Art, and the Definition Thereof

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Serious thread. Perhaps the first I've made in a while.

I'd post this in Medivh's Tower, but I've grown to believe that place is useless.

If you've the patience and the desire to read my relatively large paragraphs and respond accordingly, by all means. If you don't, piss off. This is a concept that bypasses group membership in my opinion.

Y'See, the concept of art has been bothering me lately. I used to adhere by a definition introduced to me by Hakeem. To paraphrase, "Art is stuff made by artists. If it isn't made by artists, it isn't art. It's other stuff."

That is to say, art is simply an arbitrary term without any meaning more profound than what you see.

However, the more I think about it, the more I believe this term requires further scrutiny, and to come to a proper definition, I must lay out the conditions and trends that come with art.

To begin with, I continue to believe that art is first and foremost an intelligent creation. I don't think you can look at the Grand Canyon and say "Wow, that is beautiful; must be a work of art," unless you truly believe it had an intelligent creator of any kind. This is just my personal conviction. That it was created is the most basic trait of all art.

That being established, if it was intelligently created, then it must serve a purpose. Everyone has had an intent when trying to create something. And to define art as a single, constant term, it must serve at least one common intent that unifies them.

So art is an intelligent creation that serves some kind of purpose.

But what kind of purpose? Well, for that I look to the works and words commonly associated with art. Literature, poetry, music and the like. If there's one phrase you commonly hear alongside all kinds of art, it's "thought-provoking". "Beauty" works as well, but that's something used to describe the quality of art, which I will delve into later.

This brings me to my final definition:

Art is an intelligent creation that serves to educate.

From the less subtle like John Steinbeck to the batshit crazy like Jackson Pollack, artists have always had used their art as a medium to bring to you a different perspective on reality. You see the world in a significantly different light after experiencing something that truly moves you. This, I believe, is what makes art art.

This raises a new question. Since everything you see or do changes your life in some way, isn't everything art? My answer is a resounding "Kinda." Everything intelligently created serves to change your life a bit, so it all has, to some extent, artistic potency. What's different is the amount of artistic potency.

And like a motryoshka of confusion, this, in turn, raises a new question: "What determines artistic potency?" or "What determines beauty in art?" If art educates, why isn't a textbook the greatest piece of all? Well, as we go deeper and deeper into this concept, I become increasingly unsure, but nonetheless, here is my proposal: Artistic quality is determined by how far the piece as "moved" you. That is, how much the piece has intentionally taught you and made you accept. If you've been deeply "moved" by the vivid imagery of the brutality of slavery Frederick Douglass describes in the narrative of his life, and you now see the plight of the slaves in a completely different light, the author has done his job, and I think this determines the artistic quality of his book.

I do not know how textbooks fit into the equation, and perhaps they might serve as a counterexample to my definition. I can only reason that in the case of textbooks, the user not only actively seeks to learn, but knows exactly what he will learn, and so it doesn't fit the artistic model. This is a less-than-perfect idea though.

Finally, I'd like to discuss the elitism of artists. Some people say that there are too many poets in the world, and that people will value them more if there are, in fact, less poets in the world. This is like saying that the world will be a better place if only some people are given education and everyone else is left to toil in the fields under the tyranny of the educated. Indeed, just as writing a textbook prompts further research and curiosity, by searching one's experiences and emotions when they make art, they too improve by its creation. To rival John Mayer in pretentious artsy bullshit, I will go so far as to say the world might be a better place if everyone wrote a bit of poetry now and then.

Some people believe art needs to be complex. It can't appease the lowest common denominator; it must be full of puzzles and intricacy and ambiguous symbols. Back to the analogy to typical education, I would say this is like declaring that all education must only be taught at the highest degree, and that you either start off learning calculus, or don't learn math at all, because to dumb down math would be an insult to its existence. Again, this kind of elitist view is unproductive. High brow or low brow, professional or amateur, all art is welcomed, and the kind that appeals to the majority of the people may perhaps be the best kind, because it is able to educate and "move" the greatest number of people. The quality of a teacher is determined by how well they can teach even the dumbest of students. I believe this applies to artists as well.

In closing, art educates, and that's what makes it worthwhile. I once heard that left-handed people are more apt to become mathematicians than right-handed people. The problem with this is that being left-handed often means you are right-brained, which is commonly associated with creativity and fanciful ideas as opposed to rationality and pragmatism. The reason for such a trend is because math requires more creativity than most jobs. It is commonly associated with being practical, but even more prominent in a mathematician is one's ability to grasp foreign concepts and think in a way beyond convention. In a similar, perhaps opposite way, I have deconstructed art logically, and whether you think this is enlightening or trivial and just plain wrong, I hope this has been more useful in your understanding of art than some hippie wailing away on an acoustic guitar.


So what do you guys think? Comments? Complaints? Compliments? Corrections? Criticism?

 

[dead-man-walking]

You got so many time in your hand to write this entire fucking wall, MSBB. Seriously. Don't you got anything better to do?

On-Topic: Well, yeah. That pretty much summed up everything that the so-called "Art Elites" must read for what is left of their crap life. Kudos to you for willingness to actually waste time to write this.

 

[Devine]

This is art

Art isn't necessarily an object, I think. It's more of an idea. Actually, I'd say that the object itself isn't art but the idea behind it is, i.e. a medieval portrait of some fat merchant that could afford a picture of himself is no art to me even though it's a painting.
This portrait is the kind of art most people like and that's why I disagree with

High brow or low brow, professional or amateur, all art is welcomed, and the kind that appeals to the majority of the people may perhaps be the best kind, because it is able to educate and "move" the greatest number of people.

Lets face it, the portrait was just an assignment, the painter just wanted to make some money and to me it's nothing more than a passport picture. So it doesn't really bring a message like art, per definition, should do.

I believe most people, when stumbling across art, just admire the craftsmanship and forget about the message. Like how Britney Spears sings a song in which she proves she can count to three or a song in which she wonders if anyone has seen Amy. Tons of people like it, and even though music, per definition, is art, this can't possibly be considered art. The music is professionaly made and it's all nicely done but it doesn't move anyone and that's the whole point of art. This proves that the art most (shallow) people like isn't art at all. It's a product. Art, to me, is the idea/message behind something and that something usually is a product. A product, however, usually isn't art, i.e. a desk. Art itself is pretty much disliked by most (shallow) people, i.e. they don't like going to the opera, reading poetry, listening thoroughly to a song's lyrics, etc...

Anyway, my point is that something doesn't have to be nicely crafted to be art, so there are no professional or amateurish (quality wise) artists. The idea is what matters. Anyone can have a nice idea.

Nice essay on art. Art itself is a really complex subject, though and most people's opinion will be very different from each other but I agree on most of the things you said. (You asked for a compliment )

Sorry for the poor structure in this post. It was kinda hard to write with all those ideas randomly popping up in my head

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

You got so many time in your hand to write this entire fucking wall, MSBB. Seriously. Don't you got anything better to do?

On-Topic: Well, yeah. That pretty much summed up everything that the so-called "Art Elites" must read for what is left of their crap life. Kudos to you for willingness to actually waste time to write this.

This is the shit that keeps me up at night. I felt like I couldn't sleep until I got this off my chest, so I did.

That being the case, I don't nearly feel as passionate about this subject now than I did when I was tired and curious as fuck, but it still feels better having known I wrote this down.

It seemed much larger when I was typing it, but now that I look at it, it's just about 1-2 pages, which is pretty small for an essay.

As for better things to do, this really didn't take all that long to write, and to be quite honest, it was a lot more fulfilling than what I usually write (little joke here, a wisecrack there, and spam).

This is art

Lol.

Art isn't necessarily an object, I think. It's more of an idea. Actually, I'd say that the object itself isn't art but the idea behind it is, i.e. a medieval portrait of some fat merchant that could afford a picture of himself is no art to me even though it's a painting.
This portrait is the kind of art most people like and that's why I disagree with

Lets face it, the portrait was just an assignment, the painter just wanted to make some money and to me it's nothing more than a passport picture. So it doesn't really bring a message like art, per definition, should do.

This is true. Intent plays a large factor in the art of a work, and we may never truly the author's intent. A simple portrait may have no real meaning, but is that really the case?

I really understand very little about painting as an art, as do most people. You look at something made by Renee Magritte, like The Human Condition and you're certain there has to be some kind of profound meaning to all his paintings. But to quote Magritte,

When one sees one of my pictures, one asks oneself this simple question, 'What does that mean?'. It does not mean anything, because mystery means nothing either, it is unknowable.

When you think about it this way, this kind of art does not seek to educate or have meaning in a logical way. However, your perspective on the world changes nonetheless. Perhaps equally profound. I think whereas typical education can be closely related to logical and conscious thought, art's meaning is rooted in emotional and subconscious thought. Take this simple, one line poem:
[QUOTE="Artichoke" by Joseph Hutchinson]
O heart weighed down by so many wings.[/QUOTE]
Its purpose is simple and straightforward: You will never look at an artichoke in the same way again. The author has shared his revelation with you. He has provoked thought.

Perhaps this is why a textbook cannot be seen in the artistic light. Art cannot simply educate, but must do so emotionally.

 

[Vosty]

This is true. Intent plays a large factor in the art of a work, and we may never truly the author's intent. A simple portrait may have no real meaning, but is that really the case?

Who knows the meaning behind a piece of artwork besides the author? I wrote a short story in a class for a teacher, and he pointed out about 17 secret analogies in 10 pages. I did not, in any way, mean to place those meanings there, but someone saw them.
For instance what is the meaning of 2+2?
Well it is the addition of two ideas, that are said to equal 4, another idea. What is the purpose of the numbers totaling to 4?

I really understand very little about painting as an art, as do most people.

I'm glad you admitted that. Some artists claim to be a master of all arts. By arts, I don't only mean drawing and composing music. Cooking has said to be an art. Isn't playing wc3 technically an art?
(Hehe. I'm bending the definition of art to include skills)

When you think about it this way, this kind of art does not seek to educate or have meaning in a logical way. However, your perspective on the world changes nonetheless. Perhaps equally profound. I think whereas typical education can be closely related to logical and conscious thought, art's meaning is rooted in emotional and subconscious thought.

Rational thinking is also included in deciphering art, but less in some cases and more in some cases

Its purpose is simple and straightforward: You will never look at an artichoke in the same way again. The author has shared his revelation with you. He has provoked thought.

He hasn't necessarily replaced your thought though. He has changed it, inspired it. Art is persuasion to think. You don't have to think any harder than you want to when studying art.

Perhaps this is why a textbook cannot be seen in the artistic light. Art cannot simply educate, but must do so emotionally.

Another reason that a textbook, I personally think, can't be seen as a piece of art, is, even though it bestows knowledge, it doesn't stimulate creative thought. Textbooks usually hold facts, or solid ideas. Philosophy textbooks can hold pausing thoughts; which contradicts my theory though.
I believe the more senses enveloped in art, the easier it is to enjoy it.
The six senses:
Touch, taste, smell, sight, sound, and sexual attractiveness.
In all, that was a very damn good textwall, MSBB.

 

[PurplePoot]

For instance what is the meaning of 2+2?

Sorry, but this is one of my pet peeves and thus I have to reply to it.

Really, must people try to sound smart by making mathematics analogies (usually 1+1 or 2+2), especially when they make no sense?

--

I think everything is an art if people within its field have some really positive emotional reaction to it (feeling of elegance/beauty/whatever); I specify "in its field" because, for example, an algorithm or a proof might be really beautiful to a computer scientist or a mathematician, but a poet couldn't care less.

 

[jaZ]

I disagree that with the creation of art intelligent design and purpose follows. We are not so rational as that, as I think it's reasonable to say that many of our actions do not really have an origin that can be traced back to deductive reasoning, especially not with something like art which usually takes the form of self-expression where we may try to visually represent irrational or abstract elements of ourselves.

I also think you ought to be careful when providing a value judgement on what determines artistic quality. Your tentative definition suggests that the quality of art is based on how much it has moved you, so by definition the value of art becomes subjective once more and we fall into the trap you mentioned earlier that art may not have intrinsic meaning and contains no more significance than anything else.
However, I do think that artistic quality merits at least some examination, though I find it hard to see anything coming of it than more subjective interpretation.

 

[Gilles]

Thinking about art, I wonder what makes one piece better than another. I've often wondered why we (usually) see an open green field and think it's beautiful, and then we see a barren dead field and we (again, generally) think that it's ugly. There seems to be a common... denominator(? Not sure what word I wanted to use). Humans seem to agree on beauty to a degree. Why?

I haven't given it a whole lot of thought, but I think one reason could be 'herd mentality'. Looking at what we perceive as attractive in the opposite sex, we've changed our opinions quite drastically over the course of humanity.

As well, I think perhaps we see life as beautiful. Women always comment on how lovely a new babie is, when in all honesty, they're rather ugly imo. Obviously this would only cover a small portion of what you could loosely define as art.

Could there also be a natural concept of beauty in us?

I'd also agree with Poot. Off hand I'd say art is something that stirs positive emotion in someone.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Cut4Space

I believe there IS a natural sense of beauty within all of us. It's instinct that has allowed us to survive pre-civilization, I would say. We find children cute so that we can protect them. We can sympathize with beings similar to ourselves because power in numbers is an integral part of our survival. The "healthy-looking" partners are the most attractive, because they are the ones with the good genes.

This may be inherited, or created by association and pattern recognition. A lively field, for example, is considered beautiful because we associate it with our own livelihood, perhaps since the hunter-gather stages of culture. Additionally, our sympathy of life in general makes lively things much more appealing to us than dead, barren wastelands.

Lastly, I don't think it's positive emotion in particular. I think negative emotion can be just as moving, and that the ugliness of something can contribute to its potency in changing your perspective of the world. This can be, ironically enough, "beautiful" in its own regard.

This concept of "evoking emotion" as opposed to "emotionally educating" is curious, though. Are the two concepts one and the same? Is one a natural product of the other? Are they both necessary for art to be what it is?

---

Snip4Room

Literary deconstruction is, in my opinion, 1 part "Holy shit" and 2 parts "Bullshit."
I don't believe that many things considered art are as cryptic as we believe them to be, (see: that South Park episode about Catcher in the Rye) but I also don't believe that the meaning embedded in art is always something consciously done.
Take for example, Star Wars. I'm willing to bet that Lucas probably thinks slugs are disgusting creatures, just by looking at Jabba the Hutt, because you know the intended image was a disgusting creature, and the fact that Jabba resembles a slug plays a factor in this image.

It all goes back to semiotics; that is, the signs. Red can be universally accepted as a scary color when used in context. Masks can represent our fear of the unknown, even if you're just a hack scary movie director trying to cash in on what's popular. This is how even the most idiotic, cliched movie like Avatar (zing!) can be rich in context.
For instance what is the meaning of 2+2?
Well it is the addition of two ideas, that are said to equal 4, another idea. What is the purpose of the numbers totaling to 4?
Two is a concept, but it's a highly applicable concept. It can be visually represented in many different ways, and therefore, even if we cannot express it through words that aren't "two", "2" or "二", we can still visualize it, if only using our hands. We see this concept being applied so commonly that it's almost universally accepted that 2+2=4 (exceptions include during an Orwellian fascism, in which case 2+2=5).

Connecting this back to the concept of literary devices, there are many reasonable conclusions a literary scholar can draw from a work, even if it's not intentional, because these "signs" are commonly associated with a familiar concept. Just as 2 is a reference to a concept of numbers, a mask in a horror movie is almost always associated with a fear of the unknown.

These thoughts in my head are still a little scrambled, and I might have seen your train of thought wrong, but I hope I got the gist of it.

I believe all practices have artistic potential, and I intend to cover video games in larger detail later. After all, the creation of this thread is largely due in part to Roger Ebert's views on video games as art.

I do believe a textbook can stimulate creative thought as much as art. This kind of "creative thought", though, would be more aptly identified as "curiosity".

 

[Megafyr]

If someone creates something with their imagination that triggers an emotion in me, I'd say it's art. Good art triggers good emotions, and bad art is just crap. All art is subjective, but people tend to agree easily with each other about what's good and what's not.

 

[Gilles]

This concept of "evoking emotion" as opposed to "emotionally educating" is curious, though. Are the two concepts one and the same? Is one a natural product of the other? Are they both necessary for art to be what it is?

I think it depends on your definition of education.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Video Games

I'd now like to tackle a topic about video games as art. As I've said before, I believe that every intelligent creation is, to some extent, art. But are games less potent a medium than movies or books? The reasoning behind such a line of thought is simple: Even games with a decent plot are, at best, B-movies. They're forgettable if not for the gameplay. But that's just it. There's gameplay. There's a new dimension to the entire experience.

Which brings me to my proposal: Every time a new dimension is added to a medium, the complexity of each dimension is reduced.

For example, there is not a single movie with a plot that rivals the complexity of a good novel. The movie doesn't have the telling narration, and can't use as much rich symbolism. God knows what you would do if you had to stare at a turtle crossing a street for 30 minutes in a movie, but in Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath, that's just what you do in text form, and you can see how it parallels the plight of the migrant farmers in the Dust Bowl.

Furthermore, believe it or not, the musical accompaniments of John Williams just cannot be compared with Beethoven. Williams' compositions are simple, only intended to create a memorable melody and evoke the intended emotion coupled with the scene at hand. It's not nearly as intricate as the works of, say, Mendelssohn or Sibelius, because it only tells pieces of a story rather than the whole thing.

But here's the thing: The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. When you take the emotionally uplifting, but overall simplistic pieces from Williams, and you take a decent story to tell, and you manage to meld them seamlessly together, you can create art that simply cannot be paralleled in any other medium. Schindler's List is everything. It's the story of a hero to the Jews in World War II. It's the recurring violin melody that penetrates the soul. It's the harsh, gritty acting of each miserable character.

This is why gaming doesn't have to be an A movie. It doesn't have to have a revolutionary soundtrack, either, or a prominent addition to the literary movement. It just has to be itself, and do it well.

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. You probably know the scene I'm going to reference. A desperate run, gunning down soldiers along the way, trying your best to make it out of an impending disaster, music booming in your ears. You finally reach the checkpoint, and you think you're saved. And everything fucking blows up. You crawl out of the rubble, desperately trying to find a shred of light in a hopeless situation. But it's not there. The character you've spent missions heroically fighting alongside and desperately preserving is now dead, and yet the game moves on.

Whether Call of Duty qualifies as significant art is beyond me. But it's definitely proof to me that it's not the complexity of its parts, but of the whole that matters.

 

[Steel_Stallion]

Whether something is "art" or not, by your definition then, is subjective. What feelings a portrait could bring up in you, for example, does not necessarily apply to me. I could stare at a certain portrait and feel indifferent, while someone else feels his heart soaring at the beautiful symbolism contained therein, and yet to me it's still just a random collection of brush strokes.

I think your definition works well, remembering that you can't really label something "art" and apply that to anyone who looks at it, because it might not be art to them.