posted 10-10-2001 12:55 AM               

Moving on. I'm not sure I'm ready to define art so strictly as to do so by the institutions it is connected to or by its aesthetic characteristics. (Though Lord knows I've spent enough afternoons in the Guggenheim wondering just what the curator was smoking.) Both seem to me to be too susceptible to the current social standards so what is art in this decade might not be considered so in another.

I think I like the emotive theory which focus on the emotions felt by the creator. How many times does an artist's message get muddled and misinterpreted? How many times does snobbery prevent a given work from being displayed or even called art? (You raised the question yourself, Dave, in our first issue when you talked about comics as art.)

posted 10-10-2001 06:13 PM               

I think Dave is right in one of his "maybes" toward the end of this piece: That many of the definitions art lack something the others provide and vice versa, and that pinning down a meaning for art is probably something of a waste of time. Of course, thinking about these kinds of things is never really an actual waste of time (I actually don't believe in wasted time, but we can talk about that later), but I think the notion of academizing art and trying to find a philosophical definition of it will serve more to remove it from the public discourse rather than promote it. Instead of arguing "what is art?" can't we argue "what is the message in this particular piece of art, and how does the artist go about sending that message?"

Museums have recognized the artistry in everyday items like electronic devices and even product labels, and have had exhibits displaying such things. The Guggenheim even recently exhibited a series of motorcycles -- something that hardly first comes to mind when we think of the word "art," but something that it would be difficult to deny the artistry of.

All of this points to the futility of arguing about what is or isn't art. If the creation of an object (or artifact) involves human creativity on some level, it's art. You could probably successfully argue that the raft Tom Hanks made in Cast Away was a piece of art, and I'd be game.

posted 10-14-2001 01:16 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin Ott:
I tend to agree with Scott McCloud's definition of art as put forth in his book Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art: Art is any activity that has nothing to do with survival or procreation. That's a pretty broad definition, I know. But it's also one that can probably be easily grasped by the general public.

---

I agree that McCloud's definition is broad, and I think it's too broad to be useful in any way. Not only because many of our efforts toward survival or procreation do have a creative, and therefore presumably artistic, element intertwined with them, but because a lot of things we do in our lives -- including stuff like sitting on the couch flipping through cable stations or kicking a rock while walking down the street -- doesn't seem to have the level of creativity that we associate with art.

This is why there's a lot I like about Dewey's aesthetic theory. (I'll wait for you to pick your jaw back up from the floor.) Remember the whole 'having an experience' thing I talked about on the Happiness thread? Dewey says that the emotional quality that binds an experience together is the esthetic character of the experience -- so there's something artistic in every real experience, whether that's playing a ball game, solving a problem, or whatever. When we create something for the purpose of evoking an experience of some kind in our audience -- which may only be ourselves -- then we create art.

I like this definition because it ties art to our everyday experience, and doesn't limit art to the 'fine' arts. It also recognizes the role of intelligence and consciously directed action, which I think is important. It doesn't rely on notions of 'beauty' like some of the formalist theories do, and it takes into account the relationship between the artist, the work of art, and the audience.

quote:

---

I think the notion of academizing art and trying to find a philosophical definition of it will serve more to remove it from the public discourse rather than promote it. Instead of arguing "what is art?" can't we argue "what is the message in this particular piece of art, and how does the artist go about sending that message?"

---

Well, my argument would be that you can't answer the second question without answering the first. For example, does art have to have a message? If it does, why? Trying to answer 'what is art' may seem like an academic question, but it's a question that we all subconsciously answer before we start talking about art, so I think it's better to bring the question out into the open and try and deal with it rather than have everyone's subconscious disagreements get in the way.

quote:

---

Museums have recognized the artistry in everyday items like electronic devices and even product labels, and have had exhibits displaying such things. The Guggenheim even recently exhibited a series of motorcycles -- something that hardly first comes to mind when we think of the word "art," but something that it would be difficult to deny the artistry of.

---

quote:

---

All of this points to the futility of arguing about what is or isn't art. If the creation of an object (or artifact) involves human creativity on some level, it's art. You could probably successfully argue that the raft Tom Hanks made in Cast Away was a piece of art, and I'd be game.

---

At this point, though, doesn't everything become art? And if everything's art, what's the point of using the term?

quote:

---

To imply that something can attempt to be art and fail in any way is to insult the basic nature of humans to be creative. Why should something not be considered art because it doesn't meet a specific set of philosophical standards?

---

I'm not sure how this is necessarily an insult. People who might argue this are using a definition of art that includes within it some standards of merit. We use the term 'work of art' as a term of praise all the time, which means there's an implicit claim that 'art = good' in there somewhere. I've heard many creators say things to the effect that not everything they've done rises to the level of art, that sometimes they've just created a product or something that just wasn't as good as they may have wanted it to be. I've seen creators distinguish entertainment that's driven by focus groups and marketing demands from stuff that's created as a personal expression, and say the former doesn't count as art. Now, you might say that this is the wrong way to talk about art, that the merit of a work should be a different issue than its status as a work of art -- and I would in many cases be inclined to agree with you. But then you're back to the definitional issue again.

posted 10-14-2001 01:28 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pattie Gillett:

I think I like the emotive theory which focus on the emotions felt by the creator. How many times does an artist's message get muddled and misinterpreted? How many times does snobbery prevent a given work from being displayed or even called art? (You raised the question yourself, Dave, in our first issue when you talked about comics as art.)

---

Speaking of comics and art, Larry Young had some things to say on the subject in his most recent LOOSE CANNON column. Larry has the same 'democratic' impulses about art that we do, and a lot of what he says is very similar at points to the emotive theory R. G. Collingwood proposes in his Principles of Art. (Not entirely similar, because Collingwood took his theory to some interesting places that maybe we'll talk about down the line -- but for now I want to talk about Larry. ) He says:

quote:

---

An artist can’t help but create his art.

And, in this, parenthetically, I mean for "art" to be a sort of Platonian ideal of art; an essence of art, not just squiggly lines on paper or heaps of pigment on stretched canvas. My mom, for example, is an artist of baked goods. Cookies, cakes, pastries, jelly rolls, Easter bread, you name it. But she is the Michaelangelo of pies; the friggin’ Leonardo da Vinci of apple pie. She. Makes. The. Best. Pies. You. Will. Ever. Have. When she dies, her headstone will read: "Shirley Young, Beloved Mother, Beloved Wife. Too Bad She Died; She Made Good Pies."

An Artist.

An artist’s responsibility to his art is to create; and each act of creation of art, by definition, makes the world a better place. That one’s easy.

Easy, too, is the artist’s responsibility to his audience. An artist owes his audience nothing but the best art he can create. Sometimes observers in the Peanut Gallery think that the artist owes them something and here’s a harsh truth for those folks:

An artist doesn’t care what you think, because an artist isn’t creating his art for you; he’s creating it for his audience. And usually, an artist’s audience is himself.

---

This last bit ties into what Brian Bendis says in September's Comics update about independent comics creators, who often create a book just for the sake of having a book that they'd like to read. That kind of expressiveness is definitely an important part of art -- although I'd argue that an artist's audience isn't always merely himself or herself. Sometimes the reason you create is because you have something you want to say to yourself, but other times I think you have something you want to say to other people. Although even in cases of the latter, you probably need some of the former.

posted 10-18-2001 11:38 AM               

I like the theory that the artist is creating something that, if someone else had created it, the artist would have enjoyed it just as much, and wouldn't have had to go to the trouble. At least that's what I'm usually thinking when I create something, on the few occasions where I actually do. It's filling a gap - no one else has some up with it, and I'd really like to see it, so I guess I'll just have to make it myself.

posted 11-20-2001 01:44 AM               

You could probably say that in the case of something as driven by utility as a fire alarm, its existence precedes its essence, which could disqualify its status as art, even under the definition I mentioned earlier.

posted 11-20-2001 03:38 AM               

I disagree with your premise that putting borders around art is a bad idea. If you don't put at least some kind of flexible border around it, the term is meaningless. If everything is art, then there's no point in talking about art.

posted 11-20-2001 02:09 PM               

quote:

---

Hey, Kev, do you remember the story about the bunch of students from Holy Ghost who took a trip to one of the art museums and started gathering around the fire alarm, looking at it and making appreciative murmurs and, in the process of doing so, drawing a crowd who did likewise with no sense of irony? I'm not sure if the alarm counts as art -- but I think I'd be willing to give the students credit for creating one.

---

posted 11-20-2001 02:41 PM               

quote:

---

If everything is art, then there's no point in talking about art.

---

I'm not sure I'm saying everything is art. I'm saying everything that people create is in some way art. So it differs from stuff that just exists. (And as a sidebar, if everything exists, why bother with philosophy?)

quote:

---

'Art' then becomes a term that can be used to describe a certain kind of human object; 'artistic' becomes a term that can be used to describe a certain element of human actions that is present to a greater or lesser degree.

---

I guess this works for me, but it can still start us on the path to making value judgments about art in the way that was exemplified pretty well in last week's West Wing episode. And just because it sets us on that path doesn't mean it's an option we shouldn't explore, but we should be aware of the dark side of putting borders around art. Hell, there's even a dark side to this discussion, if you want to beleive that art is something primarily to be enjoyed and reacted to. I just worry that once you start defining art under a certain set of parameters, it's easier to make the judgment that a piece of art that we think has little value isn't art because we perceive it as having little value. I don't want to be deprived of experiencing art because someone that's not me said it isn't art.

quote:

---

I see the art in this case as more of an example of performance art. With those who started gazing upon the fire alarm as the artists.

---

posted 11-20-2001 02:56 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin Ott:

I'm not sure I'm saying everything is art. I'm saying everything that people create is in some way art.

---

Fair enough; let me amend my objection then. If everything that people create is art, then there's no need for a distinction between the words 'artifact' and 'art.' And you can't make sense of the way we use the word art without acknowledging that there is a difference.

quote:

---

it can still start us on the path to making value judgments about art

---

Well, the definition I'm proposing doesn't use quality as a defining criteria; there can be 'bad art.' Are you arguing that we shouldn't make such judgments? Given the number of times you've complained about various artists, I can't believe that to be the case. If you're arguing that we shouldn't ban art that many people judge to be bad art, I'll agree with that, but that's not a matter of the definition of art -- people would object to certain kinds of objects whether you called them art or not.

quote:

---

I don't want to be deprived of experiencing art because someone that's not me said it isn't art.

---

Well, who's funding the creation of these objects? Honestly, if it's the government, I think the government HAS the right to deprive you of experiencing works it doesn't want to pay for, although it can't stop you from funding it yourself.

quote:

---

We can say that something wasn't meant as art, but it can be perceived as art, even if done so ironically. And in that case, well, I'm thinking it would become art in that moment: Art as defined by the perceptor.

---

posted 07-22-2002 01:53 AM               

Looking through old threads I realized I hadn't addressed this at all. I admit I'm not entirely sure what it means, but that could just be because the definition of 'exists' is unclear. But we have other threads for that.