 |
| Art. |
What is art? You’ve probably been told that this is a
difficult question. The word ‘art’ is so broad in scope that it might as well
be synonymous with the word ‘love’ whose definition is so vague as to be almost
meaningless. Words that are too broad in scope are not words at all, but mere
utterances aimed at conveying gross approximation. This problem of definitions
plagues every language besides mathematics it seems, and so it must be up to
someone to remedy this situation if it is to ever be known what anyone is
talking about. I will now attempt the seemingly impossible given that there
appears to be no objective basis for what is considered art. I will attempt to
be objective and therefore come to a reasonable conclusion.
What is art? There must be criteria met for something to be
considered art. We cannot, for the sake of definitions, rely solely upon
subjective judgement calls such as “I like it” or “I don’t like it.” Again,
generalities only confuse the issue. And so, I have arrived at several criteria
to determine if something is art and I do admit this list may not be
exhaustive. However, the criteria I think are reasonable. In thinking about the
criteria, I will analyze it from the perspective of having experienced an oil
painting. Though the criteria should apply to all forms of art (or what is
assumed to be an art form), I think it easiest to think about our criteria as
it applies to paintings.
What are the criteria?
First, and perhaps most importantly, art must invoke an
emotion in someone besides the artist. (No one considering themselves an artist
would produce something they think should be a called art without being
passionate about the work, so they are disqualified from figuring into this
criteria.) If a piece of art can elicit an emotion from at least one subject,
the work is on its way to being considered art. Thus, the more people the work
elicits emotion in, the more confident we can be in proclaiming something
‘art.’ However, there is a very important caveats to this first criteria.
The emotion elicited must be what the artist had intended to
convey. An ‘artist’ who suggests that their painting is going to mean different
things to different people has created something that merely speaks to the
relative freedom a society may posses and not to human nature, where human
nature is something that changes very little over time whereas societies change
very quickly by comparison. Thus, a painting can have its meaning, it’s
eliciting emotion fixed in perpetuity if it renders the same emotion in someone
decades in the future as it does when it is first presented, though, we do have
to allow for the context of the art’s time and place of creation. (For example,
there is no doubt – bear with me – much Nazi propaganda that could be
considered art despite how we may presently feel about WWII-era Naziism. Such
art, through the lens of being a German nationalist circa the year 1939, would
likely make us feel patriotic, as it’s creator intended.) A painting that
conveys something entirely other than what the artist had in mind is not art.
Remember, the definition of art cannot be left solely up to subjectivity or the
word is, for all intents and purposes, useless. Ultimately, not only does the
work have to elicit an intended response, that response must be maintained
despite the passage of time and culture.
Of course, a reasonable objection is what if the artist’s
intentions are unknown? At a minimum, an emotion has to be elicited and the
response must be fairly universal* among those experiencing the work. Again,
the emotional response cannot be broadly subjective. Ambiguity or vagueness is
not the point of art; these words mean something is not being communicated
clearly enough.
[Meaning, more often than not.]
It should be obvious that various emotions can be the
intended response to a work of art, however, something like a painting doesn’t
have to convey a strict message. To paraphrase Youtube user, Spoudaois, art can
[also] be produced to create an aesthetic as something interesting or that enhances
a mood, or as something complimentary to its surroundings (but also be able to
be considered art on its own merit). I am in agreement with this assessment because
it segues nicely towards the next criteria – purpose. What is the work’s
purpose; what does the art do for the consumer of the art?
 |
| Probably not art. |
If the art in question was created for the sake of an
artist’s therapy, as something they simply had to get out of their system least
they be driven mad, this is not art. Certainly the act of creation can be
therapeutic, however, an artist cannot accurately gauge their work any more
than a given person can accurately assess their own intelligence. The person
experiencing a painting must be able to say, “Ah, this is what the art does,”
and can go on to explain. If a painting does nothing, say, is a canvas painted
white and without so much as texture among its characteristics, this would have
no purpose in an all-white room and merely wastes the observer’s time.
At this point, we might raise the objection that what if
this was the artist’s purpose, for their all-white painting in an all-white
room to elicit frustration or anger at the observer’s time being wasted? (And
perhaps also among the artist’s intent was for this to be a metaphor for the
time we all waste in our lives?) This brings us to our last criteria, that a
work of art is not something the average citizen can create. Anyone can create
an all-white painting. This ability does not render one an ‘artist.’
An artist is one who displays talent not possessed by the
population at large in much the same way the general population is unable to
play professional-level basketball. For example, if a painter renders a
near-lifelike portrait with charcoal, they possess talent that most others do
not. Moreover, in much the same way as the professional basketball player, it
does not matter if this talent is the result of innate ability or deep learning
the average person in not amenable to; it is the ability itself that counts. Art
is the result of an ability to produce it.
It might be argued here that artificial intelligence could
produce a work of art free of human interference. However, the A.I. relied on
human interference to exist in the first place and cannot operate outside of
the parameters programmed into it. Nor does A.I. actually know what effort or
ability is; it merely does what is asked of it. Currently, no ‘thinking’
machine wakes up in the morning and decides it is going to paint that day when
it has the option not to, nor can it decide what mediums to use. In a vaguely
similar vein, we should not consider a good deal of graphic design art ‘art’
either, as much of this work can be reproduced by the average citizen with
relatively minimal software training. (This is not to say talented graphic
artists do not exist, though.)
To recap the criteria, a work of art must:
·
* Eliciting an emotion from its consumer and be able
to convey the message the artist intended [or]
·
* Produce an aesthetic, that is, enhancing or
creating a mood, or act as something complimentary to its environment;
·
*Have a purpose which in brevity should be
captured within the previous criteria;
·
* Be the result of talent that the average person
does not and likely cannot possess.
With these criteria in mind, we can likely dismiss much of
what is currently considered art and regulate it to the bin of well-intentioned
but futile attempts. It’s not that we should be snobs about art, rather, we
should simply have higher standards for both art and definitions. Otherwise, we’re
as lowbrow as the art we think is admirable.
 |
| Computer generated 'art.' |
