What Makes Art, Art? Perception, Interpretation, or Something More?
There is a saying that many have subscribed to for generations, and have accepted it as fact. That saying is the familiar pearl, ‘Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.’ We understand, through this widely used statement, that the concept of beauty is such a relative one that its defined terms change with whomever is actively doing the perceiving. What holds beauty to one, may not to another. It is a simple enough idea, and apparently resonates truthfully within so many of us for it to have grown to become such a popularly uttered phrasing among the masses. So if a concept such as beauty, can be that subjective, can the same be said for a medium of largely interpretative and conceptual products? We are speaking, in this case, of art.
What makes art, art?
Former US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once famously spoke on the subject of pornography, saying, ‘I know it when I see it’. Many would probably say something similar if they were asked to define ‘art’. After being unable to pinpoint an exact definition, they would eventually concede that they could identify it if they saw it, even though they could not satisfactorily offer a verbal definition. So this would make art a matter of perception, much like beauty. However, if this were the case, then art would cease to be art if it were not perceived as such. But you see that is not the case. Art is always art, even if it is not recognized as such by everyone. So it goes beyond mere appreciation.
A few weeks ago, we were presented with a brilliant piece of art via a fellow Fuel member’s blog post about a commissioned piece of art that was created to fill a space on his wall and fulfill the role of tying his interior design together. Jin Yang’s post goes into so much great detail about all of the elements that he interpreted from the painting, and it got me thinking about the interpretative aspect of art. Jin describes a number of specific facets of the piece that not only spoke to him, but flawlessly incorporated the design flow he had previously established in his space. And even if these interpretations were unintended by the artist, they are there in Jin’s eyes. His mind moves across the surface of the painting picking up on details and elements that draw him deeper, that bring the abstract piece into a clear focus with its surroundings and not only offer understanding, but appreciation.
Connor, the artist of the piece, his work resonated in a way that was unexpected, and even if one could reasonably mount an argument over the inherent beauty of the painting he crafted, because as we stated beauty varies with perception, no one could reasonably argue that it is not art. You see, that is one of the things I came to realize and finally understand fully. Art is more than the perception of beauty, and the intention of the creator, it is about interpretation. (I will go ahead and state, that this is merely my humble opinion on the matter) Without the interpretation that each person is moved to uncover about a piece of art, it becomes a stagnant work that does not necessarily fit under that umbrella…ella, ella… sorry, got distracted for a second. In order to be labeled as art, it must connect with someone. It must move them enough to translate its meaning and answer what it means to them. If does not do this, then it is less art, and more creative expression.
What’s Your Take?
So where do you stand on this question? Do you think that the interpretative element is the defining one of art, or is it something more? For that matter, is it something less?
Rob is the talented author and graphic designer, celebrated podcaster and poet, who is now the co-editor and imaginative co-contributor of Fuel Your Creativity. With a background working through most areas of the arts, Rob works from a creative wellspring that shows no signs of running dry.
Grab the Feed
That is a subject open to all sorts of arguments. We’ll probably read a lot of insightful comments here. So I’ll try be brief in my take on it.
Our notion of art varies in time. That is, what is art now may not be in many years from now and certainly would not have been two centuries ago, when academies and scholars had a definition to what was art and could point something as being or not according to standards they had.
What we define as art has to do with the introduction of as subjectivity as a philosophical matter to our modern minds, which occurred, I believe, in the turning of the 19th century, therefore allowing the art movements such as Impressionism to emerge.
Which is completely related to your concept of interpretation as a path to the definition of art. The act of interpreting something is strictly subjective (I know it sounds redundant), but if we compare to art forms previous to that time, you could see that there was no room to interpret the careful and thoughtful spilling of paint over a canvas to create colorful patterns as art.
It took time for it to happen, and still today we have people that don’t accept it, because they lack a set of knowledge that us professionals or enthusiasts have acquired to recognize something as art.
So far as interpretation is open, we could still feel offended by a friend of ours who says that Pollock’s paintings aren’t art, and it’s just commercial crap that’s been fed to our minds.
To what we’d cleverly suggest that critics and art scholars, would defend it as being art, so there is some reasoning to it.
I agree that this is such an open topic, and I too hope to see more brilliant assertions and perspectives introduced and discussed. Much like yours! :)
And while I agree that once movements like the Impressionist one emerged, art became more interpretative, but I would disagree that the works that came before said movements lack any room for interpretation. Ancient cultures used artistic renderings to tell stories, therefore, literally making the works largely interpretive (especially to future generations who may not have fully understood the symbolism the cultures used to express certain ideas).
Also, in the eras where most of the artistic expression was occurring in the form of portrait style paintings, there were still elements that the artist could include that would often symbolize something to the viewer. Expressions on the faces of the people in the portraits have often been subject of the viewer’s interpretations as well. Take the subtle smile and expression on the Mona Lisa and how much discussion this has sparked throughout the years for example.
I believe that if these interpretations exist in the works, then they have always been there, and were not awakened by the rise of this philosophical mindset. The artist’s intent was to include them, and so the mindset was there before the turn of the 19th century to be sure. If members of society see fit to disagree with the interpretations as art, then that certainly is their right, and it is all due to their perception as I mentioned in the post. Their perception of what art is, differs from others, and does not allow them to see any room for interpretation in the works before them.
Again, in my humble…
Yes, open topic. But I’ll tell you one thing, art ain’t design design ain’t art.
Actually, David, you are wrong. According to the dictionary, one of the definitions for design is as follows: “the art or action of conceiving of and producing such a plan or drawing” , so I would have to respectfully disagree with you. This is simply a matter of perception like I wrote about. From your perspective design is not an artform, but others perceive it to be so.
And if you think about it, designers choose elements for their work because of the feel that it will impart to the viewer. Colors play a huge role in this, if you think about it. We choose a hue because of the tone it speaks with and the emotive properties it holds. If we want something that looks sharp and cutting edge, chances are, we will use different aspects of the design to symbolize and speak that role within the piece. That’s interpretation within design. I.E. from this posited position, design is art.
As artists we design the function and layout that chaotically come together to be our work of art. So in turn, art is design.
(From another David)
Don’t confuse art with beauty, or even quality (as pursued by Robert M. Pirsig). Art is whatever the artist makes or does which he or she deems to be art. The acceptance of said creative endeavor as “art” by society or any “experiencer” of it is entirely optional. Art rejected (and sometimes discovered elsewhen) is still art. Art manifested, then destroyed and never experienced or interpreted by anyone other than the artist and God, is still art. (Sort of “Schroedinger’s art”?)
I must admit, to color these arguments, that much of what’s called “art” over the past 100 years is IMHO very un-beautiful, if not downright disturbing. It is, nonetheless, art.
Hey David,
You are absolutely right. However, I would ask you to consider “accidental art”, if you will. Now what I mean by this, is work that has been put out there by not as art, but that others see art within. They are moved by it, and touched by the piece and they interpret more than was intended, but to them it is nonetheless, there. Through perception and interpretation, we can still find art in mundane, unintentional places.
I have seen paintings done by animals, whose intent will never be known, but whose works still exist in the realm of “art”. It is expressive, and can be interpreted to hold meanings that the creator, once again, did not intend. I see art in nature’s destructive hands, and in other unintended places. I see art, not just beauty, because I believe that interpretation plays a large role in this.
Also, photography, I believe to be an artform, would you agree? And yet, often times, the art exists in nature, and is merely captured by the photographer. They can see the art take shape where most may not, and they distill it to us in their photographs, but they are not always responsible for the entire set-up or the composition. So I believe art exists outside of the creator’s intent, as well as within.
Yeah – good points. In fact, I have a book on “Accidental Art” now that I think of it. So we get into that philosophical mire about reality and perception, I guess. (Objectivity is only commonly accepted subjectivity.) In the case of “found” art, beauty is oft in the trained eye of the opportunist.
If one considers nature to be art, all of God’s creation is art.
Grace in movement and balance can be seen in machinery that was crafted purely in pursuit of “form, fit, and function.” It’s a collaboration of observer and the observed, regardless of the origin/cause of the experience.
Hmmm…
Bucky Fuller said: “When I’m working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong.”
RE: the Photography topic, a friend of mine considered photography a purely technical process, an act of documentation coupled with a “right place right time” sort of serendipity… until he took a photography class!
(Cool conversation. Thanks for stimulating my brain in an otherwise typical work day!)
Oh, and I’m reminded of the classic Trek episode title: “Is there in truth no beauty?” Sounds like Shakespeare.(?)
I, too, am loving the discussion here. And I agree it is a sticky philosophical quagmire that we end up in when pondering this question…but it’s so fun.
Let’s go deep in the philosophy!
It’s a good point that you guys mentioned “experiencer”, so we now have two entities: creator and experiencer. From that I’ll try to explain why I think design is not art.
We should keep in mind that there is no such thing as designer vs. artist, they’re the same. The difference is in the process, as it is in the goal to an object built by said person.
For instance, I could say that a simple BIC pen is art, but I think everybody else can strongly disagree because it’s an object of engineering and design. By saying that it’s art, I’m actually just stating as an “experiencer” that this object “moves” me in some way and I think it’s a masterpiece or a work of art, when it was clearly created with an specific purpose to which we can measure if it succeeded or not.
For me design has a purpose. It can be practical, it can be communication, but if it’s just for expression of the creator, than we can’t measure if it’s successful, but only if it’s popular, than it’s Art.
Yay! This is so much fun…sorry, thought I’d say that again.
But you see, though design tends towards function, we have a blogosphere full of examples of very functional, very artistically fashioned designs. Product, packaging, industrial, fashion are all areas of design that have been and can be achieved artistically. Where more emphasis is placed on style and form than the function of the item. In most cases, I would argue that this is still art…in most cases. Maybe not on the BIC pen, even though as a writer, weirdly enough, my pen of choice for scribing is a black and white BIC Clic Stic med. and it certainly has a poetically charged place in my head, but I would have a hard time calling it’s form art. But I have seen some pens that I would. :)
I see your point there. Many of the things we see in those industries I would also call Art. But then again I’d be reminded that a packaging can’t be art, the concept of putting a really good perfume packaging in the same level of a Degas painting kind of gives me a weird feeling in the stomach!
This one just popped into my head, but Toy Art for instance, is art in the sense that the dolls have lost their purpose of playing and acquired one of aesthetic appreciation. It’s like sculpture.
Also, I noticed you used function to where I said purpose. There’s a slight difference between both but I think that those items, packages or dress, have a lot of art in them even though they are objects of design. Those dolls could still function as toys, but there not meant to.
There’s a use of art for the design, it’s kind of having a difference between creating and designing. I mean, you can have all kinds of creative and beautiful ideas that could look like a masterpiece, but in the end, they’d still have to serve the purpose of your design.
I did mess up using function over purpose. But you say that art cannot have a measurable purpose, is that right? But I would say that generally, as an artist myself, the purpose of most art would be to move people. To connect with them and touch them. You can measure this in the amount of interpretation that takes place over a piece. People reacting to the piece, offering reviews, and so forth also can act as a measure of it satisfying it’s purpose of connecting.
And I understand your weird feeling. I never meant to imply that all art exists at the same level. Just as there are varying degrees in most aspects of our lives. There are different levels that exist in the realm of art, but that does not disqualify a piece from consideration under this title, would it?
You’re completely right about the levels, there is definitely room for mediocre to top level works of art. I think I just gave too much importance to the word ( even used a Capital “A”!).
I haven’t considered the feedback on the “moving” factor before, I agree that it does set a tool for measure, but I still find it hard to see it qualifying or disqualifying in the means of succeeding or failing. Because it’s more related to the amount of people to which the art is exposed. The fact that it gets bad or good reviews, is irrelevant, as far as defining it as art. So we’d have to stick with the number of people moved by it in a good or bad manner. So ultimately it would lead us to saying that a very popular piece of art is a very successful one… I could struggle with that thought for a while… :)
(I think we got carried away and our friend David is going to have a lot to read!!)
He does have some catching up to do. I also meant by reviews, people who were moved enough to feature a piece, or discuss it. Not critic reviews. :)
Art begets thoughts.
In my humble opinion…anything that you look at and think about and encourages you to make a connection with – either for or against is art.
Art is curiosity, and curiosity and experimentation is art.
The great thing about modern times is the broadening of the term ‘art’ to incorporate so many different realms and media and medium – but at the end of the day it all makes you think something when you see it, and anything new is borne from an artist experimenting.
I may think urrg that is not art, or I may think about the elements or structure or beauty or be grossed out…whatever happens I am curious and I am thinking something I may not have done without the catalyst of the art.
Maybe I should refine that…art is a catalyst for thought…
Thanks for participating in the discussion, Nicky. Honestly, it is very late, and I am very tired, but I think that we are in agreement. If I am reading you correctly, it seems as though your being moved to think and consider is about the same as my being moved to interpret and draw from the piece. Am I right, in that? I may need to come at it again after some rest.
I agree that it is good to take in so many different media and see them as art. I see this as important, in fact. Thanks for saying this. I think broadening our views is a wonderful way to fully see and experience all that life has to offer.
Rob Bowen you give personal attention to your visitors that is also an art ;)
I second that…Rob amazing interaction with contributors to the discussion, such a great skill and appreciated by those of us to take the time to leave our thoughts.
Here’s to artful experiences of life…ARTrox doesn’t it!!!!
And, Nicky, thank you for your kindness as well. I hope to show how much our readers and commenters are appreciated with the interacting. You all make it worthwhile!
And we do value all of the thoughts you all leave here with us! ARTrox, indeed!
Why thank you, Gaurav, I am truly humbled by your kind words.
Good morning! Sorry I had to leave the conversation (life’s obligations, you know).
I really like Nicky’s comment that “Art is a catalyst.” There something very profound there, something about triggering archetypal emotions and imagery, bridging symbol and soul. (I just made that phrase up – pretty good for first thing in the morning!) Even “bad” art, or repulsive, or soothing, or sticky-sweet-chick-flick-hallmark-card art — it all evokes some reaction and facilitates the connection between artist and audience. Sometimes not the intended reaction, of course.
Now then, good “design”, I would say, does it’s job when the reaction is exactly what the artist intended. It is “applied art” — applied to a purpose, intended to solicit a very specific experience or to convey a very clear message. Ever read Tefte on the graphical display of information? Art as a tool.
Ah well – time to get some work done. Thanks.
That is really good for first thing in the morning, David. In fact, I read it first thing, and had to wake up a bit more before I came back to it. :D Slow start for me today. Anyhow, I really like your ‘triggering archetypal emotions’ statement, its a really deep interpretation of Nicky’s comment.
I have to agree, with you on the design being fitted for a specific reaction and when said reaction is achieved, it has satisfied it’s purpose.
I would say that between the comments and discussion, that this topic was thoroughly examined, beyond what even I had expected. Brilliant contributions from you all!
The point of “what makes art, art?” had been long forgotten by me, until now. I’d been applying the “I know it when I see it”. But now… I’ve realized, maybe only the artist will know if it is art; since it is made from his point of view, and for the pleasing of his senses before it pleases someone else.
If it speaks to someone outside the work of art, it only means the person found his or herself there. They found something they wanted to say or feel.
So you would disagree with the concept of accidental art, if the creator must be the director of it’s definition, correct? I think that while artist intention can play a role, I believe this alone, does not define the piece as art. I think it can go deeper than that, but again, that is just my take. I appreciate you taking the time to leave us yours!
I apologize if I’m a little too deep now in philosophy again.
But I liked the concept of art as a catalyst or trigger to emotions, but it does bring me back to the experience. So when things trigger emotions they are artistic? Or when they intend to trigger such feelings through a specific medium? ( again, I liked the concept of defining art as emotionally reaching someone through a medium)
So, I have to ponder about something “being” art. I have a difficult time translating this to english but, from my point of view ( and my language, I’m a native portuguese speaker), there’s a difference between being as a permanent state and being as a temporary state. Like, I “am” a designer now, and I “am” brazilian.
So if the experience or emotion determines something as art, couldn’t that also mean that things could stop being art based on their capability of provoking a feeling? As opposed to something that from being intended as art, will achieve the permanent status of art since it’s mean to be that way?
“…when they intend to trigger such feelings through a specific medium”
I would say the above would probably be the direction I would go with it. That is where the artist intent can come in to play.
I understand the language difference may make it hard to communicate your point, but I think you have done fantastically in getting your ideas across. I also like the difference in the temporary and permanent states of being.
What I conclude from this is that perhaps art can occupy both states of being.
Boldly I say: “Art is a cultural phenomenon” and some aspects of culture are as old and deep as “being human” but others are so-20-minutes-ago temporary.
Maybe that linguistic thing (Thank you, Renan!) is part of our handicap in trying to grapple with “art” as a single concept. Art hangs on a wall, stands in a garden, moves across a stage, vibrates through the air, and is preserved in ink on a page, is enshrined in our memories, and probably much more.
I think maybe we’re sort of semantically hamstrung. So we start tacking on adjectives to make the distinction: Pure art, applied art, performance art, commissioned art, commercial art, street art, folk art, etc. ad infinitum.
—
So, back to that “accidental art” — it might be recognized and appreciated as such in one generation, and completely irrelevant to another. Before 1774, there was no such thing as “oxygen.” Nobody knew that they didn’t know, so it was irrelevant. However, it did (obviously) effect their very existance.
Hmmm…. (stroking my beard thoughtfully and gazing upward)
If art is a cultural phenomenon, would that not still make it relative to each culture, and the definitions of art would vary via the individual cultures within which it exists? That would also feed into the interpretational approach as well, would it not? Since again it would be up to the people to judge art as such.
And on the accidental topic, your comparison I would disagree with…in a way. I would look at your comparison a little more philosophically. Oxygen did exist, just because the people didn’t comprehend the concept, would also mean, that art exists whether or not people understand it’s relevance. So then it would mean that art goes beyond just being defined as an interpretational.
I am now stroking my beard thoughtfully…which I grew in just for this discussion. :p kidding.
This is the ultimate philosophical question for creatives like us. Is art merely the creation of something? Is it all about aesthetics? Is it something that moves us emotionally or intellectually? Is it something that inspires us? Does it shape or show humanity? Is it something else completely? Does any of it matter?
One thing we seem to agree on: ART, by definition, is relative. So create for the sake of creating. Do it for you. Do what you love. And leave the distinction of being ART for the history books to decide.
As the great MGM logo reminds us, “Ars Gratia Artis.”
I would have to disagree that Art by definition is relative. For we’re are all kind of trying to define art (as many before us and certainly after), and we do have our difference in opinion. My opinion is not that art is relative, much more than any concept can be, since we are all entitled to have different opinions.
That’s to say relativeness is not part of art, but ourselves, and will be applied to any other concept we try to define. Religion is relative, good intention is relative, so is intelligence, beauty and so on.
This concepts of art for the sake of art is quite new… And about the books, what good will they ever be if we don’t discuss their contents. Who knows… maybe somebody in this thread might become the writer of an excellent book about art history and it’s definition.
I do thank you for your take, Eric. It is certainly nice to get more and more perspectives on this discussion. Though, like Renan, I will politely disagree. To a degree, I am beginning to see an amount of relativism when it comes to defining this term, but I have to believe that art exists beyond and outside of ourselves.
…not sure why I have to believe this, but I do. To say that it is all relative, places it simply within each of us, and the concept does not move beyond those boundaries and limitations.
…and P.S. Renan, I really the idea of the book. Though, I think that all of the perspectives offered here in the post should be written into it and discussed. That would be a fun project…
Thank you for your comments. I both agree and disagree to an extent. But much of my thoughts lie here in semantics:
Sorry for the soapbox…
To say that “Art, by definition, is relative,” was to imply that the definition, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder. What I may consider art (and my definition is broad – seeing “art” in almost all aspects of life), may not be art to someone else. It seems pretentious for me to say my definion of Art makes something Art for all the world. It is art for me. And I can leave your definition of art to your individual distinction as well.
I completely agree with Rob in that Art most definately lies outside of and beyond ourselves. Steven Pressfield has a great book entitled, “The War of Art” that tackles such a topic (it’s become my bible). He states that art comes from a higher plane of existence. It comes not from us, but from this higher plane and though us – we bring the inspired into existence on a material plane. If this is the case, then how can anyone of us on this material plane define art? Is art then merely the inspiration of the muse? The act of tapping into that higher realm, in whatever medium?
Relativity is completely part of ourselves, Renan, very good point. But in being beholders of Art, we each natually instill our own perspective upon it. I cannot see the Mona Lisa the same way you see it. I have different life experiences which color my view of the world. Is RED the same color to me as it is to you? Does it makes us feel the same way? Do we react to it equally? Certainly not. There are universals and theories, but art, as is life, is completely subjective – as has already been mentioned. No two people live the same life and thus no two people can see the world the same way. Therefore, no two people can view art, in work or concept, the same way. And that, to some extent anyway, is why the concept of something being defined as “Art” must be completely relative.
“…He states that art comes from a higher plane of existence. It comes not from us, but from this higher plane and though us – we bring the inspired into existence on a material plane. If this is the case, then how can anyone of us on this material plane define art?”
I like this statement very much. I have often attributed my writing to the muse which guides my pen. However, even if ‘art’ exists beyond our abilities to define such a concept, which if it comes through us, rather than in conjunction with us (which is how I like to see it), as you said, it would not be our place to try and strap meaning to it.
Which means, that we can still recognize art as such, but that it is a definition not placed there by us. Therefore, if that is the case, art cannot be subjective. Sure, our ideas of what art is could be subjective, but if it exists beyond us, it will always do so with or without our input or interpretations and therefore its defines are very concrete…we just don’t necessarily understand or cannot identify said traits. But they are there, they exist, and art is art without the active participation of the viewer…
Does that make sense, or should I have tried more sleep before replying this morning? ;p
I wonder if perhaps a better way to say it would be this…
Art is art through an undefinable quality bestowed upon it through the act of its creation. These undefinable qualities are the ones that connect and move the viewer. Each of us, being different with our own perspectives, experiences, etc.., are moved differently and connect with the piece in our own unique way. So it is our interpretations of these works that are subjective, but not the works themselves. Hmm….
So, Rob, would you agree then that art as a concept (henceforth as ‘Art’) is indefinable by our mortal minds and only defined by the “muses” – or angels or higher powers, higher planes or whatever (again I recommend Pressfield’s “The War of Art”)- while art as a material piece of work (henceforth as art) is definable by our own human subjective opinions? That is a heavy point to ponder, but personally I would agree.
I have been to the museums, I have seen the illustrations, I have contemplated the designs posted on various blogs. I have been inspired by works of art, feeling like they must have come from a higher source of inspiration. But that is merely my subjective opinion as a viewer.
I have also experienced being in “the zone” or feeling that “flash of inspiration” or “riding the wave”, “feeling the flow,” or any number of other cliches, while designing, writing or editing – especially editing for me. That feeling where time just flies by and everything is going right. That, in my humble opinion, is the closest I have come to this higher plane. The work generated from those times, that work of ‘Art’, feels right in the moment and is often the work that I am proudest of down the line and question the least (as I am my own worst critic).
From both sides, a viewer of art, and a medium though which the “muses” pass ‘Art’, I enjoy the possibility of being able to peer into that higher plane if even for a second, even if it is only my subjective opinion. But because of that I still feel that art, or ‘Art’, is a relative experience. As a mortal being, that may be the best answer I ever have.
This has indeed become an interesting topic. Thank you for letting me become a part of it. I have enjoyed this blog for some time now and suddenly feel like I have become part of the community in the last day or so – though I know that is probably a bit of an exaggeration.
Eric, I would agree with that. Very interesting direction we have moved, indeed. And I feel really good about this discussion. I feel like we haven’t just scratched the surface, but have delved deeply into the meaning.
I am so glad that you have been apart of the discussion, and I really value yours (and everyone’s) contributions. I am extremely glad that you feel like this has cemented your place here. We are lucky to have folks like you around, my friend.
Doesn’t the artist have certain (like dripping or dropping) control over the accident? Or does the artist completely surrender to the forces of physics? Not very familiar with COMPLETELY accidental art, the author has at least a choice over which accidents to keep and which not to keep in the work.
I share your need to believe that art is beyond ourselves, but I don’t think the audience should determine if a “work of art” is indeed a work of art. I’d leave it to the maker…
Accidental Art – Art produced by accident or side effect, not by intention.
And I do not believe anyone here was suggesting that the artist surrenders to anything, such as physics, unless you want to discuss the concept of muses. But then again, that is a whole other discussion in and of itself. Also there is art created by nature (as interpreted by the viewer of course), as well as paintings done by animals that I would also qualify as art, even though the artist intentions are never to be known to us. What would you further make of a piece that is highly regarded by the public to be a work of art, but that the artist or creator simply intended as a physical realization or manifestation of their own inner turmoil and they never expected or intended it to be seen in any other way. Is that not art?
We are simply positing that the maker’s intentions, while playing a role, may not be all that there is in defining a piece of art as such. And if it was, what happens after the artist dies, when we can no longer verify their intentions for the work, does a piece cease to be art at that point? After all the artist’s true intentions are no longer a verifiable certainty, it seems like it would be relegated to a lesser status.
also… What do you people think about conceptual art?
I’m not sure what you are asking here exactly. Unless, I’m mistaken, that has essentially been covered in the earlier comments.
RE: the Muse, there is a podcast from the New York Academy of Sciences called “Science & The City” which is excellent. Back in May the topic was on music and the brain. The conversation got very close to … well… accommodating an extra-personal influence for creative process, as well as the enjoyment of the same. Pretty cool to hear the science-meets-art conversation. Somebody call Oliver Sacks!
I need to check that out. Sounds like an extremely interesting listen. Thanks!
Thanks. Do you remember the title of the particular episode? I’d love to check it out!
May 8, 2009: “The Sweetest Sounds: What is Music to Your Ears?” with Roseann Cash and Dan Levitin. Goto http://www.nyas.org/whatwedo/scpodcasts.aspx or the iTunes store. And check out Oliver Sack’s book “Musicophilia” for more about the brain, perception and creativity.
These are music-oriented — I suspect similar resources abound in the visual arts.
Thank You very much, David. I can’t wait to check it out!
I second that thanks for the link, David!
This discussion is becoming interesting. I’d never given much attention to what is art, and had been on a “I’ll know when I see it”. Is there a “gray” area for art? I’d think that only the author will know if he made art or not… but then again, that speaks more of my ingoing personality than of art itself.
But… then the only thing that is certain about art, is how you feel about it in the moment of perception. But whatever we find in art, is a part of ourselves, is it not?
I would say, yes, that what we find in art is apart of ourselves. That is when Art becomes the catalyst to connect with something inside of ourselves that it moves and stirs.
Okay guys… you have convinced me. The experience has a decisive role on the definition.
But from what we have talked before, I think we’re missing some legs to let our Lady Art standing (art is a female word in portuguese). And we still have to find how many legs she has.
I think that intention still plays a role, because of purpose. So, an object can’t be called art if it’s intended otherwise. And as far as the experience, I’d rather see it as someone concisely spoke before, as a trigger or catalyst to emotional response.
But I kind of feel that one of the legs or pillars has to do with, time, or at least something that connects a form of art from the past that was not perceived as such at it’s time with a new comprehension of art in the future.
That way a bic pen is not art and probably never will, because it was never meant to be. Even though it may become of emotional response to some, say a very sensitive engineer or eccentric product designer… Well… maybe our descendants will see our primitive technology as some form of art expression. But, we still don’t. And that’s why I think that time and our own evolution has something to do with the third leg…
Okay, maybe I should start sleeping properly, I think I might be going too far in imagining now… or stop reading sci-fi books.
Perhaps time is another leg of the discussion. Time does have an effect on the way we perceive of art, so I can see it’s relevance. Though, I would say, Art (capitalized meaning it comes from the higher plane and is beyond our ability to define) would be somewhat timeless. Even though the more subjective art would be the branch effected by the times. Does that make sense?
design spawns from the elemental of art and from conceptualization to inception to appreciation are one and the same under the umbrella of art.
That brings the essence or minimalist commenting!
You definitely said more than those few words, but I didn’t quite get the meaning of the phrase above. There’s something in the structure that doesn’t seem to connect. (or maybe it’s just me)
What would the ‘elemental’ of art be?
And what exactly is one and the same under the ‘umbrella’ of art?
And lastly, how does it all relate to what defines art?
I would like to see this expanded a bit more as well. I believe I know what you are saying, but I’d like to be sure.
What if a work that the author doesn’t consider art, or an element of nature, provokes an “artistic” experience in a viewer…? Where is the art and who is the artist there?
Sorry for the last post… a case of the crazy “enter”.
In my humble opinion, if the author doesn’t state as art, but does state it as something else then it’s not art, without ignoring it’s artistic parts value… or something of the sort.
In the case of nature, I’d have to say it’s never art when by itself. I see art as a manifestation of the human intelect or skill or something.
What I mean is that if something from nature “moves” you, it will only become art when you record it somehow, by a photograph or microphone or painting, because it introduces the human element. In that case, what counts is your perspective on the subject and your interferance to it. Like, say the framing of a nature subject by a photographer, or the choices the painter makes when reproducing a certain landscape or portrait.
Well said. I agree completely.
Very well put. I can agree with your statement that art (as a piece of work) must require the human element. But I don’t know that I can personally agree with always requiring the artist’s intent in order for it to be considered Art (either as a piece or in concept).
Do we know what Michelangelo’s intensions were? Do we know DiVinci’s? Yet these are phenomenal artists. As is Shakespeare, or Maya Angelou, or Kubrick. Do there intentions matter? Personally I don’t think so. I see ‘Art’ (as a concept) in many places, including nature. Perhaps Art can exist in concept even without being intended in practice.
DiVinci found ‘Art’ in the human form, expressed in his Vitruvian Man. Shakespeare found it too, as described in Hamlet:
“What a piece of work is man, how nobel in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving, how express and admirable in action, how like an angel in apprehension, how like a god!”
Could man (referring to humankind) be a work of art, or ‘Art’ in concept? It works in form and function, it is developed by others even without intention as being a work of art (but what mother hasn’t been moved to tears after seeing her creation?), it provides inspiration more so than any other source in history. Does that not make mankind Art by the definitions we have put forth?
When I mentioned purpose, I mentioned it as the previous “bic” example, because it’s supposed to be an object of practical mean.
I don’t know what those masters from the past intentions clearly were, but, I do know that they mean to create a ‘painting’, and buy that they chose a medium largely used for artistic purpose, in which they expressed something of their intellect or perspective on. To be more precise with previous comments: They used a medium to express something from their perspective and that has triggered emotional response in people. And I’m pretty sure they didn’t mean for it to be used as a towel, or maybe a chair, they wanted people to see it and probably contemplate it.
As far as ‘man’ being an object of art. I don’t see it as being an expression of anything, but we can be moved by man, but let’s not get into that because that would be expanding anything in our world to being art, after all, it’s all man made.
I cannot conceive something made by God as Art. God is perfect, so whatever he makes is not to be judged by us poor creations, but only to be inspired by. That would be a religious point of view anyway.
And I’m pretty sure the mother definitely does not ‘make’ the man as we make art. It’s mostly a product of ‘accident’ or ‘chance’.
I think that both DaVinci and Shakespeare didn’t see art in man, they saw inspiration, and made it into art through their minds and hands.
The fact that the mother cry doesn’t make it art in my opinion, I hope we don’t confuse emotion with art. Otherwise a bad breakup would be considered art… hahahah
By the way, I don’t see the purpose of man, so can’t say that it works in form or function, I know that it works somehow. But could it be better? Depends on what it was created for, I actually believed it was created by chance and not even God, so I wouldn’t say that man is a work of Art by Chance. But that’s another discussion, and religion is a dangerous one! :-)
By the way, what are the definitions we’ve put forth? To see if we’re all in the same page.
p.s.: I apologize for writing so much, but I tend to get excited by these kinds of discussions. I am trully moved by these conversations, and for me, they are true works of art!!
Well… it seems we’re getting into an interesting discussion on intent. But I agree we should define art first. At least according to our 21st. century minds, former and future generations may see it differently.
We’re very concentrated on the concept and the link between work and observer. But I deeply agree the human element is what makes art what it is. Other objects may be beautiful or inspiring, but not art…
I think Ad Reinhart said it better in his “Art as Art” text.
Great perspectives once again, Renan.
You know, after nearing sixty comments, I too, am fuzzy on where we all stand. As I mentioned a comment ago about the equation, I think that art is defined through a combination of elements, that given the varying degrees in which they are applied is not necessary. I think that perhaps, for us as humans to define this concept of art, it has to at least satisfy two areas of the equation.
Intent + Viewer Connectivity (i.e. catalyst, or interpretation response) / Time (i.e. the ability of either the intent or connection to be sustained over time) = art.
Also as discussed above, I separate ‘art’ from ‘Art’. One is subjective and one is not. see some of Eric’s first comments for a full rundown on that. :D
I would have to agree with, Eric. While intent can play a part, as we lose the ability to find out what the artist’s intentions were, we would effectively lose the ‘art’. Would we not? So I see this again, as a part of an equation that comes to ‘define’ ‘art’.
Wouldn’t intuition come in as part of the perception of art?
Sure it could, but that would imply that we just know art when we see it. Rather impulsively, which is fine, but we’re looking deeper at why we have that reaction. What, in our minds, defines art? What criteria do we subconsciously store that lets us know when we see it? Is it merely because we see something and know that is how it was intended? I would say that would open the door to a lot of work that I feel lacks heart, connectivity, passion and so forth being fit in the same heading as something so powerful that it stirs tears in me as I study it. Which is fine.
We discussed early on how there should be degrees and levels, but I find that mere intent alone leaves a bit of a flat spectrum in which to play. Also I think it would rule out pieces that I would feel belong under this heading. Like art created by children who may not comprehend what we are discussing and dismissing here, but who would have a place as artists. Even though, their intent was not clear to perhaps even them.
…or am I overthinking it? ;)
Thanks, Rob, for your supportive comments. We do seem to be having a little difficulty defining exactly what we are referring to when we use the term ‘Art,’ but then I think that was to some extent where the conversation began.
I see where you are going with your mathematical equation, but I don’t know that the formula can be that simple… but I’m not a math student, so what do I know? lol.
Intent in a work of art (in a piece, not in concept alone) must should play a part but leaving it at intent alone would, as you said, lose the art as we lost the intent. It has to be more than mere intent, but I think it is more than just viewer connectivity as well. I don’t know that art can be objective (see previous comments). There has to be an emotional component to it as well, that spark of inspiration, seeing into the higher plane, being moved, perhaps even the intuition Ovidio mentioned, etc.
Time also plays an interesting factor. As society changes (evolves?), intents and connections can be seen in different ways. What DiVinci may have intended back in the day, even in equal terms, may mean something different today. There are also language and cultural barriers that can adjust our perception (a Lift in England is an Elevator in the US). These perceptions, based on how this mathematical formula, have to be taken into account especially across time.
But without dragging this debate into a lesson on needing to know history in order to appreciate the present, or a work in context (that’s what Art History is for), I think we are on a roll with this discussion. Keep it up… I’m greatly enjoying this.
When does the book get published? lol
There is another point of view, I think. And that is when we appreciate the craftmanship of a specific work, be it a painting, a building or a musical instrument. This is very Classical in nature, since “Art” is a combination of intent, connectivity and craft.
So are you saying that the appreciation of the craftsmanship, bestows the title, because I would consider that the same as when it connects with someone. That catalyst wherein we are moved by it, I would see this as the foundation for that appreciation. Perhaps I am looking at it wrong.
This is a hard question,I think different people have different answers.For my,art brings good things to human beings.
I understand, but I think that would be a bit broad criteria. For instance, if a friend brought me a gift, that would make them art by this definition, would it not?
I think craft is not the definitive element, but it definitely is essential in art. Even the way a theory is crafted…
I agree. It is essential.
I thought you guys might be interested in this:
http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/09/the-difference-between-art-and-design/
It’s the same subject, some things are even the same as we discussed. But it’s pretty concise and he points out a few interesting new ideas to our discussion here.
Very good link. Thanks for sharing!
what is one soul is art.
Could you elaborate, rich?
Nice. Thank you very much.
It’s amazing how complex trying to define art is, like trying to describe love. Maybe it’s indefinable because it is such a personal experience. I sometimes wonder whether art isn’t that thing that transcends time and space. It’s the experience of time flying by without us knowing and a journey into our deepest consciousness. Perhaps art is a reflection of who we are.
Take care,
Guy
Very well said! Thank you.
Very well put, Guy. So would you say that art is only definable by the individual or would you say that there would exist a secondary broader societal define also that certain work could be applied with? It seems to happen regardless, but I guess I am asking if you would completely discount this definition.
Also, that would only allow an individual to define the art, so when that person dies or is no longer exposed to the art, does it then cease to be art? Does the person’s perspective who saw it that way linger with the piece that can then say influence others? Wow, the questions just keep coming.
So anyway, I love how you put it, and I hope to hear your thoughts on the further queries as well.
Very interesting article, and some good comments too… Really gives you a lot to think about as an artist…. Very inspirering, thank you very much :-)
As Descartes said, I think therefore I am. Art is of intangible existence the moment it provokes a thought process pertaining the subject matter. The artist’s intentions while painting are objective, as he is painting the reality he perceives with each stroke. Reality takes the backseat and art evolves when time is factored in. Similarly when the artist looks back in retrospect at the painting, it now it becomes subjective to him, and therefore is art. Reality is art the moment the image is captured by our eyes and interpreted through our cognition. My opinion is that when we die, art dies if we seize to think. To think is to exist, therefore the absence of thought should logically lead to the incapacity of interpreting subject matter. My interpretation of art is unique to me and no one else can share the same, without at the least, a subtle nuance. Interpretations of art constantly evolve and will obliterate upon death. But art will always exists as long as in the minds of those who are still of existence and capable of evoking a reaction to the same subject matter. Art is not relative as there is no such thing as less of an art, being subjective to the interpreter. Grading a work of art thus is not accurate. Do you agree with this?
Very well put and very interesting thought. I enjoyed your implied idea that the intangible vision of Art from when it first enters the mind is one form of art and then art as it is cognitively processed and physically manifested is another.
I agree that Art (as a concept) is entirely subjective and this individual definition then will cease (in a physical sense) with the individual. I don’t know that I agree with your statement that “art is not relative.” I see your point and I am still mulling this over, but based on previous posts I think our definitions are subjective and therefore art (in work), and Art (in concept), are both relative.
I will, however, agree that grading a work, because of our individual interpretations, is inaccurrate. What is Art to the artist who created it may not be Art to a critic. This is what makes “Art School” a difficult concept.
Our notion of art varies in time. That is, what is art now may not be in many years from now and certainly would not have been two centuries ago, when academies and scholars had a definition to what was art and could point something as being or not according to standards they had. that i what i wanted to show but Renan is more Fast than i.
Well said. And a very interesting point.
Great Post! Thanks a lot. Lanjutkan :D
I Love This. Thank u very much.
Nice piece Rob! I love this discussion the different views on art…
For me Art is an experience.. a belief… a feeling a person puts down on canvas. It is a way to connect your feelings and your thoughts to your own self. My paintings are my experiences with life, my art is a gentle fondle of my soul. It does not have a verbal interpretation.. it is a silent sentinel to the doors of my experience.
Interpretation is not exactly Art. It is the the sole domain of the viewer and his/her ability to view his experiences , his feelings in “your” art.
Mark you are so right in saying grading art is inaccurate. No feeling , no experience has ever been inaccurate neither is any interpretation inaccurate. No Art could never be inaccurate.
Very well put, Riti.
“It is a way to connect your feelings and your thoughts to your own self.” A very well-stated concept.
Hi Rob, tough question you got here. I think many freelance designers have major issues on this, like how do they define work as art from a paid design work? It’s like a case where beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. What’s art for you may look like trash for others. I guess, art is more subjective than objective and though there are standards to judge an art work, it is totally unfair to say something isn’t art at all. When art is a creation of a person’s imagination, it’s really hard to say what’s art and what’s not. No tow persons can imagine the same thing.
A very interesting article on this topic over at Smashing Magazine. http://bit.ly/bSu1TB