onwards with the journey!
"Sometimes, when trying to come to grips with the nature of art, it's more interesting to approach the question in other ways. You might have defined it as art as a product—that is, something that you make. But there are other ways of looking at art. Instead of asking what art is, it might be more useful to approach the subject indirectly, dancing around it or beating around the bush, as it were." [ctto]
______ ׂׂૢ་༘࿐
┊ ⋆ ┊ . ┊ ┊
┊ ┊⋆ ┊ .
┊ ┊ ⋆˚
✧. ┊
⋆ ★
We can contemplate these questions for a further and deeper dive into the meaning of art:
What different types are there?
How does art unfold over time?
What have others said about art?
What other ideas do we associate with art?
What do we confuse art with? (For instance. what is the relationship between art and creativity, or art and beauty?)
In the first post where I discuss the nature of art, I referred art to as expression, a process, a tool for awareness, a bringer of ideas, and even a culture or way of life. I think my discourse there managed to indirectly answer all the questions above. However, I still would like to quickly approach these questions in a more condensed answer. Here I go!
The video below briefly summarizes the purpose of art in 5 detailed points. After watching, it has certainly helped me understand even more the significance and relevance of art in our history and society.
Echoing the video, art provides hope; an anchor point for empathy, balances our views, values, and ideals, and calls to challenge us to look at the mundane in a glamourous light. Even more, it has the capability to dismiss and diminish limits indifferently; to question what we perceive to be true, aesthetic, or significant; to enable us to see the world as it is while also allowing us to envisage the world as it could be; to make the concealed overt. This ties in with the quote, "We have our Arts so we won’t die of Truth." (Friedrich Nietzsche, Zen in the Art of Writing)
"This is the power of art: The power to transcend our own self-interest, our solipsistic zoom-lens on life, and relate to the world and each other with more integrity, more curiosity, more wholeheartedness. - Maria Polpova"
We can certainly say that limiting art to a sole definition is near-impossible. Outside the boundaries of its familiar and traditional forms, the concept of art can still be applied in non-conventional ways. To quote Antonio Houmen, "Every time art takes a form people don't recognize, they ask ''Is that art?''"
As it is an impactful tool to convey stories, emotions, and feelings; art as a story-telling device can also challenge existing contexts or notions using materials and forms that aren't normally utilized. A great example, I believe, is Dutch artist Theo Jansen's Strandbeests. He is a scientist-engineer turned artist that creates large-scale kinetic sculptures, that are mainly built from PVC tubes, that harness the wind to move. The natural element of the wind is part of the artwork to function.
Upon reading more into Strandbeests, the story behind his idea for his works came from a desire to use the Strandbeests as a way of protecting the Netherlands from rising sea levels. He said so himself, "After some experiments with it, I had gained so many ideas and inspiration that I promised myself to give one year to this material. This intention totally got out of hand."
Jumping then to the question, who has a stake in art? Who decides what art is and what it's not, in order for it to be regarded by the common individual? Is it critics, institutions, the artists' community, or the government? What are the qualifications of artists for their works to be considered art? Can anyone be called an artist? In this sense, can Theo Jansen be considered one? And his creative engineering feats can be considered art? When we apply the notion that art is subjective in spite of who the creator is, I believe this matter is settled.
Furthermore, this leads to answering the rest of the questions. These two articles from The New York Times and The Atlantic present to us a myriad of opinions and definitions of art as said by recognized figures in art, philosophy, etc. Most of the statements in said articles have already shared and tackled the concepts I've discussed at the beginning of this post and in my previous ones. But there are some that still put me in a gray area.
✦•······················•✦•······················•✦✦•······················•✦•······················•✦
There are a number of ideas that we associate with art meld perfectly within it, and maybe it might also be why we struggle and confuse art's definition with them. Concepts such as entertainment, visuals, beauty, aesthetics, its relation to the creator's creativity and genius, capitalism, commercialism, etc. With the advent of digital multimedia in the information age, the last two have never been especially truer. These terms all boil down in relation to the question "How does art work?", Linda Weintraub states, "When you think about art, you have to think about life. If art doesn't sensitize us to something in the world, clarify our perceptions, make us aware of the decisions we have made, it's entertainment." To an extent, I do have to agree with Weintraub's quote that to fully experience how art works in us as a person, our consciousness has to be cultivated. Almost like having a conversation, as Karl Katz put it, "People look at art as if it were a checklist; the label is sometimes more important than the work of art. My sense is that looking at art is like having a conversation. If it's not visual and it's not visceral and it's not communicative, it's not a work of art."
On the other hand, Alexander Melamid says, "We see art as fun. As long as it gives us some kick, it goes. Sometimes it's not accepted by the galleries or museums as art, good art, but we believe it is." And I think that this statement is leaning toward the notion of entertainment. Bearing in mind these two assertions, I think I'd have to let go of my preconceived notions of entertainment of talk shows, tabloids, and TV shows, in order to accept both. It's still a gray area for me though. For example, if Squid Game is considered a show but at the same time, it brings to light various controversial issues and topics, could we consider such a TV show art?
✦•······················•✦•······················•✦✦•······················•✦•······················•✦
"To labor in the arts for any reason other than love is prostitution." (Steven Pressfield, The War of Art)
In regard to that quote, another idea to think about is the debate of, "Is it art if you have to pay for it, or is it art if you don't?" Quoting Hugh MacLeod, "Art suffers the moment other people start paying for it." I think there's still quite a blurred line between having to pay for art to enjoy it fully. I mean the artist needs to make a living from their work. Museums, galleries, and showcases are avenues that mostly make a profit from the displays of artists' works. This boils down to the point if a piece is in a museum, is it thought of as art? What about the murals on the streets? What about in countries and cultures wherein the art is considered a craft? Eg. an African vase displayed in a museum in England vs an African vase serving its function in Ghana? This notion alone brings in another discussion of how we differentiate arts and crafts. But in relation to the question, Robert Hughes states, "As far as I am concerned, something is a work of art if it is made with the declared intention to be a work of art and placed in a context where it is seen as a work of art. That does not determine whether it esthetically rich or stupidly banal." I stand with this as well. Ultimately, in the situation of viewing and experiencing art through paid gallery and museum entrances, "Art is whatever people want to perceive it to be, but that doesn't mean the Federal Government should fund it." (Peter Hoekstra)
✦•······················•✦•······················•✦✦•······················•✦•······················•✦
"Above all, artists must not be only in art galleries or museums—they must be present in all possible activities. The artist must be the sponsor of thought in whatever endeavor people take on, at every level." (Michelangelo Pistoletto, Art’s Responsibility)
Lastly, the artist's intentions also deal a hand in how we perceive art and its roles and functions in society. This video below wholly discusses the spectrum of an individual's interpretation of art with regard to the intention of the artist:
The internet and social media have provided us a means for the public closer to the artist in terms of the World Wide Web to have convenient access to artists' profiles, resources, interviews, and information about the artists' intentions and stories behind their creations.
Moreover, with the way things have evolved over time, our ideas of art have unfolded and art can look like anything now and our Duchampian perception of it all has just become even more ingrained into us. That is why the factor of the creator's representations is somewhat essential to our understanding of art. To quote Jenny Holzer, "I think you can rely on the artist's representation; he or she would have no reason to lie. A viewer with a combination of sensitivity and knowledge will perceive that something is art and is good. Time also helps."
Society's ideas of art reflect its many facets back at it, and in every period of time, there will always be newer angles and conceptions to look at it from. Arthur Danto says, "Art these days has very little to do with esthetic responses; it has more to do with intellectual responses. You have to project a hypothesis: Suppose it is a work of art? Then certain questions come into play -- what's it about, what does it mean, why was it made, when was it made and with respect to what social and artistic conversations does it make a contribution? If you get good answers to those questions, it's art".
______ ׂׂૢ་༘࿐
┊ ⋆ ┊ . ┊ ┊
┊ ┊⋆ ┊ .
┊ ┊ ⋆˚
✧. ┊
⋆ ★
"What's interesting is when art changes people's minds. The art historian Leo Steinberg wrote about Jasper Johns that the minute he allowed Johns to be good art, he had to let go of something, of the definition of what art was. Good art makes you give something up." - Robert Storr
