Replies: 45 Comments
on Saturday, September 2nd, lana deym campbell said
Art from the beginning of time was always about religion, that is, art was about the deep philosophical perspective of a tribe, or later of an individual, that was held about the truth of the human condition in terms of the meaning of life in the greater universal context. Art has always been about philosophy transmitted and communicated through the vision of the artist, whether in dance, music, theater, acting, films, painting, sculpure, or writing. Art has always been about attempting to understand why we are here, what it is all about. Art is about truth and meaning.
Truth is unfortunately influenced by whatever fashions, dogmas, and the culture of the time, but generally there is something that transcends and connects. If we commit to dig deep enough we can access a universal feeling that is true, that can be acknowledged beyond the cultural bias and prejudices of the era. It take time to determine the objective validity of truth. What is fashionable today, is tomorrow despised. There are however certain principles that resonate, such as harmony, unity, rhythm, and symmetry that lend force to whatever work, as they add the grace by which it is delivered. However to confuse these principles alone with art is a mistake, for a curtain or a rug can have these principles, and they do not satisfy emotionally or intellectually, though it may add to visual pleasure, just as does the mind candy of a James Bond film.
Art is concrete philosophy, in whatever form it is delivered.
on Friday, September 1st, Rhonda Watson said
What is Art?
Funny but I've pondered that question many times. I finally have an answer that defines it to me:
Art is the attempt to convey one's thoughts, feelings, ideas, perceptions, fantasies, passions and/or idealologies into a form that can be shared and seen by another.
I think it's the ultimate attempt to allow others to view the world from our perspective.
Thus, all art is acceptable and commendable.
on Friday, September 1st, Rhonda Watson said
What is Art?
Funny but I've pondered that question many times. I finally have an answer that defines it to me:
Art is the attempt to convey one's thoughts, feelings, ideas, perceptions, fantasies, passions and/or idealologies into a form that can be shared and seen by another.
I think it's the ultimate attempt to allow others to view the world from our perspective.
Thus, all art is acceptable and commendable.
on Tuesday, August 29th, Lynda Lehmann said
Here is my personal response to the question “What is Art?”
WORKS OF ART CREATE NEW RELATIONSHIPS, NEW PARADIGMS, NEW WAYS OF VIEWING THE WORLD. ART CREATES VISION. AT ITS BEST, IT HAS THE POWER TO CREATE HOPE.
In a world torn by political, ethnic and religious conflict, only art has the power to unify, inspire, elevate, and heal. Our institutions make claims on our attitudes and loyalty; it is intrinsic in their nature to direct our energies towards fulfilling their collective goals. They are self-perpetuating. By limiting our perspectives, they often divide us from each other. At the extreme, they may even split us from our deepest and most authentic selves. Though serving in many cases, a positive purpose, institutions are agenda-driven. Thus they may steer us away from self-knowledge and personal responsibility when emphasis on image, hierarchy, dogma or power, overrides more constructive human concerns.
Art, on the other hand, both the making and the viewing of it, encourages us to view the world in new ways, as well as to look into ourselves. A world without art would be intellectually and spiritually barren. Imagination makes all things possible, and art is the most profound outgrowth of the human imagination that is not subservient to external purposes (though of course, there are exceptions). Therefore, even in its all its confusing flux and diversity, art is perhaps the "purest" phenomenon among human endeavors.
On a personal level, the richness and mystery of life have intrigued me since I was a child living in rural Pennsylvania. I reveled in the sensuous beauty of forests and rolling hills. My childlike kinesthetic joy eventually developed into an appreciation of form. Playing in the shadows under the sweet fronds of a cornfield, climbing trees as imposing as cathedrals, and wading through shimmering streams--all evoked the same pleasure as exploring a favorite playground. Through these early encounters with nature, I learned to love FORM for the pure joy of it!
Then I learned that the omnipresent and serendipitous beauty of the world was expressed in great works of art. From Beethoven symphonies to the paintings of Kandinsky and Klee, exuberance was the payoff, simply for the act of looking (or listening)!
For me, the activity of creating art is an affirmation of life, a consciously nurtured jubilation in the miracle of form at all levels of the universe. The interrelationship among forms and organisms reveals itself at every level of nature. Each level of organization, from the atomic to the cellular level, through tissues and organs, and up through the level of organisms and species, is at once a microcosm and a macrocosm to the levels above and below it. I think it is this profound organization and similarity in form and function at every level of nature, this brilliantly-orchestrated unity-in-diversity, that makes natural objects like flowers, seashells and fractals appealing to so many people. It's not strictly the beauty expressed by the object, but also the relationship of its form to the greater "FORM" in nature, to the cosmic "WHOLE," that implies something much more profound and far-reaching than a single moment of beauty. When something refers to eternity, evokes the infinite, we feel inspired, whether or not we tie those feelings to any specific view of God.
Something transcendent happens, in my opinion, when the image of an object, pattern, or scene refers to another form or aspect of nature. A quality of ambiguity or mystery calls up a crossover between forms at different levels of reality. (An example would be a leaf, for instance, rendered in such a way that it resembles tongues of flame as much as a leaf.) It also blurs the line we draw between "organic" and "inorganic," as well as other intellectual distinctions and dichotomies that we use to define (and fragment) our perception of the world. For me, the experience of mystery confers a feeling of elation based on the complex web of interrelationship on this planet and in the universe. Pure joy.
One of my favorite books is The Lives of a Cell: Notes of a Biology Watcher, by Lewis Thomas, M.D. In this 1978 bestseller, Dr. Thomas outlines similarities in structure and function at ascending levels of organization, from the cellular level to the level of species, and beyond. To me, these intersections of form and function bring up a paradigm of interrelatedness, the All-is-One feeling of Zen. Or Freud's "oceanic" feeling, if you will. Why do certain principles govern the cosmos in a way that is expressible by both mathematical formulae, the rules of physics, while being yet perceivable in some intuitive way, to the human eye?
The quality we call "beauty" is inherent in every inch of the visible universe, as well as at levels too small or large to be apparent to the naked eye (i.e. both the microscopic and telescopic levels). So why would I necessarily paint a "picture," a scene with the recognizable and familiar spatial and thematic elements of our everyday world, when I can just as readily, and perhaps with more purity of concentration and perception, find magic in a shred of tree bark or the contour of an ocean wave? The act of painting a recognizable scene is just as limiting to me as it may be exciting to someone else. And the camera, of course, can do the job of realistic portrayal much better than I.
Robert Henri said, "The object of painting a picture is not to make a picture--however unreasonable this may sound. The picture, if a picture results, is a by-product and may be useful, valuable, interesting as a sign of what has passed. The object which is back of every true work of art, is the attainment of a state of being, a state of high functioning, a more than ordinary moment of existence."
TRADITIONAL VERSUS ABSTRACT
A traditional "picture" is content-reliant, representing a single viewpoint at a particular moment in time. In it's beauty or mystery it may imply or evoke universal mysteries, the way Mona Lisa's smile is at once provocative and timeless. But for me, art that confronts the unknown, looks at the non-visible, or explores visual and existential relationships just for the experience of it, is more vital. For example, an autumn, 2003 show of four women at the Nassau County Art Museum featured Louise Nevelson, Mary Cassatt, Georgia O'Keefe, and Helen Frankenthaler. An overarching truth for me was that although Mary Cassatt's drawings and paintings of women and children were beautifully done, they were just "renderings" when compared with the effusive and exuberant non-objective works of Helen Frankenthaler. One sort of art is a rendering, the other a creation.
This is the kind of art I prefer. Representation is best achieved by the camera. For academic purposes, a study may be enlightening. But for me, the term "creation" reaches deeper into the artist's psyche, and deeper into the viewer's psyche to elicit her reaction. Non-representational art allows the artist to break new ground in exploring his/her psyche vis-à-vis the truths of the human experience. The "rendering," on the one hand, is merely pleasing, offering both the artist and the viewer a level of psychic satisfaction. But a "creation" requires the courage to see the subject in a visually exciting and intellectually challenging new way.
To those who say that an artist’s disobedience to the strict, academic “reality” of a scene or object is a perverse tendency indicative of a lack of skill that he or she is compensating for by imprecision or distortion, I say: You’re missing the point! God gave each human being imagination, subjectivity, and a different perceptual scheme because he wanted to create a world of free will, a world with infinite potentials, where all possibilities can unfold. Art can have spark, spawn new ways of thinking, move and inspire us, whether it is representational or non-objective.
on Tuesday, August 8th, josé said
Brilliant contribution Gary!
on Thursday, August 3rd, Gary said
What is Art?
Art is communication.
I tell my students that there is a very fine line between insanity and art.
If you see me laughing down the street by myself you might say I am insane, but if in turn I write the joke I am thinking and make you laugh you may call me a writer.
If I have great images in my mind, but never put them into any media and share them with the world then I am another nut, but if not only I lay them on paper or canvas and transmits to you the emotion that brought the image to my mind the I am a good artist; because I made you feel through my Images or through any other means at my disposal.
Therefore I am one that believes that art is the ability to communicate an idea, an emotion, or a state of mind, besides sharing images. For images with out emotion can transport us, but art makes us feel. It gets us in touch with our own Humanity. A great artist will not only make us feel he will affect us profoundly leaving a lasting impression in our own mind. Art is the craft of touching someone’s soul. Therefore Art is communication.
on Thursday, August 3rd, Gary said
"What Is Art?" (excerpts)
by Leo Tolstoy
Editor's Note: This essay (originally published in 1896) and the translation by Alymer Maude (first published in 1899) are in the public domain and may be freely reproduced.
About the Author: Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910), although best known for his literary works, also wrote various essays on art, history, and religion.
The discussion questions, bibliographic references, and hyperlinks have been added by Julie Van Camp. (Copyright Julie C. Van Camp 1997) They too may be freely reproduced, so long as this complete citation is included with any such reproductions.
Paragraph numbering below has been added to facilitate class discussion. It was not included in the original text.
[DISCUSSION QUESTIONS] [BIBLIOGRAPHY]
CHAPTER FIVE (excerpts)
. . .
#1. In order correctly to define art, it is necessary, first of all, to cease to consider it as a means to pleasure and to consider it as one of the conditions of human life. Viewing it in this way we cannot fail to observe that art is one of the means of intercourse between man and man.
#2. Every work of art causes the receiver to enter into a certain kind of relationship both with him who produced, or is producing, the art, and with all those who, simultaneously, previously, or subsequently, receive the same artistic impression.
#3. Speech, transmitting the thoughts and experiences of men, serves as a means of union among them, and art acts in a similar manner. The peculiarity of this latter means of intercourse, distinguishing it from intercourse by means of words, consists in this, that whereas by words a man transmits his thoughts to another, by means of art he transmits his feelings.
#4. The activity of art is based on the fact that a man, receiving through his sense of hearing or sight another man's expression of feeling, is capable of experiencing the emotion which moved the man who expressed it. To take the simplest example; one man laughs, and another who hears becomes merry; or a man weeps, and another who hears feels sorrow. A man is excited or irritated, and another man seeing him comes to a similar state of mind. By his movements or by the sounds of his voice, a man expresses courage and determination or sadness and calmness, and this state of mind passes on to others. A man suffers, expressing his sufferings by groans and spasms, and this suffering transmits itself to other people; a man expresses his feeling of admiration, devotion, fear, respect, or love to certain objects, persons, or phenomena, and others are infected by the same feelings of admiration, devotion, fear, respect, or love to the same objects, persons, and phenomena.
#5. And it is upon this capacity of man to receive another man's expression of feeling and experience those feelings himself, that the activity of art is based.
#6. If a man infects another or others directly, immediately, by his appearance or by the sounds he gives vent to at the very time he experiences the feeling; if he causes another man to yawn when he himself cannot help yawning, or to laugh or cry when he himself is obliged to laugh or cry, or to suffer when he himself is suffering - that does not amount to art.
#7. Art begins when one person, with the object of joining another or others to himself in one and the same feeling, expresses that feeling by certain external indications. To take the simplest example: a boy, having experienced, let us say, fear on encountering a wolf, relates that encounter; and, in order to evoke in others the feeling he has experienced, describes himself, his condition before the encounter, the surroundings, the woods, his own lightheartedness, and then the wolf's appearance, its movements, the distance between himself and the wolf, etc. All this, if only the boy, when telling the story, again experiences the feelings he had lived through and infects the hearers and compels them to feel what the narrator had experienced is art. If even the boy had not seen a wolf but had frequently been afraid of one, and if, wishing to evoke in others the fear he had felt, he invented an encounter with a wolf and recounted it so as to make his hearers share the feelings he experienced when he feared the world, that also would be art. And just in the same way it is art if a man, having experienced either the fear of suffering or the attraction of enjoyment (whether in reality or in imagination) expresses these feelings on canvas or in marble so that others are infected by them. And it is also art if a man feels or imagines to himself feelings of delight, gladness, sorrow, despair, courage, or despondency and the transition from one to another of these feelings, and expresses these feelings by sounds so that the hearers are infected by them and experience them as they were experienced by the composer.
#8. The feelings with which the artist infects others may be most various - very strong or very weak, very important or very insignificant, very bad or very good: feelings of love for one's own country, self-devotion and submission to fate or to God expressed in a drama, raptures of lovers described in a novel, feelings of voluptuousness expressed in a picture, courage expressed in a triumphal march, merriment evoked by a dance, humor evoked by a funny story, the feeling of quietness transmitted by an evening landscape or by a lullaby, or the feeling of admiration evoked by a beautiful arabesque - it is all art.
#9. If only the spectators or auditors are infected by the feelings which the author has felt, it is art.
#10. To evoke in oneself a feeling one has once experienced, and having evoked it in oneself, then, by means of movements, lines, colors, sounds, or forms expressed in words, so to transmit that feeling that others may experience the same feeling - this is the activity of art.
#11. Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously, by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that other people are infected by these feelings and also experience them.
#12. Art is not, as the metaphysicians say, the manifestation of some mysterious idea of beauty or God; it is not, as the aesthetical physiologists say, a game in which man lets off his excess of stored-up energy; it is not the expression of man's emotions by external signs; it is not the production of pleasing objects; and, above all, it is not pleasure; but it is a means of union among men, joining them together in the same feelings, and indispensable for the life and progress toward well-being of individuals and of humanity.
#13. As, thanks to man's capacity to express thoughts by words, every man may know all that has been done for him in the realms of thought by all humanity before his day, and can in the present, thanks to this capacity to understand the thoughts of others, become a sharer in their activity and can himself hand on to his contemporaries and descendants the thoughts he has assimilated from others, as well as those which have arisen within himself; so, thanks to man's capacity to be infected with the feelings of others by means of art, all that is being lived through by his contemporaries is accessible to him, as well as the feelings experienced by men thousands of years ago, and he has also the possibility of transmitting his own feelings to others.
#14. If people lacked this capacity to receive the thoughts conceived by the men who preceded them and to pass on to others their own thoughts, men would be like wild beasts, or like Kaspar Houser.
#15. And if men lacked this other capacity of being infected by art, people might be almost more savage still, and, above all, more separated from, and more hostile to, one another.
#16. And therefore the activity of art is a most important one, as important as the activity of speech itself and as generally diffused.
#17. We are accustomed to understand art to be only what we hear and see in theaters, concerts, and exhibitions, together with buildings, statues, poems, novels. . . . But all this is but the smallest part of the art by which we communicate with each other in life. All human life is filled with works of art of every kind - from cradlesong, jest, mimicry, the ornamentation of houses, dress, and utensils, up to church services, buildings, monuments, and triumphal processions. It is all artistic activity. So that by art, in the limited sense of the word, we do not mean all human activity transmitting feelings, but only that part which we for some reason select from it and to which we attach special importance.
#18. This special importance has always been given by all men to that part of this activity which transmits feelings flowing from their religious perception, and this small part of art they have specifically called art, attaching to it the full meaning of the word.
#19. That was how man of old -- Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle - looked on art. Thus did the Hebrew prophets and the ancient Christians regard art; thus it was, and still is, understood by the Mohammedans, and thus it still is understood by religious folk among our own peasantry.
#20. Some teachers of mankind - as Plato in his Republic and people such as the primitive Christians, the strict Mohammedans, and the Buddhists -- have gone so far as to repudiate all art.
#21. People viewing art in this way (in contradiction to the prevalent view of today which regards any art as good if only it affords pleasure) considered, and consider, that art (as contrasted with speech, which need not be listened to) is so highly dangerous in its power to infect people against their wills that mankind will lose far less by banishing all art than by tolerating each and every art.
#22. Evidently such people were wrong in repudiating all art, for they denied that which cannot be denied - one of the indispensable means of communication, without which mankind could not exist. But not less wrong are the people of civilized European society of our class and day in favoring any art if it but serves beauty, i.e., gives people pleasure.
#23. Formerly people feared lest among the works of art there might chance to be some causing corruption, and they prohibited art altogether. Now they only fear lest they should be deprived of any enjoyment art can afford, and patronize any art. And I think the last error is much grosser than the first and that its consequences are far more harmful.
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
#24. Art, in our society, has been so perverted that not only has bad art come to be considered good, but even the very perception of what art really is has been lost. In order to be able to speak about the art of our society, it is, therefore, first of all necessary to distinguish art from counterfeit art.
#25. There is one indubitable indication distinguishing real art from its counterfeit, namely, the infectiousness of art. If a man, without exercising effort and without altering his standpoint on reading, hearing, or seeing another man's work, experiences a mental condition which unites him with that man and with other people who also partake of that work of art, then the object evoking that condition is a work of art. And however poetical, realistic, effectful, or interesting a work may be, it is not a work of art if it does not evoke that feeling (quite distinct from all other feelings) of joy and of spiritual union with another (the author) and with others (those who are also infected by it).
#26. It is true that this indication is an internal one, and that there are people who have forgotten what the action of real art is, who expect something else form art (in our society the great majority are in this state), and that therefore such people may mistake for this aesthetic feeling the feeling of diversion and a certain excitement which they receive from counterfeits of art. But though it is impossible to undeceive these people, just as it is impossible to convince a man suffering from "Daltonism" [a type of color blindness] that green is not red, yet, for all that, this indication remains perfectly definite to those whose feeling for art is neither perverted nor atrophied, and it clearly distinguishes the feeling produced by art from all other feelings.
#27. The chief peculiarity of this feeling is that the receiver of a true artistic impression is so united to the artist that he feels as if the work were his own and not someone else's - as if what it expresses were just what he had long been wishing to express. A real work of art destroys, in the consciousness of the receiver, the separation between himself and the artist - not that alone, but also between himself and all whose minds receive this work of art. In this freeing of our personality from its separation and isolation, in this uniting of it with others, lies the chief characteristic and the great attractive force of art.
#28. If a man is infected by the author's condition of soul, if he feels this emotion and this union with others, then the object which has effected this is art; but if there be no such infection, if there be not this union with the author and with others who are moved by the same work - then it is not art. And not only is infection a sure sign of art, but the degree of infectiousness is also the sole measure of excellence in art.
#29. The stronger the infection, the better is the art as art, speaking now apart from its subject matter, i.e., not considering the quality of the feelings it transmits.
#30. And the degree of the infectiousness of art depends on three conditions:
1. On the greater or lesser individuality of the feeling transmitted;
2. on the greater or lesser clearness with which the feeling is transmitted;
3. on the sincerity of the artist, i.e., on the greater or lesser force with which the artist himself feels the emotion he transmits.
#31. The more individual the feeling transmitted the more strongly does it act on the receiver; the more individual the state of soul into which he is transferred, the more pleasure does the receiver obtain, and therefore the more readily and strongly does he join in it.
#32. The clearness of expression assists infection because the receiver, who mingles in consciousness with the author, is the better satisfied the more clearly the feeling is transmitted, which, as it seems to him, he has long known and felt, and for which he has only now found expression.
#33. But most of all is the degree of infectiousness of art increased by the degree of sincerity in the artist. As soon as the spectator, hearer, or reader feels that the artist is infected by his own production, and writes, sings, or plays for himself, and not merely to act on others, this mental condition of the artist infects the receiver; and contrariwise, as soon as the spectator, reader, or hearer feels that the author is not writing, singing, or playing for his own satisfaction - does not himself feel what he wishes to express - but is doing it for him, the receiver, a resistance immediately springs up, and the most individual and the newest feelings and the cleverest technique not only fail to produce any infection but actually repel.
#34. I have mentioned three conditions of contagiousness in art, but they may be all summed up into one, the last, sincerity, i.e., that the artist should be impelled by an inner need to express his feeling. That condition includes the first; for if the artist is sincere he will express the feeling as he experienced it. And as each man is different from everyone else, his feeling will be individual for everyone else; and the more individual it is - the more the artist has drawn it from the depths of his nature - the more sympathetic and sincere will it be. And this same sincerity will impel the artist to find a clear expression of the feeling which he wishes to transmit.
#35. Therefore this third condition - sincerity - is the most important of the three. It is always complied with in peasant art, and this explains why such art always acts so powerfully; but it is a condition almost entirely absent from our upper-class art, which is continually produced by artists actuated by personal aims of covetousness or vanity.
#36. Such are the three conditions which divide art from its counterfeits, and which also decide the quality of every work of art apart from its subject matter.
#37. The absence of any one of these conditions excludes a work form the category of art and relegates it to that of art's counterfeits. If the work does not transmit the artist's peculiarity of feeling and is therefore not individual, if it is unintelligibly expressed, or if it has not proceeded from the author's inner need for expression - it is not a work of art. If all these conditions are present, even in the smallest degree, then the work, even if a weak one, is yet a work of art.
#38. The presence in various degrees of these three conditions - individuality, clearness, and sincerity - decides the merit of a work of art as art, apart from subject matter. All works of art take rank of merit according to the degree in which they fulfill the first, the second, and the third of these conditions. In one the individuality of the feeling transmitted may predominate; in another, clearness of expression; in a third, sincerity; while a fourth may have sincerity and individuality but be deficient in clearness; a fifth, individuality and clearness but less sincerity; and so forth, in all possible degrees and combinations.
#39. Thus is art divided from that which is not art, and thus is the quality of art as art decided, independently of its subject matter, i.e., apart from whether the feelings it transmits are good or bad.
#40. But how are we to define good and bad art with reference to its subject matter?
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. Tolstoy characterizes art in terms of the relationship of the observer/perceiver both to the artist and to others who perceive the work. What is the nature of that relationship?
2. He believes that art is an important condition of human life, as it is used to communicate human feelings or emotions. What are examples of this communication? Precisely how does this communication work, according to Tolstoy? What is needed for successful communication of emotions through art?
3. We communicate our feelings and emotions in ways other than art. What are examples of some of those other ways? What is unusual about the communication through art?
4. This artistic communication uses "external signs," according to Tolstoy (#11). What might be examples of these "signs." How are the "signs" used by artists different from, say, traffic signs or directional arrows in a public building? How is this "communication" with "external signs" different from "expression" with "external signs"? (#12)
5. Art is not about the production of "pleasure," Tolstoy claims. Use the "find" command on your browser (or word-processing program) to search for the passages where he refers to "pleasure." What does he seem to mean by "pleasure"? Is he consistent in these passages in his usage of "pleasure"? What does he seem so hostile to this as a way of understanding art?
6. Tolstoy lists several other proposals for understanding art that he rejects. (#12) Does his proposal seem more compelling than those he rejects? Why?
7. Tolstoy seems to accept a hierarchy in which there is "art" of everyday life and higher art imbued with religious perception (#17-18). Is this a plausible distinction? Is it consistent with distinctions you make? Does it explain the cultural importance of art?
8. Tolstoy discusses Plato's views on art (#19-23). What elements of Plato's view does he consider he? Does he agree with Plato on any of his views on art? With what does he disagree?
9. How does Tolstoy propose that we distinguish "real art" from "counterfeit art" (#24-28)? Is this a workable test? What problems do you see with it? Can you think of counter-examples that would challenge his view of how to make this distinction?
10. Tolstoy uses the test of infectiousness, not only as a descriptive measure for what should count as art, but also as a standard for good art (#28-32). What does he mean by this standard? How does he suggest we apply this test to evaluate art? Is this a useful proposal for evaluating the quality of art? If you disagree with this proposal, how would you challenge it?
11. How does "sincerity" function in Tolstoy's theory? Use the "find" command to consider all the passages where he refers to "sincerity." Is this a useful proposal for understanding and appreciating art? Can we ever be deceived about an artist's sincerity? How would Tolstoy respond to such a concern about deception?
12. Tolstoy values what he calls "peasant art" because of its sincerity (#35). Compare Tolstoy's discussion of "peasant art" with the praise by Clive Bell less than twenty years later of "primitive art" (Art, #16). Is their reasoning similar in any ways? How is it different? Do you think their praise of such art was coincidental?
13. In a brief essay (written shortly before What Is Art?) on short stories by S.T. Semenov, Tolstoy praises the stories using criteria discussed in more detail in his book. Read this essay by clicking here. Compare his discussion of his criteria for good art with the excerpts here from What Is Art? Does this application of his theories to the short stories persuade you of the value of Tolstoy's approach? Could you explain the value of the stories in alternative ways?
on Thursday, August 3rd, Gary said
What is Art?
Art is comunication.
I tell my students that there is a very fine line between insanity and art.
If you see me laughing down the street by myself you might say I am insane, but if in turn I write the joke I am thinking and make you laugh you may call me a writer.
If i have great images in my mind, but never put them into any media and share them with the world then I am another nut, but if not only I lay them on paper or canvas and trasmite tou you the emotion that brought the image to my mind the I am a good artist; because I made you feel through my Images or through any other means at my disposal.
Therefore I am one that belives that art is the ability to comunicate an idea, an emotion, or a state of mind, besides sharing images. For images with out emotion can transport us, but art makes us feel. It gets us in touch with our own Humanity.A great artist will not only make us feel he will affect us profoundly leaving a lasting impression in our own mind. Art is the craft of touching someones soul. Therefore Art is communication.
on Thursday, August 3rd, Matt said
Hi Michael,
Any chance to get your e-mail address please?
Thanks!
on Wednesday, August 2nd, Christian said
When trying to come up with a definition for art, I find it easier to define what makes an artist and then just say that art is what an artist produces.
For me, an artist is a person who has the ability to express emotions and/or experiences through an acquired skill (craft) in a way so that a finite (if not infinite) number of recipients (viewers, listeners) are able to understand and re-experience the feelings of the artist (in other words "get it").
As you can see, I left out aesthetics, because that is a concept that changes constantly as many here have pointed out. Think about El Greco's Desastres de la Guerra. Cruesome, not really pieces of beauty, but very well crafted and you definitely get it. Hence art.
I also think that only one individual liking it (the eye-of-the-beholder-approach) is not enough to make it art. The craft, I think, should be well enough established to reach a bigger audience similarly. Otherwise it'll be kind of an insider-message.
Assuming that a piece is skillfully crafted, it seems a distinction should be made between: does it communicate to us what the artist wanted to express versus: does one like what one sees/hears. What one likes is definitely an individual choice, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's art (e.g. as an Austrian, I loooove Schnitzel -- not art, though). On the other hand, my eyes don't behold Picasso well. However, it would be crazy of me to say: "therefore Picassos work is not art to me." That's simply not realistic.
So, I think there are some criteria that a person has to fulfill to be regarded as an artist, and only such persons can create what I call art.
on Tuesday, August 1st, walt said
Thanks Niles. With smiles a mile wide.
on Sunday, July 30th, niles said
Mire? who's mire, and why is mike compelled to speak for me? Like Mark Brockman I have to agree this discussion in parts has been "Real" and thought provoking in many ways. In particular the comments of Andrew, Walt, and Mark Brockman. In closing I am reminded why it is I prefer speaking to people in person, rather than in writing, Very often I find that blogs and email lead to lots of misunderstandings and hurt feelings. Thanks again to Walt for his thoughts, I actually misunderstood where he was coming from at first, but his comments were on point. Well guys, as I have said time and again, Its time to get back into the studio, Mark's got the right idea too. Good Luck to you all...PEACE..OUT!
on Sunday, July 30th, Mark R Brockman said
Still deciding what art is, are we. After reading all the comments, including my own, seems we are just repeating ourselves using different words and phrases (all very well written I might add, many far better then I could have). Maybe better to just create art then to argue what art is? So why am I here? Back to the studio for me. take care all.
on Sunday, July 30th, oops...uh...mike.. said
What is a fart?
What are shoes?
Who's on first?
Why is the sky blue?
What is an apendix.
Why can't animals talk?
What are trees?
What is an insect?
Who are you?
Where did we come from?
Where are we going?
What is a house?
What is a home?
What is science?
What is philosophy?
What's on second?
What is art?
Stupid questions!
on Sunday, July 30th, Niles said
What is a fart?
What are shoes?
Who's on first?
Why is the sky blue?
What is an apendix.
Why can't animals talk?
What are trees?
What is an insect?
Who are you?
Where did we come from?
Where are we going?
What is a house?
What is a home?
What is science?
What is philosophy?
What's on second?
What is art?
Stupid questions!
on Sunday, July 30th, mire said
Of course our Niles is entitled to his opinion. However, since when has this discussion been not "REAL" or is it that it somehow doesn't meet your take on what you consider a real discussion? What Walt has done is to simply add a twist to it making it no more real than it already is.
What was flip comes not from your posting of yesterday but from your posting on Friday.
on Sunday, July 30th, Andrew said
I'm in agreement with Walt on the evolution of the meanings of the words we use, and agree that dicionaries have to be rewritten every few years to remain current. Even if, for certain words in our daily language, they refuse to be brought up to date. For example, 'chaise lounge', coming from the original French 'chaise longue'. Hardly anyone outside of France and some parts of Canada use it to mean a 'long chair'. We have used it for generations to mean 'lounge chair', even if our reason was a misinterpretation. Dictionaries still hold to the lesser used form, rejecting the evolution of our language.
On derivative art, we have to know the reason an artist is producing what they do, and that becomes harder as time goes on. Is it to be, or to have the appearance of being? Earlier on I said that the adoption of any political viewpoint, the waving of any flag is the mark of sheepdom, because the philosophy, politics, whatever, are not our own unless we are the ons who have invented them. Posing as an artist, and adopting the popular trinkets that go with that role, can become the first step on a path that leads toward losing one's creativity. It's ok to have the influence of our predecessors, but that influence should not dominate or become self efacing. Probably the best way to stay creative is to absorb and then cut your boat loose from the pier as you work.
on Sunday, July 30th, niles said
Walt ..This morning I'm taking back some of my rather "flip" commentary from yesterday. You do make many extremely good points that really donot close the argument but rather open it up to "new" discussions. For example, your comments on "originality" are qutie on point; especially when we consider the work of an artist such as Sean Scully. Scully has been painting for years with much success and critical acclaim, yet when looked at "superficially" his work seemingly resembles many bygone "styles". When examined more closely however, it's as of he has freshened some older standards, tweaked them, and made them very much his own, now I'm thinking is this the same as a particular form of "appropriation", and I'm also left with the possiblity that this is not something that is easily done, it must require alot of vision and a refined and subtle touch. Touche..Walt you've made this a REAL discussion....Peace..Out.
on Saturday, July 29th, niles said
Brilliant,Walt you said quite a mouthful. Very much "the cold shower" for an otherwise firery discourse, what can anyone possibly say after your marvelous statements. As for Duchamp,and many others throughout art's history, I have to say; Truth would not exsist were it not for the Lie.
on Saturday, July 29th, walt said
Dictionaries are only good for the moment as they are defining a living language and must be rewritten every so many years. Definitions do grow and change and even reverse themselves. Liberal used to be a positive term meaning one was open minded, tolerant, willing to discuss and debate ideas, generous and even spiritually minded. Today it is a negative term used pejoritively and has been redifined to be nearly the oposite of all those ideas stated above.
While I don't conform to the idea that art is what you call it, or even where you find it, I do believe it needs no definition, explanation or justification. Sometimes to grasp it we must change the way we think. Great art finds its way into our minds, often changes our mindsets, and opens doors to new ways of thinking largely because we tend to close down our ideas around what we consider to be truths that are absolute, like beauty and perfection. Neither of which can be defined any more than art can be defined. Art, like beauty, defines itself. We can only find it or recognize it when we see it. A great artist learns to recognize his/her best work in the same way.
To be original is not the same as trying to look different than everything or everyone else. To be original is sometimes different but often it looks stylistically like a lot of other work. To look different depends on how much your viewer knows about the world of art. If they know a lot they see very little difference in most work. If they know little they see lots of difference from the little they know. To be original is about seeing the world in an original way, about drawing ones own conclusions and expressing them clearly This often causes a stylistic difference but sometimes this works within exisiting style.
It is often easier to say what art isn't. Especially for an artist. A non-artist sees the world in a completely different way. And they describe the world verbally which is much more linear in it's thinking. That is why it is so hard for an artist, especially a visual artist (which is primarily the audience here) who can work backwards and forwards within a static form. When we use linear speech to define our art it often times feels like several bees buzzing in different directions around the non-artists head all at once. It sounds irrational. But visual art is more non-rational...or at least non-linear.
As for Duchamp, I find him intellectually dishonest, possibly interesting in his day but no longer important and more detrimental than helpful. By the way, has anyone yet found the company that manufactured the original Duchamp toilet? To use the word original here is of course ironic. Was it really a ready made at all? Are any of the Duchamp readymades found in museums today the real object? And if not does it change what Duchamp's art means? We are sometimes so gullible.
on Saturday, July 29th, niles said
The qualities that various forms of art contain and the way they are seen, evolve with time. Van Gogh was considered "outrageous" in his era, now, although, we can still appreciate his genius; he is "somewhat tame" when compared to art in contemporary times. Interestingly though I recently attended 7 openings on a Thursday night in Chelsea, here in New York, and found that with the exception of 2 of the artists that I saw, the remaining 5 were for the most part just re-hashing abstract expressionist therory or mimicking pop art. I think its' perhaps true to say that for most artists today, the ultimate challenge is finding a unique "stance" that does not resemble anything in the past, you have to ask yourself if an "original" form of creation as an artist still possible.Since I began my career as an artist in the 70's the number of galleries in New York alone, has multiplied 100 times, the Chelsea area contains over 400 galleries, with each gallery representing numerous artists, thousands. In the Mire, and confusion of this situation alone, can we find "what art is?", Sadly, very often we find "what art is NOT". Mind you, New york is not alone in it's vast number of galleries. Andrew...you made some very good points in your comments, you provke thought, this is good...peace..out.
on Saturday, July 29th, Andrew said
There's a fuzzy line, I suppose, about how liberal we want to be with our definitions. One that changes with what's 'in' at the moment. It seems that current fashion dictates full liberty in defining art, as most comment posters here want art to be free of any definition.
In the sixties, in the name of freedom, adolescents like me expressed their freedom, their liberty, by wearing ripped jeans and growing our hair long. If we didn't do this, we risked being rejected by our peers. Extreme conformity for the appearance of non-conformity. How many artists here are true non-conformists, or are we mostly just totally conforming to what we want to symbolize our non conformity? Definitions...what is true non conformism? Probably it is the behavior that will isolate us from our peers. And none of us sheep want to do that, right?
Stretch definitions. Enlarge our freedom. The evolution of the word 'art' from something pretty clear into something vast without boundries is the expression of our new age. Words like 'friendship' and 'love' need to be enlarged, too, to encompass even those states we thought of in the past as their opposites. Hate, is after all, just a component of love, isn't it?
on Friday, July 28th, niles said
Marcel Duchamp, played chess, the last and ultimate move. Viva Marcel, you turned it upside down. The Urinal, the genius...peeezzzz...out.
on Friday, July 28th, niles said
Sorry ;-) I didn't know it was your "first time" discussing this subject, don't take it personal, I didn't mention names. My expression of thought is also valid, even if :-) doesn't like it. Relax, peace...out.
on Friday, July 28th, Matt said
:-) Good on you for your thoughts!
Andrew, you are right in that definitions give us something to go by. However, in the case of defining art certain words or chunks of words such as 'above average in quality' tells us nothing since this idea is entirely subjective. The point is that many people see art and define art according to their idea of what art is and/or should be. It's subjective.
As far as Carl Andre's work in Hartford goes, I don't think it matters what his motivations were.
Concerning making the definition of art all encompassing has, for all intent and purposes, already been done. However, I will state again that I know what art is and you know what art it is.
As the other Matt wrote - Art could be whatever someone calls it.
on Friday, July 28th, olivier said
Sorry last "matt" call was me olivier..not Matt. It's a typing mistake due to the extreme heat by here. I wanted to answer to my friend Matt. Anywhere, no I am not going to the studio but to the cottage having a good swim and make a few drawings. Perhaps doing some underwater art?...I like to pile stones and floating wood.
on Friday, July 28th, :-) said
Niles, I will ask you the same question: don’t you spend time in your studio any more instead reading something you are not interested in and writing something that interferes with others who are interested in talking about it? You think people are wasting their time talking about what art is. If so, what do you think about yourself spending your time reading a blog and commenting on a subject that you aren’t interested in and even writing about how it’s wasting time. There is nothing more than wasting your time reading and writing about things you aren’t interested in talking or knowing about. You asked, 'how may times has this question been asked?' Well, I don’t know how many times you have been wasting your time reading and commenting on it. For me it’s the first time to talk about it. There are many people in the world who have different opinions and ideas—as much as there are definitions for art. It’s better to respect one another’s opinions especially those that are different from your own. This would helps with world peace. There are people who like to talk about what art is as well as people who don’t want think or talk about it. This is a blog by Michael with the subject title 'what is art'. If you aren’t interested in the subject, better to hold back from this subject instead of judging other people who are talking about it.
Matt, I agree with you. Art could be whatever someone call it the way.
on Friday, July 28th, Matt said
Definition of Art are all very restritive and only show a certain way of thinking. Art is a concept different from civilisation to personalities and cultures. No one can set up the rules in a physique way. Metaphysique conceptual ideologie will help.
I still think art is whatever someone call it that way. Andrew it may also be of poor quality in your perspective. I have proof. Now what will stay in the field of the art is another story.
on Friday, July 28th, Olga said
Mike:) Whatever...he'll never tell.
on Friday, July 28th, Mike said
So, who is Michael Corbin? You are mystery my man... can you lead us to your writings?
on Friday, July 28th, niles said
How many times has this question been asked? Yikes, can we find more obvious topics to write paragraph, after paragraph about? Create your art freely without the confinds, and preoccupations of limited notions. Doesn't anyone spend time in their studios anymore? Historically are was , and still is about communicating ideas, and on the flip side it took on various aspects of decoration as well. Pick your side of the coin, Communicate ideas or, decorate with beauty. The entire idea of artist sitting around discussing "what is art" is a self serving one. It adds improtance to what we do,which may or may not be true in "this modern world" Really dig inside and you'll find that just like the cave man in the past we trully just want to be recognized for what we do and what we communicate. If FAME comes along, it's icing on the cake. Get baack in to your studios! Peace, Out....
on Friday, July 28th, Andrew said
Matt, the one thing most definitions agree upon, is that art must be way above average in quality. Skill is one of the only object words used to define it in one definition, high quality is one of the only adjectives in the other.
Dictionary definitions are not always accurate, but they do give us something general to go by.
Carl Andre charged the city of Hartford $100,000 for a dump truck load of rocks, dumped in no specific way. Do you think the money was in any way a motivation for him to try to expand the definition of Art, or were his motives pure and dedicated to the esthetic? Do we as a society, and we as the artistic part of society, want to make the definition of art so all encompassing that it no longer has any meaning? Would that be a positive and constructive thing to do to ourselves as artists?
on Friday, July 28th, Matt said
Andrew: The problem is one of semantics and cultural perceptions. The defitnition of somethng in a dictionary is not always accurate. For example:#1. What is beauty? What is quality? What is aesthetic? What is value? #2 what is the expression of creative skill? See the two definitions below.
As I wrote earlier art cannot be defined in a precise way. It is wholly subjectve as many have written here. However, as I wrote, I know what it is and you know what it is. Perhaps common sense plays a role in knowing what art is (?). Yet, as many of have been witness to, art can be pretty much anything today.
(American Heritage® Dictionary)
ART:
High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
(Oxford Dictionary)
ART:
The expression of creative skill through a visual medium such as painting or sculpture. 2 the product of such a process; paintings, drawings, and sculpture collectively.
on Thursday, July 27th, Andrew said
You want to know what art is? Look it up in the dictionary. If we are to use language the way it is meant to be used, that is, to understand one another, then we better stick to that or we'll find ourselves on a tower of bable, unable to understand one another. What is war? Is it when one guy goes out and shoots somebody? No, that's murder.
If people have modified the definition of what art is, beware. Could money have something to do with it? Certainly if you stretch the definition in the way you prefer, you can find a way to produce something cheaply and easily and sell it as if it were precious.
on Thursday, July 27th, ArtFanica said
Michael - I wish I could have been there to hear you speak. My family lives not too far from St. Joseph - although I'm not out there much for obvious reasons.
I wonder why art has to be defined - an artist can make great works and have no explanation; this doesn't neccessarily reduce the value of their work, nor the skill of their craft. Unlike money or politics or economics, art has no fixed restrictions on the how's, why's or what's of its existence.
on Thursday, July 27th, olivier bijon said
Thanks Mat, we are exactly on the same feeling. From my last business I have several hundreds/ thousand (?) books on art. Anytime I came on one of these late 19th century art history book starting by "What is art?" I just put the book back on the shelves. These books wrote to be highly commercial for a large number of ignorant are useless.
I like very much Marcel Duchamps answer to the numerous critic of the time, including artists, who did not see in the avant garde of the time any artistic sense: Take my toilet! Ah Ah Ah and it is now in numerous museums. I feel ashamed some artists today did not understand the meaning and the humour of his message and still have the arrogance to ask what is art. To them I will answer whatever you call art is art. End of story. Now it is not because you claimed it that the history will accept it. But first you have to try. Then to be convincing.
Now after Duchamp perhaps we can move on. In the State you have a famous museum with a nice 1960's lamp classified as art. I call it design. You also have a school of good student, very good student with no imagination no creativity: they call themselves hyperrealist. Because I consider myself at the opposite of that, for me it is not art. Just a kind of manual like: How to built your own deck. In MY sense art without creativity is not art. But if you are one of this hyperrealist, 1950's kind of contemporary abstract, past blue period 21st century sentimental, whatever past technique landscaper you may disagree with me.
So what is art? Go to a museum open an art book. Tell me what you like or do not like it will be more productive. Japanese see a great time of art in their garden. Not me. I heard that Bush see art in the way he can put terrorist in any sentences, even when he talk about the farming problems. Not me. Creativity? Yes.
Now you may disagree with me
on Thursday, July 27th, Matt said
Reading the responses so far shows that coming up with a definition in any strict sense is extremely subjective especially concerning aesthetic value.
Art cannot be precisely defined. Yet, I know what art is and you know what art is even though
it seems that art can literally be anything today.
Now that I've gone full circle: What is art?
on Thursday, July 27th, Mark R Brockman said
A lot of wondeful ideas of what art is. But it all goes to prove that art, regardless of subject, technique, medium and I dare say ability of the creater, is in the eye of the beholder.
on Thursday, July 27th, Brad Michael Moore said
To the viewer, art must send them away thinking, "I have to reconsider my thoughts, or "that experience moved me spiritually, it was funny, or ironic - somehow a captured manifestation of how we exist in life today, as we know it. An expression of where we came from or, where we might be heading - simply outstanding or outlandish!!!
To the artist, Art is expression, and if a viewer becomes expressive themselves, as a result of considering the artist's work and it's implications - then all that may be is well in that moment. Now a newer moment needs to be considered (when it arrives), an old idea to reconsider, an idiom to capture from one's muse. Peace out to the never-ending percussions driving the A Train.
on Thursday, July 27th, Kathleen Heger said
Visually evoking emotion.
A concept captivates me and motivates me to the point that I must create how I feel or what I see.
When the work is complete, I share it and secretly hope that no verbal explanation of the original concept is required.
Now, when someone truly gets it and is as captivated with the work as I was with the concept, that right there seems pretty close to the definition of art to me.
on Wednesday, July 26th, sablepublishing@aol.com">Glory Harley said
Art is the visual expression of the mysterious refractions of light and form. Art is an attempt to recognize the beauty of the human spirit. Art is an escape from the ugliness of nature's relentless and urgent need for change. Art is imagination made visible. Art is the mind seeking to be made tangible. Art is the manifestation of the divine force within all of us.
Art is the knowing within that it is all of the above.
on Wednesday, July 26th, Kumiko said
Michael, That’s a very good question.
As you mentioned, art has become so many things today and is difficult to define in a short answer. Instantly, one thought that comes my mind is that art is a “voice of the artist” as well as an expression and creation of the artist.
For artists, an art is another language to speak up what is in their mined, how they see the world, their point of view in the life and so on in a creative way with a personal style. Art makes it possible for artists to express something they can’t express with words in an existing language. For example “human emotions and feelings” that are topics of spiritual territory and intangible and limited by words. Some artists try to express these things in their art.
Art is also an artist’s challenging to break down the norms existing in our everyday life by showing things from different angle or a unique way.
on Wednesday, July 26th, Mark R Brockman said
In truth I do not think art can be defined, not that we shouldn't try. Makes for great discussion. What is art today would not be considered art a hundred years ago and may not be considered art a hundred years from now. So art does change as sociaty changes.
Maybe art should not be defined after all, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder then pehaps it is so with art as well. So to perfection; define perfection. Art may be just what I think it is, or maybe what Michael thinks it is, or maybe what Olga thinks it is, or maybe it is what we collectively think it is which means so long as someone thinks something is art, it is.
To use words to define art doesn't work. I think good art should touch us in some way, but what touches me might night touch anyone else, so again it is a personal opinion. Maybe we shouldn't be wasting our time trying to define what can not be defined and we should spend our time creating and looking at art, and enjoying or being touched in some way by what the idividual feels is art.
I think too, artists need to be careful, as we who depend on non-artists (for the most part) to buy our work, we do not want to make them feel as if they can not understand what art is. This began in the 40s and 50s when artists, galleries, and critics began making art something beyond the average person, how fullish. When asked what I do for a living and I tell them I am an artist, often the person just goes quiet, because they fear art and do not know what to say or ask. Or they respond by saying, "Wow, I don't know anything about art." I then tell them that if they know what they like then they know what art is. I know I should educate them about art, but I don't have the time or desire to do so, and since artists can not define what art is what can I tell them.
If you think it is art then it is. We may not like what we often see, we may not think it art but................
on Wednesday, July 26th, Andrew said
From a catalogue of a show I curated and participated in, in 1988;
'Art is a way of walking.' Christophe Loyer
'A serene conviction that the priviledge which the material gives to the sculptor is its volume and possession of three dimensions: it is the only sphere in which I work, seeking to give body to the mysterious impulse of creation, desperately and humbly hoping, with poetry as an accomplice, to translate into marble or bronze which in an enchanted duet, pass between the mind and the universe. To fix even just one ifinitesimal particle in the neverending frescoes with which art sings, from its origins, from its humanity, and from the stupefying path it takes." Lucilla Gattini
"...so far away...so long ago...but the dream goes on forever..." Hermine
"Sculpture is a part of Art, and Art is me." Massimo Pllegrinetti
"The mystery of an image can sometimes provoke a sudden moment of crisis and stimulation for the artist-viewer. These moments are rare, as they can transcend mediocrity and tantalize the human spirit. I am currently working to personalize simple forms that in themselves possess a timeless identity that I share for a brief moment." David Middlebook
"Sculpture is an attempt to bring confusion to a standstill." David Smithson
"Sculpture is easy. It's the sculptors that are difficult." Andrew Wielawski
on Wednesday, July 26th, olga said
Michael, hmm...why artists have to define it? Your definition is quite objective. In art, you seek a beauty close to perfection, but it does not mean that others do it. Also, can you define beauty? what is perfection? To be strict with correct definition, one should use references (words) that do not require definition. Why artists have to spend their emotional energy on this BS? Our society have a lot of "over-educated" people near art, let them do their job.
