For a while now I’ve been pondering a simple question: how do you define what’s art and what isn’t? It’s not nearly as simple a question as you might think.
My thoughts were inspired by my friend David Loehr (as they so often are), who wrote about the same question on his blog. His post was inspired, in turn, by Seth Godin’s own meditations on the subject. Â Seth started with a set of three simple rules that, to him, define art:
- Art is made by a human being.
- Art is created to have an impact, to change someone else.
- Art is a gift. You can sell the souvenir, the canvas, the recording… but the idea itself is free, and the generosity is a critical part of making art.
David disagreed with Seth; so do I, and in some similar ways… but in some different ways as well. Here’s my take.
First, condition #1: Art is made by a human being. As David points out, art is also, at times, made by other animals. I’m not entirely persuaded of the legitimacy of those claims, but I have enough doubt to let the example stand. I will also add that texts generated by computer algorithms have proven to be entirely indistinguishable from human-made texts in a few instances, which seems to suggest that art might be made by robots, too — if not now, then eventually. David also argues that, say, the subject of an Ansel Adams photograph is art whether Ansel takes his picture or not; I disagree rather strongly — the subject might be beautiful, but it’s the act of Ansel Adams’ framing and shooting and developing the picture that makes it art. Still I feel as if condition #1 has a few weaknesses that have to be addressed.
Then we move on to Godin’s condition #2: Art is created to have an impact, to change someone else. I agree fully with my friend here: this is not correct, merely because there are many artists who create art for no reason other than to create it. I myself make art to have an impact, not only on one other person, but on the world… but this isn’t a necessary condition.
Finally, his condition #3: Art is a gift. You can sell the souvenir, the canvas, the recording… but the idea itself is free, and the generosity is a critical part of making art. This strikes me as just plain ludicrous, I’m sorry to say… even though I largely try to think of my own art as a gift. Art is sometimes generous, yes… but sometimes it’s angry, and sometimes it’s silly, and sometimes it’s selfish, and sometimes it’s a thousand other things. Furthermore, the word “gift” implies, to me, the transfer of ownership… but ideas are always free. What is unique in art is not only the idea but the particular way in which that idea is encoded (in marble, in lines of dialogue, in notes, and so on).
So… what are the conditions with which I define art? They are as follows:
#1: Art is made by a mind. The mind in question might be human, and might be animal, and might even be artificial… but a mind is what’s required.
#2: Art is largely new. This condition is necessitated by the first. See, if we take the first on its own merits, a mass-produced lamp that looks and works similarly to the existing universe of lamps would nonetheless count as art. The condition of “newness” suggests that art, while it may borrow from prior work, must innovate.
#3: Art conveys meaning. This one is going to be tough for people. I realize that it excludes reams of language poetry, for example. I say it here because I believe it, but I cannot articulate why very easily. I will simply say that art without meaning is indistinguishable from static, at least for me, and leave it at that.
Finally, given that I believe in Occam’s Razor, I feel as if I have to note that my three conditions can, and perhaps should, be combined into one sentence. Here, then, is how I define art:
Art is a largely new thing, made by a mind, that conveys meaning.
How do you define art?
Art is a set or sequence of sensory stimuli created or placed into a context by a being which is intended to provoke or which does provoke an aesthetic response in a being who perceives the stimuli. That’s my big tent definition of art. Yes, that means I think a stop sign is art. A sunset isn’t art until someone decides where to stand to appreciate it to best effect, hence placing it into a context. I’m still mulling whether there is any such thing as non-artistic conversation.
I like that definition, though I wonder what “aesthetic response” means, exactly — it’s almost a way of avoiding the need to list the endless reactions art can sometimes generate. It also invites, for me, a question: if I have no “aesthetic response” to a piece of art, is it still a piece of art? If I’m unmoved, say, by the Wings of Victory, are they reduced to the status of mere “thing?” What if my neighbor IS moved? Does the statue hold the status of art and non-art in some sort of super-position state?
A stop sign, for me, fails the definition of art because it is not new. A stop sign placed into the context of, say, an open meadow: that’s new. But my definition, of course, is not yours…
I have to go with if anyone experiences something aesthetic in it then it’s art. If I rule out things to which I personally have no aesthetic reaction, I have to discard almost all of modern visual art. That seems too extreme.
Aesthetic response is hard to define. I’m right now orbiting around “experiencing a judgment of value or meaning that goes beyond the utility or lexical content of the piece of art.” I’m not thrilled with that, but it’s as close as I can yet get.
You’re right. That would likely be too extreme. I’m also persuaded by your audience-centric response. It’s not about art-makers, after all, but art consumers.
As for defining aesthetic response… it gets tricky, doesn’t it? The whole thing is a rabbit-hole, but a fun one to scramble down.
I will jump into this age old, risky discussion of what is art against my better judgment but the lure of the subject is irresistible. Firstly, art is a particularly unique human attribute. To compare the random daubings of an animal or machine to the talent and training required to claim for oneself the title of “artist,†is to diminish the meaning of art. In this reductionist view of art, anything contrived by any hand, be it mechanical or animal could be considered art. This is antithetical to concept of art as elevating or transcendent, and goes to the core of Man’s place in the cosmos.
Art must have intent. There must be something that evokes a response to the art which makes both the artist and the viewer think. Art must have the ability to change those who come in contact with it, however small or insignificant that effect is. Intent is the key. Art is reflective, a method of communication, a dialogue at best, an inspiration, a revelation. It may elevate or diminish, but it must move in some way.
Foremost in the definition of art and artists, is the singular concept of vision. Above all else, there must reside within the artist a vision greater than themselves, a coherent ethos of philosophical and observed phenomena upon which their view of the world is defined and presented to the public.
The function of an artist is to interpret reality for the rest of society. Each generation must define the reality of their world as they experience it. That is the role of the artist. This is one of the most important roles that the artist labors under. What survives the centuries long gone but art. It is the art that lives on, that tells the story of the past, that leaves behind evidence of the human story. And that is the crux of the matter. As stated at the opening of this brief essay, art is a decidedly human characteristic, one that distinguishes us from the rest of the conscious world. Recent observations by scientists have shown the ability of other animals occupying this planet to possess active minds, and to think and even conceptualize on levels previously unknown. However, none have exhibited any artistic tendencies as yet. This alone is Man’s greatest gift, a divine gift if you will, that allows us the sacred privileged to enter into a dialogue with the creator. To this we should be grateful yet humbled, elevated but not superior, thankful and purposeful.
My friend, a very good photographer, visited Venice a few years ago. He returned from his trip discouraged an downcast. He said he had visited the great galleries and salons of Venice and felt overwhelmed by the art work there. As he exclaimed, “How can I call myself an artist when it was already done 600 years ago and done much better than today’s art?†I reminded him that each generation must define itself by asking the same questions about Man’s place in the world and expressing it in the medium of the times. It is an endless conversation that has been engaged in since Lascaux and probably as far back as our human origins.
I am happy just to be a lone voice participating in that conversation.
Hi, Stuart.
I’m not sure I understand how this discussion is risky. I consider it stimulating, more than anything.
I’m interested in your first paragraph, but I have to say that it rests on assumptions I do not share. There’s an implied superiority of the human species over others, for example, that I think isn’t warranted by a dispassionate evaluation of geological history. I also can’t say I know what you mean by “man’s place in the cosmos.” As far as I can tell, our place is utterly insignificant and minuscule. I suspect you disagree.
You also claim that art must rely on a vision of something greater than oneself. I don’t think that’s true for all artists, though it may be true for you.
I also don’t think the artist has any one function. I think we have many.
Risky in the sense that people usually have strong opinions regarding art, and like politics and religion, are best avoided in polite company. Art is connected to these other two human constructs in such an intertwined way that it is nearly impossible to separate one from the other. The religious institutions of both East and West have been the primary supporters of art throughout history. The Catholic Church being the repository of much of the art of the West. So much of what we recognize as art has its roots in the organized religious institutions. Eastern religious art is less formalized and more of a transcendent nature than the art of the Catholic Church, yet it still reveres its Buddha iconography, this despite the strictures to not worship graven images in the West and the Buddhist philosophy of non attachment. This contradiction is inherent in both East and West philosophy and is excused by the organized religions as simply representative of concepts. Every social group from the most advanced civilizations to the simplest tribal groups have some religious belief system, and utilize imagery and iconography that has been invested with some mystical power. Even the Communist nations that attempted to deny the need for Man’s spiritual nature revered the symbols of powerful leaders who shaped the ideological underpinnings of the Communist state. In a quasi religious effort to appease the need for Man’s belief in something greater than the here and now, the body of Lenin was entombed for eternity. (Eternity being about three or four generations, since it was recently reported that the tomb will in all likelihood be closed and Lenin’s body be buried).
I do not mean to imply any sense of superiority over any other life form. This belief that Man has dominion over other species has been wrongly applied throughout history and has caused much suffering among our fellow creatures. We have historically mistreated and abused our seeming superiority over not only other creatures, but over less developed peoples that we encountered historically. Western Culture has brutally exploited and destroyed most of the simpler cultures it encountered. Given our technological advantage we overran these less equipped cultures and took their lands, claiming Manifest Destiny as the imprimatur. The genocide practiced of in the settlement of the New World is a prime example, yet we glorified the “winning of the west” in history books. It goes on today in third world cultures.
The Native American peoples we so easily deceived and destroyed were probably the most balanced peoples of the non-technological societies that Western culture ever encountered. Whereas the technologically sophisticated West had the advantage of weaponry and machinery that was beyond the natives ability to overcome or understand, they had developed an understanding of the ways of nature and the balance of things that the westerners had lost. Native Americans lived for thousands of years on this continent and left little evidence off their occupation. So was the way of life of the natives that they understood and respected the other life forms that they depended on for their survival. They intuitively understood the symbiotic relationships inherent in the struggle to survive. Counter that with the Western view (European) of the abandonment of the natural order of things in favor of the exploitation of the natural world, and see where it has led us in such a short time.(Lewis Mumford in his classic work: THE MYTH OF THE MACHINE, THE PENTAGON OF POWER, illuminates this contrast between the Western ethos and the Native American way of looking at the world.)
It is the entrenched Western philosophy on which we rely that has caused so much disruption and displacement of cultures that were in many ways more in tune with their surroundings and their place in the world. To use the Native Americans as an example once again (although it could be any non-techno society the world over that encounters Western colonialism) when ever they took a life they honored it by an acknowledgement to the spirit of the animal, or a prayer of thanks to the Great Spirit for providing the fruits of their gathering expiditions. These people knew that they were reliant on the beneficence of a power greater than themselves. Contrast that with today’s world in which we factory grow and slaughter our food, mistreating and using our fellow creatures with brutality and indifference to their suffering. No I do not consider Man as superior to his fellow creatures.
I believe as an artist that we have an obligation to reveal the truth. To expose these things that we take for granted, that we are empowered by means of our “vision” and talent to elevate ourselves to a place that is greater than where we are. That is the role of the artist as I see it. To seek one’s vision, to rise to the potential within all of us, to show the way to a better world by uncovering the myths by which we live, and to seek the truth as we see it. In that regard we are saviors. Yes I do believe that as human beings we do have infinite potential. It is within our grasp. To transcend the mundane, the ordinary, the dull repetitious existence most seem to settle for. Life can be wondrous, magical, new and exciting.
I would not, could not, live in any other way.
StuArt
You’ve gone quite far afield in your reply here, so let me re-focus on two claims you make that I think are false, or at least debatable.
First, you claim that religious institutions have been the primary supporters of art throughout history. This is at least a gross misrepresentation or exaggeration. Art predates all such institutions; the earliest cave paintings are at least 25,000 years older than anything we’d recognize as an organized religion. Furthermore, organized religion is now largely opposed to art in so many ways, as witness the recent Catholic League effort to censor an exhibit at the National Gallery of Art. Religious institutions have been sponsors of religious art, but that’s all… and religious art is a mere fragment of art history.
Second, you claim that artists have an obligation to reveal the truth. I would simply say that a) I think everyone has that obligation, to some extent, and that b) art is made of lies, really, not truths, though those lies may depict truths. It’s more complicated than you’ve made it seem…
Hi- My name is Barbara and I am a fiber artist. I have been an artist my whole life. Art to me is a means of deep expression on many levels. Art has the capacity to transcend time and to make one realize the power of being present in the moment. From graffitti on the walls to the greatest works of michaelangelo I feel it is all representative of the moment in time when one gets to put a voice to ones deepest emotions. Being I also believe in God I feel Art can be defined as a gift given to some, and I think it must be honored as such. In many cultures around the world, the Artist is revered .
Can an animal truly provide us with its expressions that relate to others of the same species? I doubt it. I do think it is a human expression that delves into intellect, emotion, and an expression of life and culture that surrounds us and has the capability to give it a voice.
Art helps gives a voice to all of the joys and pains that surround us and helps give meaning and definition to our world. It inspires and can often outrage humans. In saying that I feel any change from the flat lines of a monotone existence gives meaning to the purpose of art .
It need not be displayed in a gallery or even leave a studio. I think of it as a gift I have received. It is wonderful if it can be appreciated or shared, but the expression of the inner feeling will still be expressed through my art regardless of it’s outcome.
Even as a secular humanist who most certainly does not believe in God, I find your description compelling — at least (what I think are) the third and fourth paragraphs. (There’s a paragraph break I think you intended to add after “give it a voice” that isn’t showing up.)
I don’t think about is only about giving a voice to emotions. I think it’s also, and perhaps more importantly, about giving voice to ideas, or what Richard Dawkins calls “memes.”
As for whether art is a gift of any kind… I think we can agree to disagree. I believe we’re all born with the capacity for great creativity, no matter how we choose to apply it, and the world (in some sad cases) beats it out of us…
I also think the distinction that you (and others) make between humans and other animals is really artificial. It makes us feel better about ourselves, but it’s not very useful or accurate. We are 98.4% the same as our closest primate kin, after all.
Dear Gwydion, While I give credence to the advancement of the animal kingdom and evolution , I do think there are differences between myself and the brain development of a gecko. Sorry. Although as a single woman I often categorize men as a lower form of the animal species , as a rule I do think you should step back and observe. Maybe it is that .6 percent that separates us, but indeed you have to acknowledge a variance. Would you date a chimpanzee or marry one on the premise that it is close enough? Maybe you feel the way you do because you don’t believe in God. Look around you my friend- maybe if men could give birth ? I don’t agree that every human can do what I do- I don’t believe a chimpanzee can create what I do. If animals could create art like humans- why is it not evident. Where are these great works- perhaps they are hidden from men because we are such dolts? Perhaps they are too advanced to share there creativity? Robots creating great art? Sad statements really-
You seem to be confusing a variety of issues here in a way that makes no sense to me.
While humans cannot interbreed with other species, there are other species that can interbreed. Without that possibility, we’d have no ligers, for instance.
I’m not claiming that animals can create art that humans would create… but they can very well create animal art. Is it as complex as ours? Of course not. Their brains aren’t as complex, either.
You discount the possibility of robot art, but robots have already created text that has proven indistinguishable (in limited cases) from human-created text. Computer-generated fractal patterns also appear to be art to some observers. I promise you, we are not far away.
oh my god- I can not believe your arguments that put Robot art on the level of humanity. Get on a plane- look upon the statue of David by Michaelangelo and then we can discuss rational thought.
I make no sense to you? Any one that equates what I do to the capabilities of a robot has not looked deep within the self or achieved the level of enlightenment that it takes to do a piece of art work with your heart, soul and spirit attached to it.
Sorry, but we are not on the same brain waves at all, and someone who has done art and continues to do art as I have -my entire being is involved with my art can not possibly understand your definition- if you are going to compare what humanity has produced in the field of art to a robot- I am really dumb struck and speechless- perhaps as much as a pet rhesus.
It seems I have not been clear.
I am not “putting robots on the same level” as humans. I am not making an argument, either. I am simply referring to the fact that robots have created art that humans have subsequently taken to be made by humans.
I have seen the David, and I found it humbling.
Your comments about what introspection I have and have not done are naive. You do not know me, after all.
It’s quite simple. Just make art. No matter how many words are attached to it, they only serve to confuse. Let the art speak for itself. Those who understand it get it. Those who don’t never will. Artists are set apart from the rest of society, mistrusted in fact. That’s why artists seek like minded people and tend to set themselves apart. Just one final thought: Awhile back I became so attuned to the practice of “seeing” that I began to reduce the actual process of creating an image to its barest essentials. I stopped printing my negatives, as I considered them the end point of capture. But after two years of no prints I began to doubt the need for negatives as well. My seeing was so finely tuned that I did not need a camera. I could see the photograph in my mind’s eye. Fortunately a wiser person than I booked an exhibition of my latest work and I was delivered back to reality. I now follow through from conception to print on the wall. I am happier that way. I can share my vision with others. I have learned to just do it.
I believe words enlighten, not confuse. Then again, I’m a writer. You’re (I gather) a visual artist, so I can (I suppose) infer why you might think differently.
The myth that artists are somehow set apart or mistrusted is harmful and incorrect. I have a wife, a family, friends, a part-time job. I am in no way set apart, nor should I be.
art show how the science works
like accounting is a science as well as a art.
when you create something out of nothing, then it is art!
So… every time I visit the bathroom? (Sorry for the scatological reference, but… I couldn’t resist challenging you!)
So, I’ve been having this debate with someone for a while, and I finally looked up the dictionary definition on m-w.com. My definition of Art is rather broad, but all of the definitions fit it, none more than the first. The first definition was “skill acquired by experience, study, or observation” which makes the phrase “Martial Arts” make more sense. A Martial Art is an art of fighting, and as such conveys no meaning other than “I don’t want to die/be injured” or “I want to kill/damage you.” This makes the Art vs. Science debate interesting because using this definition means Science is an Art. Math is also an Art, and so is everything you have to learn. It also means there are arts of imitation, impersonation, and forgery; copying someone else’s art is its own art (though unethical if you don’t mention it’s a copy). Note, this does not change the definition of “fine art.”
This reminds me of some readings I had begun recently. I started to dabble with art anthropology, and after reading some writings by Alfred Gell, and you might find it interesting. It’s odd, since it seems so vital to our understanding of art, but instead of being about aesthetics or communication (In the sense that art, in itself is not language), it seems to be about doing. It’s quite interesting, as in his book, “Art and Agency” portrays art being defined by social value. It does begin to make sense, especially when it seems that society is what makes us “human”. Granted, it was written from the viewpoint of a social science, but personally that’s the main reason why I’ve started reading it, being an artist myself.
I think the main point I have issue with is the third, perhaps because of things like surrealism and dada. Though I see what you may have been aiming for. 🙂
It’s true that art does evoke a response in people that other things simply cannot. And it applies to many other arts as well, not just the visual. There’s just something about it that no one can deny. They argue about animals creating art, but I don’t really believe that it is really “art”, especially when one starts to consider the difference between what one considers craft.
Art’s such a complicated thing, ain’t it?
Yes, indeed, it is. 🙂
I do agree that surrealism and dada (for example) complicate matters… but only a bit.