"Art is art"
"That doesn't make sense"
My friend laughed. "Ok, any action that is you expressing yourself is art"
"what?"
"yeah, art is expressing yourself right?"
"Well it is not only expressing yourself that makes art... art. You know, art requires a level of creativity. It kind of requires a level of effort."
"So, if I move my arm, it takes effort"
"...right"
"And you could argue that I am expressing myself, right?"
"..."
"so..?"
"you got me there, and it is also kind of creative"
"So, almost anything can be art"
"I guess... I am not sure though, it doesn't feel right"
What is art?
And by it I mean not the performance of a discipline, like: the art of running. But rather... that something else; the thing that if I could describe right now, would render this post entry pointless.
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, art ( the one I'm looking to define ) is "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects". To me it appears that, the difference between the art of running and making a piece of art, is the second requirement in Webster's definition: [ the use of ] creative imagination. It is clear that running exercises ( no pun intended ) the conscious use of skill, but I fail to see how it requires imagination, at least a significant amount. You don't need to be a creative think tank to run. It is not an indispensable part of the activity.
Perhaps it is the third requirement that creates all the ambiguity. "the production of aesthetic objects". Objects? But what about dancing? Or performance? Surely then, either "objects" is used in a very abstract sense ( one I might not be aware of ), or "objects" is not the right word. Perhaps product better fits our definition.
As I was sharing my reflections with a friend, he mentioned that he believed anything could be art. This stopped me in my tracks, because everything entails things that are not created by someone. I was always taking into assumption that behind a piece of art there is a creator. Can the artist and the art exists separately?
Well, according to Merriam-Webster, art requires skill and creativity. While I guess natural processes seem skilled and creative, but I don't think should assume nature operates consciously.
Another opinion I took into account was the one of an AP art history class. The opinion of the artist was a perspective I was yet to explore. The students had written down a series of keywords that they identified art with. "Purpose", "purest form of expression", and "expressing yourself" were common theme words between the students. Art is in essence, communication. However, it seems that it means creative expression. A student writes:
"[ it ] is art if the artist who made it had intent in conveying an idea, theme, or opinion through their work. When it doesn’t have an intent and is just scribbles on a paper without meaning or purpose is when something no longer is art to me and is just a scribble".
This brought up other questions, for example: is a scientific drawing art? Sure it takes skill (and conscious use of it), it creates something aesthetic, whether requires creativity is debatable, but it is surely not a form of self expression. A scientific drawing is just a representation of reality for academic purposes. Similar cases could be made for portraits or ID photos.
It is important to note that the student was very ambiguous with the use of the word intent. One thing we can at least surely drive from the definition is that art requires intention. Whether in self expression or just expression of any other kind ( be it academic or otherwise ) art is done deliberately. This is something, I think, I agree with. I do not think things can be art on the virtue of merely existing. There has to be purpose behind a piece, "intention" as the student words it. The thing from intention is that it is given, and something that is deliberately given needs a giver. By agreeing that art requires intention, we discard the proposed notion that anything ( included things that are not created, e.i with no creator) are art.
I looked back at my notes before I finished this post entry:
I realized that I had not really reached a satisfactory conclusion, and to be honest, I don't really want one. This was a really interesting and thought provoking topic. I really hope the discussion continues in the comments.
Thoughts?
Atlas.
Comments