After being told by an art dealer that art is “anything that moves you”, a friend of mine once quipped, “Well, stepping in a pile of shit moves me, but I don’t call that art.”
The art dealer’s defintion was too broad. Art is often seen to be without definition, something completely subjective and outside of the realm of quantification, but to my mind real art is anything that has been created with the express purpose of generating emotion in an observer.
Pure art bypasses reason and appeals directly to the brain’s emotional centres. It is an attempt by the artist to generate emotion in the observer, and the “quality” of the art is a measure of its effectiveness at doing just this. Of course, a work of art generates emotion in different people to varying degrees and in different ways depending on their own perspectives and life experiences, thus each person perceives art subjectively and personally. But in the end it is irrelevant how successful something is at generating emotion; the critical point is whether or not it was created with the intention of doing so.
No one would deny that blown glass is art. But what does such a piece of work communicate? What does it say? “I’m made of glass”? No. It communicates virtually nothing — there is no message –, but despite being essentially voiceless it is still capable of evoking certain specific emotions: those of awe, respect, and admiration, or conversely disgust, disrespect, and pitty if the observer feels it falls short of the mark. Whereas other forms of art — abstract painting, prose, music, film, etc. — are capable of communicating or instilling the full gamut of human emotions.
As such, I believe it is correct to say that there are two different categories of art. Both categories evoke emotion, but they go about it in different ways. One category of art is constructed in such a way as to deliver a specific emotional payload to the observer (i.e. transmitting a message), and the other category relies on the observer generating their own emotional reaction based purely on the quality of the art. The distinction is subtle, but I think it is real. In the case of the former, typical descriptions of their effect on the observer are “It makes me feel sad/joyous/angry/depressed/anxious,” etc. In the case of the latter, typical reactions are those such as “It’s beautiful/perfect/gorgeous/incredible/amazing.” Note the differing qualities of the adjectives used in each of these instances. Technical (quality-based) art evokes adjectives descriptive of the art itself (and thereby the skill of the artist), whereas “message” art evokes adjectives descriptive of a deeper connection to the emotional state of the observer.
I was driving with my mom about two years ago and we picked up a hitchhiker. The woman went on about how she was an artist. My mom said something about some prints she owned. The woman said, “Prints aren’t ART! They’re a reproduction. Blah blah blah.”
In the course of the drive she told my mom that she had some paintings available for sale in her car, which was waiting in the grocery store parking lot for some reason. When we got there to drop her off, she showed us those paintings. The woman was a Robert Bateman wannabe.
I thought her arrogance in defining art was unjustified, and seeing what she considered “real” art only underscored that. I’m not willing to say that her paintings of wolves and … I don’t remember, bears, and meerkats and caribou … were not art. But neither should she have said prints aren’t art.
I am reminded of a Kids in the Hall sketch, where a woman was on a daytime talk show pushing her $1500 hat, which was a railroad spike driven through the head of the wearer. The ubiquitous drunken Maple Leafs fan from the audience said, “Well, it’s not couture, is it? I could go down to the railroad track, get a spike and drive it through my own head for free.”
Anyhoo … no offense, but I think defining art is a fruitless endeavour. Everyone has their own opinion and none of them can be disproved. There is no objective measure of what is or is not art. So if someone says it’s art … it’s art, in my opinion. It’s a question of semantics. I think your definition is no better or worse than others I’ve seen, but rather than asking the question, “Is it art?” Maybe we should be asking the question (to follow your lead), “Does it invoke an emotional response?” After all, lots of stuff that was intended to evoke emotion completely fails to do so, in my experience. Contrariwise, some things which were never intended to evoke emotion have done so quite well. If it evokes emotion, does it matter if it’s called art? If it is elegantly executed, does it matter if it is called art?
Maybe we should spend less time on art projects qua art projects, and more time bringing art into our commonplace, quotidian existence.
That is my pragmatic view of art.
Philistine 😉
Did you pick the quotes that come up?
Also, is there an area where I can post general stuff about the site, such as the preceding question, and this one?
Yes, the quotes you see are ones that I have collected over the years, particularly during the years that I was learning about Libertarianism which explains the political bent that a lot of them have. Unfortunately I don’t have attributions for all of them. Many were picked up from sigs and such.
It’s a WordPress plug-in called, strangely enough, “Quotes Collection”. Unfortunately there is no way to import quotes from a file, so you have to tediously enter each one.
As for whether there is a place for general comments or questions, the answer is ‘No’. However, I’m sure there is a plug-in that would allow comments on a static “General questions & comments” page. I’ll look into that; it’s a good idea.
what is art re the Bateman question has long been a debate in the art world.
He is very talented and his son even more so but the arguemnt has been – is it art if it comes from a photograph?
Bateman and many, many well know high priced artist take hundreds of photos, project them onto canvas and ‘paint’ them. I have many friends that do likewise. Many colleges teach this and also teach the grid system
a good technical way to learn
take what you will from that….
I prefer, no grids, projectors and rulers …but in the end you will put on your wall what YOU like, doesn’t matter what anybody thinks…good art? perhaps it is the art you remember…left an impression, after many art shows you come home and you cannot remember one painting but sometimes you actually remember one, again, who cares- if you want to put up a velvet painting of a bullfight..hey….the definition art is left hanging but you are happy