Sat. Aug 04, 2001
What is Art?
What is Art? – In his recent moosive, um, I mean missive in which the Talking Moose expounds on how managers might fare better by treating their programmers as ”software artists,” he’s sparked a sidebar debate that I doubt he intended. A debate that has raged quite a bit this century, particularly with regards to photography. What is ”art”? Merriam Webster has definitions of the many applications of the word ’art,” but this is the one I think is applicable: ”the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced.”
That’s the professionally objective definition, of course, of little use to us here. We’re picking far smaller nits, gathering some of the recent opinions that have been offered, and it may take some time. Read on at your discretion …
Brent Simmons may be responsible for starting this sidebar debate. In response to the Moose, he explains that he falls into the more tradionalist view of art being limited to the mediums of ”literature, painting, sculpture, music, and architecture” ... we’re still waiting for word on photography. After 150 years. Is this a Network Solutions deal?
Brent says: ”The word ”art” was formerly reserved for creative expression of a type fundamentally different from software, cooking, cabinetry, home decorating, and so on. The greatest possible work of software can’t move a person the way Hamlet does. In deciding that software is art, we forget about that distinction. We forget what Hamlet can do; we lose the capacity to appreciate art. Art is flattened to its lowest common denominator. Then art is gone.”
I respect the concept that ”art” should be reserved for true accomplishments, and not passed out indescriminately like Mardi Gras beads. But the traditionalist judgement is no sure barometer; for every ”Hamlet,” there’s a ”Grease 2.” I cannot tell you the number of times I’ve looked at a painting or photo on a respected gallery wall and wondered, why is that here? Limiting ”art” to certain mediums does not raise the bar, nor does applying it to a wide range of mediums lower the bar. It’s not about the medium. It’s about the expression, and the manner in which it connects with its audience. Even an audience of one.
The debate draws more moths to the flame. Garret says: ”the fundamental difference between art and programming is that you don’t have to have a reason to create art. it never has to serve a purpose, never has to ’function.’ it doesn’t have to mean anything to anyone else but yourself. most artists create because it is like breathing; not to create is to die.”
I strongly agree with the kernel here, but art lives in reality. It always has. Artists face the reality of keeping meat on their bones. The starving artist lifestyle is highly overrated. Artistic skills have always been ”repurposed” for the sake of commerce, even if only in the eye of the creator. Countless humans have gazed in wonder at the art on the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel, but to Michaelangelo, it was laborious commerce. He considered himself a sculptor, and did painting to make money (even wrote to a friend during the time he worked on his back daily painting, ”I am in a bad bad place”). He made commerce, did not enjoy doing it, and everyone since has considered it great art.
This sentiment is sadly echoed by Pablo Picasso: ”The ’refined’, the ’rich, the professional do nothing’, the ’distiller of quintessence’ desire only the peculiar, and sensational, the eccentric, the scandalous is today’s art. And I myself, since the advent of cubism, have fed these fellows what they wanted and satisfied these critics with all the ridiculous ideas that have passed through my head. The less they understood, the more they have admired me! ... Today, as you know, I am celebrated, I am rich. But when I am alone, I do not have the effrontery to consider myself an artist at all, not in the grand meaning of the word. ...I am only a public clown, a mountebank. I have understood my time and exploited the imbecility, the vanity, the greed of my contemporaries. It is a bitter confession, this confession of mine, more painful than it may seem. But, at least, and at last, it does have the merit of being honest.”
So, when it comes to defining art, whose opinion matters? The creator’s or the audience’s? Pat brings us a little closer: ”I feel pretty sure some programming is an artistic accomplishment; I also feel reasonably sure some paintings or sculptures are not.” And Noah brings it home: ”Of course, being a programmer and an artist must be mutually exclusive, then.cough”
It seems there are lots of opinions, eh? Ranging from very strict traditional interpretations, to contradictory opinions by the creators themselves, to folks who cover themselves in chocolate marshmellows, lay in a vat of vanilla pudding, and call it art. I feel almost remiss not to bring up the ”art – that – matches – the – couch – Velvet – Elvis” dimension of this topic, but this is long enough already.
The evidence is clear. Art is … the … most … subjective … thing … on this planet. One man’s art is another man’s paint tarp. I consider the Audi TT an automotive work of art. For you, it might be a ’66 Corvette. No, it isn’t Hamlet, but it moves me nonetheless. It is, in my singularly unique aethestic judgement, the finest modern expression of that medium. I’ve never driven one, likely never will, because that’s almost beside the point. Its beauty transcends its functionality, and to me, that makes it art.
In my mind, you cannot limit art to specific mediums and/or specific tools. That’s somewhat elitist. My personal definition of art is far more of the peasant world. Art is a creative expression that was done solely to please the person who created it. Others may like it, love it, even want to pay money for it, but that is not the reason it was created. It has freestanding success as a piece of art if it has caused an inner smile in the creator because of the creative expression that has been captured. Even if no one else ever lays eyes on it.
Yes, it doesn’t have to appear in a recognized art gallery. How can we make that the definition of art, when it is in fact the definition of commerce? An artist is lucky to keep 30-35% of a piece’s sale price, for their hours of sweat and piece of soul, while the gallery makes a much larger profit, for the brief rental of a few square feet of latex covered drywall.
Art has to come from inside, not from any external demand. It may come out as a blueprint, a painting, a song, a photo, or simply an idea for a process. The only defining factor is that at some point in the process, or at its completion, the creator experiences what I can only describe as a sort of Zen like hum of harmony, something a level above, ”that’s it.”
It’s hard to explain unless you’ve felt it. It’s not experienced often, either. But that’s art. It’s a feeling from inside when you look at something (or hear it), or create something, not what someone else tells you. No matter what they say.
Or in this case, how long it takes them to say it.
Published 12:15PM, Sat, Aug 04 2001
Category: Art
Previous: «« Remembering Ansel ««
Next: »» New 'Ho on da Block »»
Peanut Gallery
A good conundrum indeed. But I would argue, if you are indeed blown away by them, isn't that all the answer you need? If you consider yourself visually literate, and you are moved, isn't that judgement enough, with no other precondition or external reference? Can there be art without intent? Yes. I think often art happens because of the way a person goes about doing things, living their lives, the ritual modus operandi that greatly defines a character. They do because they have no other choice. As Robert Rauschenburg said, "I don't think of myself as making art. I do what I do because I want to, because painting is the best way I've found to get along with myself." And then there's the simple crux of discovery, when a "hobbyist" becomes an "artist"; prior to their intent to be an artist, when they were "just dabbling," what were they creating? I would argue it was art, despite the fact at the time of its creation, they did not consider themselves an artist. Some people never do, like your supposed Auntie Liebovitz. Can there be art without training? Most definitely. The "art world" is rife with examples of self taught artists, from Grandma Moses to Reverend Howard Finster. Hell, in my first quarter photo class, I watched a girl unpack her very first camera, a nice new Nikon. The next day, and every day thereafter, she blew us all away in reviews. She had an innate ability to recognize and create stunning light and compositions. It was there before the camera was. Pissed us all off greatly. My view of art is obviously rather liberal. But it still comes back to that common thread, "I know art when I see it, and that ain't it." And you should never let an assistant know they've convinced you of anything. Next thing you know, they'll be asking for a raise. Damned creative types.
my take exactly, only much more eloquently put. it is fun to have this conversation with non-creatives. it tends to wake them up to a new way of looking at 'art.' as for my assistants ... well, they went on to raise hell in the art world, rather than in corporate video production. as 'edgy' as i liked to keep it, it wasn't edgy enough for them. ah, to be young and freelance ...
An art history teacher of mine related the following anecdote: in college, he went to a Dada retrospective and found that, at first glance, none of it made any sense to him. In fact, it left him completely cold. But he really wanted to understand what, if anything, the artists were trying to say, so he went through the entire gallery again, making a conscious effort to appreciate every piece on its own terms. He was working his way along one wall of the gallery this way, pausing for several minutes in front of each piece, when he came to one he hadn't noticed before. It was a fire extinguisher. He tried to look at the fire extinguisher as if he'd never seen one before in his life. He studied its curves, its color. He read the instructions printed on the side. He thought about how its form followed function. He felt like he was really getting somewhere. It was at this point that he realized it wasn't part of the exhibit at all--it was a real, regulation fire extinguisher, put there in case the gallery caught fire. The point is that the art on the walls had caused him to really think about an ordinary, everyday, functional object in a new way. As he constantly reminded his students, "Art is artifice." It's a creation of the mind and the hand. It can be abstract or concrete, expressionist or representational, functional or purely decorative, intentional or unintentional. It can be any mixture of these various elements. That's not to say that we don't all have different taste in art, or that some art isn't, for whatever reason, more universally appreciated than other art. But there's art and beauty all around us, often in the most unexpected places.
o lookie here. Art "is" whatever people who call themselves artists do. Just like poetry "is" whatever people who call themselves poets write. So some people act out and call it performance art. And some people write chopped prose and call it poetry. Eye of the beholder stuff.
An Assistant prof said: "A work becomes art ony when it is shared...then imitated....then identified as original... is assayed and has a frame around it.... Now shut up and copy that matisse" I took my board outside,, squeezed a few tubes of kit oilpaint into it, drove over it with my car several times... outlined some spots in india ink and submitted. Got a blue ribbon on that work and an 'F' in the course. Been shooting pictures ever since.
Recent Comments
- Stanley (Is That Really Amish?)
- John (Falcons Explode Expectations)
- mark (Is That Really Amish?)
- Jessica (Is That Really Amish?)
- Reid (Grandpa is Once Again Astounded By The Interwebs)
- elburro (Grandpa is Once Again Astounded By The Interwebs)
ReidStott.com
Photography
by Reid Stott
A decade of web design experience. Two decades of photography experience. All available to you, and your project. View my portfolio online, then let's talk about your needs.ReidStott.com
my favorite conundrum: your great aunt has a point-and-shoot camera. she shows you some pictures she took. the first few on the roll, the usual out-of-focus shots of a bra strap, a blurry lamp, and a windowsill. or a blob of burred cat, with a partially-focused eye. she never intended them to be anything, indeed she may even intend to throw them away. but you look at them and are blown away. are those pictures 'art?' [my assistants and i used to have this argument all the time. can there be art without intent? without training? i'd forgotten this whole thread of thought. i eventually came around to their viewpoint. what do you think? your answer, as you have noted, will be totally subjective.]