What is art?

[Beth]

Art can take many forms. After spending a day at a museum for modern art, I came to the conclusion that while some of their exhibits were clearly the work of skilled artists who worked for many hours to produce them. Some of these exhibits were wonderful, others left me cold. Still other exhibits seemed to have required no more than 15-30 minutes to produce and no skill at all. For those, I concluded the talent needed was that of persuading someone else to a) pay them money for the work and b) display it in the MOMA. I would classify that as a work of art requiring considerable skill to pull off.

 

[Fnord]

I think they're all in Scotland, Fnord.

While the distillation of single-malt whisky may be an art, after a few hundred years, I'm sure they have it down to a science as well.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Exactly my point. What is going on with art is that the process of viewing it as such makes it so. It is a thing that humans do, not something that exists independantly.

This is by no means a new idea. Now, you can posit all sorts of other definitions, but those generally have the problem of either excluding large parts of art history, and/or including neatly mowed lawns.



Of course you can get an absurd statement out of it by removing the operative word.

Well, the operative words were, effectively "[Art is] anything that we call [art]" - even with the operative words in, it is absurd.

I believe you've missed my point, if you think it is exactly yours. Outsider art is made, but not by 'Artists', nor made as 'Art' - nevertheless, it is art, and becomes 'Art' when some curator hangs it in a gallery next to 'Artists'. So, outsider art is not 'that which we call Art' until someone calls it 'Art'. But it has been art all along.

I haven't posited any definitions at all, by the way - if you recall, my stance was that you can't find one that encompasses all art (and furthermore I've staked a shiny sixpence on that). So far, the sixpence is still mine.

You suggest that the act of viewing something as art makes it art - and so, until found by a member of the Art establishment, the work of Henry Darger was not art. Hundreds of water colours and drawings, expressions of Darger's imagination created by his hand & mind, who would suggest that they were not art? They were art when he conceived them, when he executed them and when he hid them away for his entire life. They were art before they were discovered and they are art even as they are now Art, commanding tens of thousands of pounds.

There is art out there that nobody will ever see. Let's venture to suggest we can reach a small concensus: Picasso was an artist. Now suppose Picasso spends a long, lonely night daubing pigment on canvas, an idea, nay, a vision obliging itself to travel from his mind through his hands to the canvas...a work of art is born! But no! Now it's done he hates it, and burns it. It is never seen. Nobody gets to call it 'art'. Was it art?

 

[Manopolus]

Art past is artifact.

Art now is a visual fiction of pretty much any type.

Art future is merely a dream that may or may not physically exist at some point.

 

[quadraginta]

The compulsion to create is definitely a powerful force. I hadn't really considered that in my definition of what constitutes art. I don't think it's a prerequisite, but it's definitely an element in some aspects. I've been drawing since I could hold a crayon in my hand, and I've always had a natural talent for it as well as a compulsion to do it. Most of my 20s I wasted in this regard, expecting things to improve on their own over time, but it took a little stagnation to make me realize I had to spend hours a day to hone and develop the muscle. While a lot of drawing for instance does come from natural talent, I've seen people I'd consider hopeless strive at learning and end up doing things I would never believe in 5-10 years. Many people don't realize how much of drawing is really just memorizing thousands of logical sequences for how forms interact with each other and how to depict these forms.

Yeah, I know what you're saying. It's an approach to the subject that I have used more as an investigative tool than as a metric.

It is interesting to add the element of viewer perspective to this. A skilled and accomplished craftsman can produce works which many viewers will consider to be art, even though the person who made it had no such thought or goal. Time and scarcity add to such perceptions, as does public approbation. Antiques which are quite unanimously regarded as works of art today were often just work to the person who made them, when they were made. Was their craftsmanship always "art", unbeknownst to them, or did it somehow morph into art due to perceptions beyond any motive of its creator?

Is accomplished craftsmanship always art, just unrevealed at times? Are artists nothing more than adept and proficient craftsmen who have found an audience?

I don't know. I don't think so, but I'm unclear why in my own mind, and I struggle even to resolve this, much less to articulate it. Sometimes I wonder if I'm searching for a difference that doesn't exist, but then I think about that compulsion aspect.

In one of the other tumultuous threads on this very disputatious topic someone posted a photo of a V8 engine in a derisive effort to disparage less restrictive definitions of the term "art". My reaction was, "What a marvelous example of how all-encompassing the term can be." True motorheads will certainly view some engine designs as works of art. Why is this fundamentally wrong? It should be noted that large amounts of knowledge ("context", if you will ) are a necessary prerequisite for this point of view, but it is no less real in their minds, and for much the same reasons. To them it is quite beautiful.

Computer programmers often regard particularly 'elegant' pieces of code as art. Their reasoning behind this pursues paths remarkably similar to other uses of the term.

"Art" is a subject which has many blurred lines. Very blurred.

Maybe there aren't any lines.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I haven't posited any definitions at all, by the way - if you recall, my stance was that you can't find one that encompasses all art (and furthermore I've staked a shiny sixpence on that). So far, the sixpence is still mine.

What do you claim is art that is missed by my definition?

 

[Sabretooth]

What is art?

Anything by Bob Ross

 

[llwyd]

No-one knows for sure. Anyway, I confess being a bit of a traditionalist, so my personal requirements would be something like these: it must be difficult to do, it must invoke a sense of beauty, of esthetic appreciation (in however indirect way) in its audience, it's primary message cannot be something that is easier to express in a political pamphlet. This personal definition disqualifies most of modern art which usually does leave me totally uninvolved and uninterested anyway (isn't it basically a vehicle for investment?) But it's no cookies off my picnic if someone thinks that modern art is absolutely great and insightful.

 

[jiggeryqua]

What do you claim is art that is missed by my definition?

Gosh, yes, way back at post 19 you did suggest a definition:

"Something created and/or presented for the purpose of conveying an emotion or other visceral sensation to those that observe it."

I'll give you the widest possible definition of 'observe' (to include the deaf-blind as observers), but I have to take issue with 'for the purpose of conveying', nevermind what is intended to be conveyed. Portrait art is not intended to convey anything at all, it's intended to show you a representation of a person. Some of it may well be infused with the visceral sensations of the artist, who may intend to convey them, but needn't.

The graffiti art of Banksy is often intended to convey something, but it's not an emotion or visceral sensation, it's a satirical message - you might argue it's intended to invoke a 'visceral sensation', but there's no control over what visceral sensation it provokes - nothing can be 'conveyed' in that manner.

The outsider art of Henry Darger, previously mentioned, was neither created nor presented for any purpose we can establish. It was later presented (and became 'Art'), but again, was it not-art when it was made?

Thanks for your two cents, I'll keep my sixpence.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I'll give you the widest possible definition of 'observe' (to include the deaf-blind as observers), but I have to take issue with 'for the purpose of conveying', nevermind what is intended to be conveyed. Portrait art is not intended to convey anything at all, it's intended to show you a representation of a person. Some of it may well be infused with the visceral sensations of the artist, who may intend to convey them, but needn't.

I stand by my definition on this point. If it's not intended to convey anything at all, it isn't art at all.
Art is, by its nature, an expressive activity. If the activity is undertaken without the purpose of expression, then it's an activity other than art.
A portrait painted purely for the purpose of accurately rendering a subject, with no other expressive intent behind it, is not "art" anymore than a court reporter typing the words said in a courtroom is an "artist".
Portraits recognized as art are recognized for doing more than this -- for expressing something through the choices of the artist more than a precise representation of the subject devoid of aethetic selection or emotive thought.

The graffiti art of Banksy is often intended to convey something, but it's not an emotion or visceral sensation, it's a satirical message - you might argue it's intended to invoke a 'visceral sensation', but there's no control over what visceral sensation it provokes - nothing can be 'conveyed' in that manner.

I disagree. Graffiti artists are certainly intending to convey a message in both their choice of medium and the artistry of their conveyance. Fits squarely within the definition.

The outsider art of Henry Darger, previously mentioned, was neither created nor presented for any purpose we can establish.

Then we can't establish it to be art. The definition intentionally places the question of "art" squarely on the shoulders of the "artist", and nowhere else. If we don't understand that a work was created for an appropriate expressive purpose, then we don't know it to be art under this definition. It can still become art later when a proper "presenter" or "performer" finds it.

It was later presented (and became 'Art'), but again, was it not-art when it was made?

When a curator chooses to present a piece for "our" (collective "we" here) observation, the curator is himself an artist -- choosing and presenting that piece is an artistic act as it fits the definitions above. It's art in the same way what a photographer does may be art -- by positioning and framing some work, whether or not the work represents someone else's art in its construction, the presenter has herself become an artist.
Similarly, a composer and a performer of a musical or kinetic work may both be artists.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

No, I actually disagree that "Skill" is one thing and "Art" is another. I think they're two sides of the same coin.

Give me some paint and a canvas, and I'll create some art for you. It won't be very good art, because I'm not very skilled at creating it. If, however, I practice every day, over time I will get better and better at it, up to a limit reflecting the amount of effort I want to put into it. You can't really have good art without skill.

Your definition of "good art" seems to be based entirely on skills. But in reality this is not how it works. Skills are relative and as I exemplified before, Thelonious Monk was perhaps one of the less skilled pianists ever, his technique was faulty in hundreds of way, his fingering was tense and awkward, his sitting was all over the place, etc etc etc etc... but he had a unique sound and concept of harmony which became strongly influential, because it appealed to the public.

I stress the last part, "because it appealed to the public". If it hadn't appealed to the public but only his two close friends and his mom, he wouldn't have been considered an artist, regardless of having a unique tone and concept of harmony. Even these things are irrelevant. Having a great skill is irrelevant. Having no skill and being a controversial enfant terrible is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that what you do happens at a certain cultural time and cultural place that captures an audience of people who then begin to follow your work and appreciate it because it stirred something in them. That's Art in a nutshell.

Practicing every day to develop a good skill is not equals to doing something that will captivate an audience who will then consider your work art. You can be very good at something, but not communicate anything that evokes feelings in people.
To put it in another way, if skill = art, then science = art since science takes a lot of skill. And we know science and art are two very different things

As I said before and apparently will have to continue saying, Art has to be thought more as a Religious Cult (a not very appealing comparison, I know) than a Science or anything that's merely objective. Art has followers. The Big Lebowski, for example, has people who make Big Lebowski conventions, get dressed up as the Dude, drink white russians and maybe even bowl on occasions. Not wanting to get into the argument of whether or not The Big Lebowski is "art", that is the way that Art is baptized: As a cultural movement/phenomenon. A thing that people follow and admire because it evokes feelings in them. A thing that enters the folklore of a culture.

You can have all the skills in the world and never evoke any feelings with your creation, never captivate an audience.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Yes, I addressed that point when I said I didn't want to get mired in semantics and pointed out that you'd snipped something out of context. The context was 'artistic principles' being defined as something other than pattern recognition, pigments and perspective, for example (which science can explain), but rather the question "what is art?", which science cannot answer. If you weren't addressing the "what is art?" question it is because you wilfuly or ignorantly chose to get mired in semantics.

Actually, Ramachandran does address and answer the question "What is art" in his own way. You can agree or disagree but his assertion is based on observations that are based on the general behaviors of human brains (and these cannot be disagreed on, since these are based on empiric, scientific evidence), both regarding the subjects who create art and the subjects who appreciate art.

And I don't have the time to watch 90 mins of video which probably (see previous point) isn't at all relevant. From glancing at it, I gather he has 7 principles (careful, let's not get mired in semantics...) Can you not simply list them? Do you know what they are? Do you understand what he's saying?

Do you understand what I'm saying? He talks of pattern recognition - and so did I (see that earlier point about you just picking a pointless fight rather than addressing the question, and choosing some isolated words of mine and pretending they don't have a context or clarification right where you found them). Does he answer the question "what is art?"? I mean in a scientific way, like "what is gravity?". Can you tell me, having watched those 90 mins of video (you did watch it?), the formula for art? Tell me one thing that every incidence of art is characterised by - I've got a shiny sixpence here that says I can show you art that doesn't have it.

Fine. Don't watch the video. You seem to have already made up your mind on the subject and don't even care to peek at other theories.
You say you don't want to turn this into a semantic argument but on the other hand you say you want a scientific definition of "what is art" which is simply creating an intellectual trap, because ANY definition anyone gives you is open to disagreement by ANYONE. Art is a subjective, culture-influenced concept, malleable, subject to change anytime in any way.
There is no such thing as a "scientific formula for a definition of art", but there are many scientific cues to understanding how we make it and how we appreciate it. After all, Art, whatever the Hell it is, is something created by us, humans. By our brains. So studying the human brain, how it works, how it perceives and how it projects is a first very important step to start getting an empiric concept about art, as a neurological phenomena.

So not related to the actual question or your substitute question at all, after all? Seriously, I'll not be watching it.

I know you won't. As I said, it's pretty clear you've made up your mind about your concept, and don't even care to listen to other ideas and explanations even if just to see out of curiosity what they have to say. Your loss.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

"Seriously, just find some time and read it. It's a very interesting book and it helps explain how yadda yadda yadda."

So now a speech given by a scientist about phenomena for which there is scientific evidence is the same as a Religious freak offering you to read his pamphlet?
That sure shows your enthusiasm about, and understanding of science.

 

[BillyJoe]

"Pattern" is rather tricky, as we know. We humans have a tendency to see pattern in randomness. Cloud images are a good example.

The question is: is the Jackson Pollock a good example?

He related that he had to keep his canvasses in a barn on the prison grounds, and when he went out to get one he found it had been extensively fouled by pigeon droppings...He put it in his next exhibition, and it sold for a good price. "Mixed medium on canvas".

At least the title was clever.

But what about the second painting in post #1? It was done by an elephant, but selected first by its owner (out of who knows how many paintings done by that elephant) and then a second time by myself (out of a group of 105 paintings by 27 bdifferent elephants).

It is what you might call "accidental" art.

I have not seen "Mixed medium on canvas" but perhaps it fits the bill as "accidental" art. If the pidgeon droppings made the painting look like crap we would probably never have seen "Mixed medium on canvas". I once accidentally spilled coffee on one of my paintings and it was ruined. It never saw the light of day. ON the other hand, Kate Bush talks about an artist who makes a mistake that turns out to be the best mistake he ever made.

Carried to the ultimate, we might talk about certain minimalist painters who would, for instance, cover a canvas with red paint and let it go at that...

This is where skill comes in.

 

[BillyJoe]

Just because it's spread across the ground instead of hanging on a wall...

A sort of inversion of Jackson Pollock who paints on the ground and hangs it on a wall.

I expect you to understand that this is offered as an example of the ways that the particular contexts which you claimed were so critical and essential may perhaps not always be, and that, yes, a work of art can indeed be taken on its "own merit". Even intended by the artist for just that purpose.

Yes, maybe he went overboard. I agree that context is not always essential. But it often is essential and sometimes it is the essential thing in a piece of art.

 

[BillyJoe]

Much like you might give a few brief explanations to one of those cranks who object to Einsten's theory of Relativity of why their claims are rubbish before finally dismissing him with:
"But most of all, it is rubbish because you, sir, are not a Mathematician."

This doesn't work in math or physics. Claims can be evaluated on their own merits, not based solely on the knowledge of the claims' author.

Have you ever argued with a crank (or a creationist).
You can explain in as much detail as you like why his objections to Einstein's theory of Relativity are wrong but, in the end, he is never going to understand because, sir, he is not a Mathematician. And that, in essence, is what you end up dismissing him with.

If it's impossible to tell how good a piece of art is until you know the identity of an artist, then your evaluation criteria are wrong.

That was not my claim.

An objective attribution of value has to allow for the existence of prodigies, and finding value outside of the bounds of the formal institutions the profession encompasses.

Okay, we have to allow for the odd prodigy, but I never made the claim that the 10000 hours need to be spent in formal institutions encompassed by the profession.
Mozart was a prodigy and he may not have had much formal instruction, but he didn't learn in a vacuum and he didn't do it in a week. He initially learnt from his father (and then from his errors) and then from other famous musicians (and their errors).
There was a famous indian mathematician (whose name I've forgotten) who never had any formal training but who read all the books on mathematics that he could find. That's how he got his expert instruction. The fact that he learnt maths outside of formal institutions was possibly the reason why he had such unique insights.

Certainly today's art community is collectively attributing objective value to something that has no objective value, only subjective value. That's why it's a joke.

You're forgetting about skill.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Have you ever argued with a crank (or a creationist).
You can explain in as much detail as you like why his objections to Einstein's theory of Relativity are wrong but, in the end, he is never going to understand because, sir, he is not a Mathematician. And that, in essence, is what you end up dismissing him with.

I disagree. You dismiss him because his math is bad. His credentials, or lack thereof, are irrelevant to that. If his math is bad, I don't care if he's a Harvard professor or a dairy farmer.
If a math student or a math professor produces the same proof, it should be critiqued the same way by the community -- on its merits.
If a budding apprentice and a master artist produce the same work, it should also be critiqued the same way by the community. If it's not, there's something wrong with the community.

 

[BillyJoe]

Agreed, there can be no objective attribution of value. The quality of an art work depends entirely on the values individuals impose on it, and those are necessarily subjective.

Does skill not impart quality to an art piece?
Can that not be objectively measured?
(Is he skilled at depicting perspective, light and shade...?)

 

[BillyJoe]

Is accomplished craftsmanship always art, just unrevealed at times? Are artists nothing more than adept and proficient craftsmen who have found an audience?

Let me have a go:
Craftsman make reproductions of originals with varying degrees of skill. Artists use their varying degrees of skill to produce the originals.
(Of course the craftsman may have produced the original but, in that instance, he was an artist.)

In one of the other tumultuous threads on this very disputatious topic someone posted a photo of a V8 engine in a derisive effort to disparage less restrictive definitions of the term "art". My reaction was, "What a marvelous example of how all-encompassing the term can be." True motorheads will certainly view some engine designs as works of art. Why is this fundamentally wrong?

Because it is not original?
Certainly, if it is art, it is "accidental" art.
(I assume you're talking about the actual V8 engine, not the photographic image)

Computer programmers often regard particularly 'elegant' pieces of code as art. Their reasoning behind this pursues paths remarkably similar to other uses of the term.

I can empathise with that.
The code can work, but if it doesn't look good...

 

[SumDood]

I disagree. You dismiss him because his math is bad. His credentials, or lack thereof, are irrelevant to that. If his math is bad, I don't care if he's a Harvard professor or a dairy farmer.
If a math student or a math professor produces the same proof, it should be critiqued the same way by the community -- on its merits.
If a budding apprentice and a master artist produce the same work, it should also be critiqued the same way by the community. If it's not, there's something wrong with the community.

Exactly. A non-mathematician is not going to produce the same results as a mathematician. But I, a non-artist, can place a piece of tissue on a pedestal just as well as an artist who has been putting tissue on pedestals for years.