What is Art?

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.'

The Necessity of Art to Freedom

In America, we are living in an age when millions, excuse me, billions of taxpayer dollars are funneled into bullets, bombs, and luxurious embassies for U.S. emissaries around the world. The necessity to do so may be subject to debate, but one has to wonder given all those tax dollars, who is getting shortchanged? Should more government money be spent on education? Perhaps if school funding were more than an issue once an election cycle, senior government officials, by virtue of their education, would have seen 9/11 as inevitable and taken the necessary steps politically (if not militarily) to prevent the terrible events of that day.

In the need to fulfill many government services, federal and state legislators routinely shortchange public schools. School lunch programs, the athletic department for all non-essential sports (only football is essential, obviously) and the art departments are usually the first to fall in the battle for funding. But are these programs even necessary? Yes, they are all vitally important. However, if school administrators must decide upon which of these departments are most necessary, especially which one is most valuable to freedom, then the art department may be the most valuable.

Though art is often taught in pre-school through middle school, it is done so almost as an afterthought. By the time a student reaches high school, training in art is not likely to be offered, presumably because art is not as valued as math, science, or history. (Let’s put aside America’s abysmal scores in these subjects for the time being which would otherwise lead us to question the value of those subjects as well.) Among those subjects, though, history is nothing like math or science, and history is not particularly crucial given America’s One-Billion-Hamburgers-Sold, consumer-driven society that routinely ignores historical facts. Why then is history required for high school students? Because it teaches them something, particularly the way the prevailing local government wants students to develop their worldview.

Traditionally with art, it has been taught because of what it does where what it does is necessary in safeguarding freedom. We should be requiring art classes in high school because developing artistic talents aid in the development of critical thinking and communication skills. Art teaches us to think in different ways, providing us with an ability to evaluate the world around us. There is also the matter of what art does for students as a means of self-expression.

Although art is a form of communication primarily associated with visual arts, it encompasses so much more. Art also comes in the form of music, literature, and our bodily movements. Art can be found in architecture and other forms of technology as well. As a form of communication, it is a language that coveys lessons and messages that, “…succeeds where words fail” (Lynn Olsen). And it is a language every bit as important as mathematics. As Albert Einstein said, “The value of an education…is not the learning of many facts, but the training of the mind to think of something that cannot be learned from textbooks.” Is it ethical to deprive a student of the unique voice and ear art has to offer?

What are the implications of withdrawing art appreciation from our schools? Without the ability to recognize and decipher the language of art, we open ourselves to manipulation. As columnist Lynne Olsen once noted, “Totalitarian rulers recognize the power of art.” The Nazi’s, for example, instituted strict rules upon artists with only themes sanctioned by the state being allowed for the sake of manipulating public opinion. If a student does not learn to think in different ways, they become prone to monotonously linear thinking, and easily swayed to believe any truth a government may want to invent.

 

Case in point 1: American cable news. Cue the Fox News logo; red, white, and blue. Not only are these colors the colors of the American flag, they are primary colors well known to lure flies into spiders’ webs. The Fox News channel logo is quite intentionally, and they have the rating to prove it. As stock quotes and headlines tick by, a once ever present “Terror Alert” graphic reminded the public that war is permanent. Down the fauxhole our taxpayer dollars go.

Case in point 2: Advertisers use art to manipulate consumers all the time. All one has to do is mention the words “Coca-Cola,” and immediately, flowing white cursive lettering on a red background – a color combination know to invoke hunger and thirst – forms in one’s mind. But who would know to resist this application of art without any art training? Without critical thinking and communication skills, anyone is at risk of being open to propaganda and advertising. If students do not learn to be creative, conventional wisdom cannot be challenged, and what America is left with is a population susceptible to corporations, fascism or some other form of tyranny.

Many tyrants have imposed restrictions on artists. Art as a form of self-expression is vehemently opposed, leading to a culturally bleak existence. An existence without art, as artist Zel Brook put it, “…is the same as telling us that we should go through our days ignoring our senses, with endless days of frustration…with no hope the situation will ever change.”

In the 18^th century, philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, surrounded by the constant turmoil and conflict in Europe, explained that engaging in the arts is the only way to release one’s self from an otherwise painful existence. Another philosopher, the ill-regarded Karl Marx, felt that repressing an individual’s expression with art will ultimately result in noncompliance or violent revolt, given that in totalitarian or fascist societies, the public has no outlet for social criticism. Likewise, teenagers who have not been instructed in art face limited means of expressing themselves or will become the target of criticism by their classmates when they buck the status quo when they do express themselves in a unique manner. Is the American teenager’s obligatory rebellion or fits of depression a product of artistic repression, from not being heard?

Art helps express the ineffable. Cathy McGuire, an art therapist in Portland, Oregon, says, “The physical act of creation connects our bodies with the external world…what we are really making is ourselves.” As any parent can attest to, it’s hard enough to communicate with their children. Limiting the means by which they can communicate only complicates issues. Surely, parents would rather understand their children than roll their eyes at them. Or would parents simply rather their children be compliant with their governing beliefs? With parents often attempting to mold their children in their own image, I suppose they should then be happy with the disposal of any art department. Why bother questioning advertisers who will attempt to manipulate everyone into buying their products, the safety or efficacy of those products be damned? Politicians, men of power who love nothing more than more power, why wouldn’t they want to cut funding for the arts in public schools; they simply don’t want people thinking for themselves if they expect to remain within a sphere of influence. 

That is the problem faced with art. Without artists, the world is a colorless and dull world shaped by the demands of the figures of authority. Whether or not such a world is the world we should be living in is another question, but without all the practical tools and languages with which to debate the question, how can we be sure of the truth?

Few people will dispute the pleasure of freedom. However, it should be realized that freedom and artistry cannot live without each other. Is it necessary for the arts to be taught in high school? Yes, it is vital to everyone’s freedom if freedom is in fact what we value. 

What Robin Williams Death Say About Us

Like everyone else with a conscious, I do not care about the details surrounding the death of comedian and actor Robin Williams. I do not care at all how he died. The facts of how he died do not change the fact that this influential comedian is dead. But the sad thing is, those of us with a conscious are in the minority. For every one person who claims to be upset at the details released by the media, there are ten people whose appetite to know is exactly the reason why the media releases such information. I agree when people say, “Let’s honor this man by remembering and focusing on his history in the performing arts.” If only most people would take it just that far.

 

Instead of being content to simply remember Robin Williams, many people are taking the man’s death to focus on the ‘illness’ of depression. Depression is not an illness, though; depression is a deviation from our normal chemical balance (or homeostasis, or baseline, or whatever you want to call it). Depression is no more an illness than happiness. Sure, extreme depression is a serious condition because it may lead to suicide, but extreme happiness is a serious condition as well – just observe any member of a cult. If Robin Williams was in a state of suffering so great that he decided suicide was his only way out, well, it was his decision to make; no one else’s. I may not agree that suicide is a reasonable solution to one’s problems, but because I personally don’t like it doesn’t give me a logical reason to categorize simple depression as an illness. Those of us who have never taken our own lives due to severe depression (which would be everyone reading this) doesn’t know what it’s like to be in such a state that the conviction it takes to take one’s own life is actually there. We are not Robin Williams. We do not know what he was going through. Should he have sought help? Maybe he did. We do not know. It shouldn’t matter.

Then there’s the goddamn conspiracy theorists who are taking this opportunity to suspect that 1) It wasn’t a suicide because 2) they can’t fathom why someone would kill themselves or can’t fathom the conviction it takes or because 3) the media is trying to cover up other major world news events. As a mentioned just a few sentences ago, none of us know what it was like to be in the actor’s shoes, so just because we can’t fathom the why’s or how’s of suicide does not mean foul play is afoot. In thinking the media is trying cover some other important bit of news is preposterous; imagine all the major news network owners getting together and saying, “Wow, first this shit with Russia and now ISIS is really fucking up things in the Middle East. People are getting scared. We’d better kill off a celebrity and distract the public. Who can we get to?” You really have to be a moron to concoct a narrative like that. What I love/hate about conspiracy theorists is that they insist there’s a conspiracy to use fear to control the masses, while they themselves use fear to try and sell you on the idea that there’s a conspiracy.

In the end, it is the end of Robin Williams. I will fondly remember his stand-up comedy, him as Mork from Ork and the creep from One Hour Photo. I don’t care how he died. I care about the art he made.