and its physical paint marks and how they become apples on plates, windows, or people nailed to crosses. It’s not what it is a picture of, but how it is a picture of. That’s why two people can paint the same apple and one version is full of life and poetry while the other is just a listless indication of an apple."
Blackbirds, by Chris Bennett
Kev Ferrera says an artist, "working from life, often without realizing it,
will be creating metaphoric effects for volume, presence, heat, air, humidity,
sounds, smells, skin radiance, subtle movement, breath, changing light over
time, the model's thoughts in her eyes, a change in mood, a momentary breeze, a
blush, a leg that's falling asleep, gravity, one's own intensity under time
pressure, mutual acknowledgment between artist and sitter, hair standing on end
because of a brief chill, etc. All of which are almost never talked about
because they are nearly impossible to quantify and teach. Human sensitivity is
what is beyond the basics found in books."
Illustration from Deadlander Comic, by Kevin Ferrera
The problem with this definition:
It’s not so much a definition of art as of drawing, painting, and sculpture. Photography doesn’t fit this definition, because there’s no sign of the artist’s hand in the picture. Too much control is given over to a machine. So, photography isn’t art? Here’s one opinion:
“We say ‘take a photo’ versus ‘make a picture.’ To take implies that something is already there and only needs a camera to be pointed at it, whereas ‘to make’ implies that someone has to build up something that isn’t already there. The way drawing works is that you think/feel/sense something, and then you make a mark which embodies that thought/feeling/sense. This doesn’t occur in photography.
- Armando N
You may disagree with Armando. Photographer Chris Bray says, "Great photos are made, not taken." I have three problems with Armando's argument. First, if photography isn’t art, what is it? An artist like Armando would say it’s journalism, but I don’t think that’s always true.
I don't know who took this shot. Apparently it was a long exposure to get all three lights in. But, does this feel like journalism to you? Perhaps it's a document or record of an artistic place? But, is the intent journalistic?
Secondly, what about collage––the art of cutting up photos and pasting them together? Artists used to do this by hand, but now it’s mostly done digitally. Often times you can’t tell a photo is a collage.
Two Paths, by Michal Karcz
This image is a collage of at least three different photos.
So when is it art? The answer I got is, the more present the hand of the artist, the more Art it is. In other words, there are levels of Art. It’s the same dilemma Chris Bennett referred to about “half art, half not art, etc.” Imagine the same problem applied to drawing. How many marks does it take before you can call a drawing a work of art? Does adding more marks make it more Art? Of course not, we prize artists who can create a complete painting in as few marks as possible, we call this brush economy and gesture:
Deer, by Gakusui Ide (1899-1992)
And then, third, if building up something - a drawing, a sculpture, a house is creative, what about the selection process of choosing what to photograph? Selection is also creative. Even destruction can be creative, as an art form. Every fireworks display is a destructive creation. Not to mention demolitions like this:
10. Art is a human response to an inhuman world
This is how I like to explain art. It doesn't really define art, but I don't think that matters. What matters is why people make it, and the answer, more often than not is pain. The real world is rough, and art is one of the many things we do to make it better, to make safe so we can look at it, a way to relax and to think at the same time. If you want to understand art, this is the best way to think about it.
Artist Michael Mentler says, "I look at what I do as play, if I looked at it as work nothing would get done. Skill sets to me are like toys, I like to play with them until I get tired of them and then I need a couple of new ones. I am a hoarder of skill sets and techniques. I need new ingredients every time I approach a new work."
portrait sketch by Michael Mentler
Comments
Post a Comment