What is art?/Why do art?
Before continuing with the final post(s) on ethics, I wanted to start a new question. That question is: why do art?
Unfortunately, before that question can be answered, it is important to know what art is. So, what is art? Obviously, there are various definitions, but what I consider art to be is this:
Art = Anything that has been looked at in an aesthetic way.
This definition, then, would include created works, found objects, and even natural phenomena. Why this definition? Well, it is as broad as I can imagine it, but I've always been critical of arguements which state, "that's NOT art!," because it seems that the person stating such a thing might simply mean, "that's not GOOD art." Besides created works, it seems to me that we can "frame" found objects or natural phenomena merely by looking at such things in an aesthetic way.
One criticism may be that this is too broad--"what ISN'T art then?!" Secondarily, it might be argued that it seems odd for some thing, for example the pair of scissors on my desk, not to be art one minute and to be art the next once I've looked at it aesthetically. A third criticism might be that it seems odd that something could be art, such as a door handle that someone has looked at aesthetically, and another person could see it but not know that it is art.
My answer to the first criticism would be that there still are, of course, many things that would not be art. The oil in my Mazda Protege right now is not art, the date "Sunday December 4, 2005" is not art, etc.
To the second criticism, that it seems odd for something to not be art one moment and to be art the next, I'd say that such a position follows as the most intuitive if found objects are to be included in a definition of art. After all, if found objects are art, then either those things must become art (presumably when looked at aesthetically) or always be art. Certainly, it seems more counterintuitive to consider such objects as art long before they are looked at aesthetically, doesn't it?
The third criticism, again, is that it seems odd for something to be art but for some to not know it. The alternative might be to consider some things "art for me" and some things "art for you." Then a seperate question of whether anything qualified as viewer-independant art could be answered either way. My answer is that it actually seems quite natural for art to go unnoticed as such by some. After all, many sculptures throughout a city, which are clearly art, go unnoticed by travelers who drive by them, even looking in their direction. Yet simply because some travelers do not notice these sculptures as art, it doesn't seem as if such an objects status as art should be in question because of this.
Well, the next post will be on the question, "why do art?" Also, through doing this posting, I'm finding myself interested in another question, which is, "why care about a definition?"
posted by luke_d at 11:04 PM
6 Comments:
Oh, yeah, the question of what is art. I once wrote a tremendous paper on Andy Warhol and his Popart Movement, it is all very interesting stuff. However, I do know now what art is, but what art does? I look forward to your next post!!!
11:07 AM
Or now wait, you say "Why do art?" Mmm ... I do not even understand this question, let alone the answer! Now I am DOUBLE excited about your next post!
11:09 AM
i have a very liberal definition of art. whatever i decide is art, is art. does this mean i can arbitrarily decide something is not art (say the bottle of kroger brand vitamins on my bookshelf)? no, it does not. i can only define art positively, not negatively. so i cannot preclude you from deciding something else is art, nor can you preclude me from deciding something is art. it works out nicely that way.
does this mean a lot of things are art? yes. but aren't a lot of things art? i think so.
now, what makes something good art, that is another question altogether. i can hardly decide for myself whether i like any particular piece of art, so how can i even begin to derive some manner of sorting the good from the bad.
9:48 PM
elias-
I agree 100%
that's a good point about only being able to define art positively and not negatively.
7:40 PM
Hmmm.... yes indeed the question, "What is ART?" is one of the broadest questions EVER! Everything and Nothing is ART at the same time.
Some people are so creative that even them just walking down the street and mailing a letter is ART. Some people are painter who make a thousands paintings, yet none of their pieces really look like ART, because it's so contrive and heartless. It's just a picture, not ART. I think ART is alive and if your heart is beating creatively into something it is ART.
9:01 AM
Yeah, I think that some people create art when they go to mail a letter too.
That reminds me of something I heard (in the movie "My Dinner With Andre") about some hasidic jewish people. Specifically, some of them believe that every act we do in life (even such things as folding laundry or getting the mail) should be a sacrament in the world. Thereby, these people put similar emphasis on daily activities as the artist in your example, and I think both techniques amount to the same thing.
11:17 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home