Answering this question with a simple yes or no is not that difficult. In fact, most people would quickly agree with me that, yes, music is art. We are all familiar with painting, sculptures and the like and know intuitively that something like music falls in the same category. It is far more difficult, however, to argue why. Ultimately, this question goes back to the issue of how art itself should be defined. Itās a scary task, I know. Letās start from the beginning.
I remember exactly what got me thinking about this subject. This is not very important in itself, but it does give a sense of where Iām coming from, why I define art the way I do. Itās this anecdote that led me to conclude that basically anybody can make art and that there is in fact little to no difference between you and Michelangelo. I have this āprojectā (for lack of a better word) called Paper Machete in which I make no-fi noise āmusicā (for lack of a better word). Itās all rather pointless and very, very amateurish. Call it occupational therapy if you will. I make a song, shoot a video for it in my backyard and put it online. This shouldnāt have to be of any interest to you, but it shows that I donāt really know what Iām doing or plan out these Paper Machete videos and that the amount of effort put in them is minimal.[1]
And my friend called it art. When she said that, I thought that maybe I had misunderstood her, that it was a matter of linguistic confusion (we donāt speak the same language and both arenāt native English speakers). In the end, that didnāt matter because the seeds for this blog had already been planted.
I am an artist. I am Rembrandt, Beethoven, Michelangelo and David Bowie. It is not in the least pretentious or arrogant to say that. Because so are you. Iām not pretending I can create what they have created (although I could learn), nor am I pretending that I ever want to. Sure, these men are far more gifted and skilled than I am (and probably ever will be). The point is that I think itās near to impossible to find a criterion by which you can call their work art and not mine. Let me expand on that a little by giving a concrete example before I discuss the issue that is actually at the heart of this blog: the question why music should be seen as art in the first place.
Letās compare Beethoven with Justin Bieber. Beethoven is an almost mythical figure, revered for his work, while Bieber is despised by almost the entire world, known as that despicable boy who makes that despicable music. If there ever was a person who made real Art, it would be Beethoven. Bieber on the other hand, wellā¦makes generic, overproduced crap, lacking in any form of originality, its only reason of existence being commercial. But the two men have more in common than you might think, because I could just as easily defend Bieberās music. His music is very successful, made in exactly such a way that it appeals to as big an audience as possible ā it basically abides to all the laws that make music āgoodāā and thus bringing joy to millions of people. That you hate this guy does not change a thing about that. The ages have made composers like Beethoven almost infallible, but fact is that they also made tat, work that they perhaps werenāt too proud about, but had to make because they simply had to pay the bills. You might object and say that Beethoven at least was passionate about his craft. Bieber, on the other hand, is obviously lacking in passion: he is just in it for the money. There might be truth in that, but, as I said, Beethovenās livelihood depended on his music as well. His music, just like Bieberās, was tailor-made to appeal to a specific audience just to insure that he would have had work in the future. Moreover, Bieber has enough money to quit right now. He would never have to work a day in his life anymore.[2] The simple fact that he is still going shows that he must at least get some enjoyment out of his work. Itās not all money. And people who call him talentless? Well, the boy can sing better than you or me, that much is sure. Bieber (and his producers) are just as skilful as Beethoven was, it just shows in a different way. This is neither a defence of Justin Bieber, nor an attack on Beethoven. The point is that if we call one piece of music āartā, so do we have to call the other.
Ā The dreaded task of defining art
So why call music art anyway? This is impossible to answer without giving some definition of art itself, which, as it turns out, is quite a challenge. Hereās my attempt. Art is unnecessary, we ā as humanity - donāt need it to survive. But at the same time we are naturally inclined to it. Art is a way of looking at the world not as it is, but as it could be. In it redundancy it could well be the thing that makes us human. Art is the product of humans creatively expressing themselves. Making something out of nothing just because you can. Thatās it. It doesnāt involve skill or a vision. Or, to put it differently, it can, but doesnāt have to. In my definition these two ā skill and vision ā play no part because they presuppose too much: Iād like to keep it to a minimum, thus maximizing what art is (bear with me on this). Iām not saying that you cannot define a piece of art as something that is skilfully made (in fact, that is probably one criterion that many people use), but my problem with this definition is that it is impossible to say where the line between skilful and not skilful should be drawn. Ā Rather, I would like to define art using three other concepts that, if still equally vague, are a whole lot less demanding. Subjectivity, abstraction and praxis. These are the reason music is an art form par excellence. Using these three concepts, there is no need for arbitrary lines anymore.
Subjectivity presupposes that a piece of art is a reflection of its creator, whatever the circumstances of its creation. Whatever the intention was behind making a piece of art, it will, consciously or subconsciously, be a reflection of who the artist is. By this I mean that, even if someone puts zero thought into what he makes (like I have often done with my Paper Machete project), there is still something of him in what he makes. Or, to put it another way, to make something you have to make choices ā to act is in a certain way nothing more than making choices ā and you will make these choices the way you do because you are you, even in the most limited or controlled circumstances.[3]
In art there needs to be a certain degree of abstraction, which sets it apart from anything else humans make. Much like language is a way to communicate what goes on inside our heads, so art too is an abstraction. By putting something of himself (choices, thoughts, opinions, all stemming from the mind) in his art, the artist abstracts himself. Art is thus more than subjectivity, art is also a language. It conveys something. It has a story to tell. Plus, this āsomethingā needs to be translated to a certain medium ā a painting, sculpture, music and so on. In that sense, art is also abstract in a different way because it doesnāt take place on the level of language. It captures things that simply cannot be put to words.
The third and final characteristic of art that I like to introduce is praxis. Praxis means an action that is a goal in itself.[4] For example, you play a video game because playing it is a reward in itself. Doing the groceries on the other hand is an example of something that is not a praxis. Cooking can be somewhere in between. Making food is a necessity, but it can also be fun. Likewise, art should be seen as a praxis. Art is made for art to be made. Matters are of course never as simple as that. More often than not money is involved. But frankly, if you go into the art-making business primarily to make money, you must be completely insane. Become a dentist instead. More on that later.
These three concept will probably be true only in varying degrees, depending on what art form you look at. And I hear you think does he really think this little system is water tight? Indubitably I do. Of course I donāt and surely additions and alterations could be made.
Ā Defining art like this has two major consequences. Firstly, it becomes impossible to determine from the outside what should be seen as a piece of art and what not. The three concepts are no external characteristics. Secondly, a lot of things made by humans could be seen as art.
This is correct in a way, but because of the second consequence, the first isnāt a problem anymore. If anything could be art, external characteristics become obsolete. But should everything made by humans be seen as art according to this definition? No. Although I said drawing lines would not be necessary with my definition, one line still needs to be drawn: not within forms of creativity, but between them ā the line between art and not-art. However, if my definition works, these lines will not have to be arbitrary. In this sense, my definition of art is both minimum and maximum at the same time: there is little need for subjective interpretation; while at the same time it includes a very wide range of forms of creativity. If you are consequent, it should be obvious what is art and what is not.
Before moving on it might be a good to give a few examples of what would be art according to my beautiful definition. Iāll give you three cases: something that is not art (doing odd jobs around the house), an ambiguous case (a tattoo) and something that clearly is art (music). These three will also help further define what I see as art.
Illustrating my point by means of odd jobs is not as strange as it might seem at first. My dad is a typical handyman. He knows his way around tools and whenever he has the time, heāll be fixing something in and around the house. Some of the things he makes are not really necessary. He makes and fixes things (in part) because itās fun. Making the thing is a reward in itself: praxis! Doing odd jobs is art. That is not quite true, however, because here the specific is confused with the general. In general odd jobs around the house are not a praxis. They serve a very specific purpose, namely improving the house. Therefore, odd jobs canāt be seen as art.
Thinking about what to do with the category of tattoos got me in a bit of trouble. The guy who makes tattoos is called a tattoo artist for a reason, but a tattoo artist doesnāt have a strong connection with what he tattooes: he doesnāt come up with the idea for a tattoo himself, in many cases he doesnāt even design it himself, nor can tattooing be seen as a praxis. It dawned on me that a piece of art doesnāt have to have just one creator: the person getting the tattoo and the tattoo artist together are responsible. Itās the cooperation between the two that makes a tattoo art. After all, the tattoo wouldnāt exist without either one in the first place. The same applies to other art forms: sometimes something becomes art in the cooperation between people.
And last but not least, music. Music is art because it is characterised by all three concepts that Iāve used to define art. Music is extremely subjective, abstract and making it is a goal in itself. It would be easy enough to point out many instances in which matters are a whole lot less simple. For example, Iāve already pointed out that there are often many other reason to make something besides just wanting to make it. Music is made to make money. But in the end, this is the wrong way of looking at matters (much like the above example of odd jobs). Sure, it is easy to think of a few instances in which music is not made as a goal in itself, but in the end you shouldnāt answer the question of whether or not music is art by looking at Justin Bieber and comparing him to a great classical composer. Instead you could and should only look at the act of making music itself ā the general, not the specific. If we keep looking at specific cases, eventually we will get stuck, because these cases are endless. Looking at the general, on the other hand, is much more fruitful. When doing this, it is much easier to come to a conclusion that can be applied to all specific cases.
Look at music just as it is, without all the bullshit surrounding it. Music as it is has nothing whatsoever to do with money or fame. See music as the magic that you and I have in our fingertips. The thing that doesnāt just belong to the stars, but to everybody. See music just as music and tell me itās not art.
Ā Some might say that the big down side of my definition of art is that it is very broad. But this is exactly what I like about it. There will be less misconceptions and pretentiousness. Not all art is to be revered. Some of it is simply crap. Acknowledging this can only make art as a whole better. Itās the beauty of our age that literally anyone can make art. Literally anyone can pick up a pen, pencil or a guitar. No longer do you need the money to be able to afford to spend your time on making art. That and the internet have made it possible for anybody to be heard. This can only benefit art. There is something for anybody (which means there is a whole damn lot that you wonāt like). With this freedom, creativity is virtually unrestricted. This will bring forth unimagined amounts of crap. But it is this crap heap that in the end that will bring art to new heights.
Ā Ā [1] But seriously, checking it out wonāt hurt! (find my page here)
[2] Unless heād build an amusement park for himself.
[3] For example when a patron tells an artist exactly what to make.
[4] This is probably an extremely simplistic notion of the concept, but it is enough for present purposes.
andulkaphoto
titsay
theartofmadeline
turnnoffyourmind
jacobvanloon
discoholicmusic