Who Defines What Is Art and What It Isnt?
The nature of creativity
Recently I engaged in a conversation with a boyfriend alumnus of the University of Kansas' Schoolhouse of Fine Arts, and nosotros spent time comparing what nosotros understood and appreciated about art, both every bit creators and followers. We asked the question "what is art" and "what is non fine art" and debated the answers. I enjoyed this conversation a groovy deal, simply realized we were diametrically opposed in what we accepted fine art to be and tried to accomplish as creators. I recognized some opinions and philosophies as a product of his didactics every bit a KU art student, but shook my caput in disbelief at the artistic psychobabble he embraced with such passion. The chat provided the impetus to question the nature of creativity and reexamine what I believe about fine art. This article is meant only to pose questions and offer opinions—not supply answers.
The splendor and magnificence of art
Standards for the nomenclature of art
What is art? Defining art and judging the quality of art take been the preoccupations of human being beings for millennia. The New Webster's Dictionary defines art every bit "the employ of the imagination to brand things of aesthetic significance." Wikipedia probes further and tells usa art is the "procedure or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to touch on the senses or emotions." This leads to the question of establishing objective criteria for defining art. Is art a process or a issue? Does an inherent connection exist between art and beauty? Is fine art annihilation we say it is? Is it intended to be appreciated or enjoyed? Should it have a function across its appreciation?
Richard Wollheim, a British philosopher known for his work on mind and emotion relating to visual arts, divers art relative to three approaches: the Realist approach, establishing aesthetic qualities every bit absolute while independent of human view; the Objectivist arroyo, which defines aesthetic qualities as absolute merely dependent upon human view; and, a Relativist position which asserts that art is not absolute only incorporates the human experience.
Applying this information to my personal beliefs, I can accept aspects of Wollheim's three classifications of art. I struggle near with the Realist perspective. I tin take the aesthetic beauty of the universe and nature as absolute while remaining independent of human view, just I struggle to accept anything man-made every bit intentionally Realist. Michelangelo's "David" meets the strict criteria of a Realist approach—its aesthetic qualities are absolute and timeless. Withal, this magnificent statue was certainly created to evoke a homo feel. Vincent Van Gogh'due south melancholy "Crows over the Wheat Field," for example, swallows the viewers in its intensity, intentionally or non. The thought of art independent of human view puzzles me on some levels and leads to the question of what is accomplished through the act of creating a cartoon or painting? I have been baffled by artists who merits they create only to satisfy a concrete demand. Physical experience equally the but goal excuses the creator from meeting whatsoever blazon of artistic standard. I was scolded at a lecture I attended as an fine art educatee when I suggested to the visiting creative person that if his just purpose in painting was for a physical experience, he should try push button-ups instead. His lengthy lecture and slide evidence revealed that his art existed for other reasons; he desired it exist seen, or he wanted admiration or notoriety. Perhaps he wished to be paid for his work. If his sole purpose was to work upwards a sweat, there was never a need for his paintings to encounter the light of day.
I remain convinced that art serves a college purpose than physical gratification, and that purpose is connected with the viewer and later embraces an Objectivist perspective. The purpose seemingly involves a form of linguistic communication—a means to create shared meaning. A 2d goal might be to create beauty; a third would involve earning coin. These reasons and many others are all valid and dependent on the viewer's experience. The utilitarian design of objects for apply or consumption, such as a chair or article of wear, would seem to reflect a Relativist arroyo—its creative success is inexorably continued with the human feel.
Are these purposes valid? While I scoff at many of the justifications painters use for their art to be as it is, there are certainly reasons I accept. Art as a product created without pretentiousness or cosmic rationales in exchange for money makes perfect sense to me. Artists might not create to brand coin, but existence paid for their efforts becomes a valid reason to create. Why put a cost tag on a piece hanging from a gallery wall or offer students a scholarship to encourage continuation of their work? It is an incentive to create.
Creating beauty is another acceptable rationale if the beauty is genuine. My appreciation for so-chosen "calendar fine art" is based on the realization that it is nice to look at and is often quite beautiful. Beingness pleasing to the eye is its reason to exist, and the labor of painting serves the end result, not the other fashion around. This rationale can be obscured by subjective definitions of beauty, but hearing "I know what I like when I see it" from patrons typically encompasses an appreciation of beauty that stems from shared significant.
It is what information technology is
What is NOT fine art? It is more difficult to utilise an objective standard for defining fine art by identifying what is not art. For example, I strenuously object to the concept that art is annihilation its creator wants it to be, but many hold fast to this belief. It is my opinion that a framed sheet of notebook paper is not art just because a "creator" states that information technology is—how we view the sheet of notebook paper is too a consideration. In a critique as a college student, a classmate generated fifteen minutes of conversation concerning the nature of art past hanging a calendar upside down. The artist knew he could capture the imagination of the course with his pseudo-intellectual ramblings. The aforementioned rules didn't apply a calendar week later when I proudly presented a Woolworth's "spring clearance" window sign with car wax applied to information technology. My cosmos was repulsive and my declaration that it was as much art equally the agenda hung upside downwardly was rejected. I was ridiculed by my peers as I defiantly contended they proved my point for me: my assertion as its creator that my motorcar-waxed sign was art was insufficient because no one else accepted information technology as fine art.
What are Non valid reasons to create? Artists sometimes merits they don't demand a reason to produce art, merely I am uncertain how the creative process sustains itself without a motivating strength. Some seem convinced they are an elemental force, painting considering nature abhors a vacuum. I laugh at such chatter, recognizing that our planet is full and rich with natural beauty which ceaselessly captivates our mind and senses if nosotros are attuned to it. In a world of magnificent perfection, I never observe or sense the vacuum they speak of and consider it delusional for artists to believe they are creating beauty because it is lacking.
I consider repetition a poor reason to pigment. Every bit artists build a series of works forth the same theme, I question the need for multiple paintings that look essentially the same. Why have six paintings instead of only ane? I sympathise that it sometimes takes more than than i try to reach a item combination of skill and expertise culminating in the solution to an artistic problem. My question is why the before paintings are kept. If their final painting solved their artistic quandary, what purpose do their earlier efforts however serve? Every bit a collection or serial, they lack inventiveness and but restate what has already been stated with varying levels of success. Ane is enough.
Negativity is a poor reason to create. I have personally used negative feelings and emotions to create, but negativity is not the point. If my purpose is to work through negative experiences or emotions, I feel obliged to communicate something positive in the terminate—to make experiencing my piece of work part of an upward tendency. If I project negativity and inflict information technology on others it might be creative, but is it fine art?
What exercise you believe?
Equally promised, I accept asked questions and offered opinions only. No answers to the questions of what is and is non art take been forthcoming. I pose this question to you: have y'all ever seen a painting or sculpture and exclaimed, "THAT'South NOT ART!" If so, why did you feel this fashion? Was information technology ugly? Did information technology evoke negative feelings from you? Did it seem non-expert? What made you lot determine that what someone considered art wasn't?
Source: https://letterpile.com/personal-essays/What-is-Art-What-is-Not-Art
Postar um comentário for "Who Defines What Is Art and What It Isnt?"