It was a comment in one of Paul Butzi’s elegant posts The Four Seductions that I said “Art is about communication.”
That phrasing was a writer’s device. Paul, quoting or perhaps paraphrasing Stephen Dietz said “Art is about craft.” I held up a contrary mirror to that statement and used the word “about” again. That was an artistic phrasing of a larger idea.
Art is a certain kind of specialized communication. Communication is not necessarily art. Art does not equal communication, but all art is communication. In mathematical terms, art is a member of the set of communication. What makes art different and special is that a communication that has value.
People consider a communication art when it has merit, worth or excellence. Perhaps a better word than value would be quality.
This is how people, ordinary everyday people use the word art. Nothing has been invented here. So this is not really a “theory.” It’s an observation of observed phenomena. The word “art” is used to describe any communication that can be valued as to excellence.
That’s really a definition for art. The quality of communication.
What is interesting about this way of understanding and analyzing art is the magnitude of predictions and explanations that result. By considering art as an instance in the class of communication, we have an organizing principle that can be used to predict, measure, enhance or create art. We have a way of helping our own art, and we have a way of helping other artists.
For example, if art is communication, it follows the rules of communication. If it’s too original, it is difficult for people to understand. If it is too unoriginal, it is a bore. Too loud and it is irritating. Too quiet and it has no impact. If the subject bears no relationship with the experiences of the perceiver, it is not likely to be grasped. If it deals with a subject in a way that is not stimulating, it is not likely to be valued.
Second, we see that we can dismiss binary or two valued logic as applied to art. It is never therefore “art or not art;” rather, it is degree of art. Someone might attempt to make the case, “If that’s true, well then everything is art. And that can’t be true.”
(That’s so easy to refute I won’t even bother; rather, I will leave that as an exercise for the reader. Assuming of course that you actually read this.)
However, considering that art is communication and that the term is used to describe a the quality of communication, we do open the field to many expressions that have not always been considered art but craft. Craft becomes art when it breaks away from mechanical functionality and begins to “emanate.” One’s personal appearance becomes art when it transcends the purely functional. One’s life itself becomes an art form when it becomes something more than mere survival. So it is true that art as the quality of communication expands the definition.
Therefore this is not a trivial idea.
As artists, we have heard many debates in our lives about whether this is art or that is art. Is a sunset art? Is graffiti art? Can animals make art?
But the answers to these questions can be found by applying the above criterion. Are you experiencing it as a communication — conveyed information? Do you value it?
Then yes. It is art. For you.
Sure, we have heard “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”
But why?
This is not something new. Artists have “always known” this. They have an intuitive grasp of this even when they deny they are trying to communicate, and it shows in their work.
As an an organizing principle, art as a communication of quality predicts that art is not a universal. Sure. We know that. But why? What will be art for one will not necessarily be art for another. Why? Because art, as a subset of communication. It succeeds or fails the same ways that communications succeed or fail.
The “artiness” is a matter of opinion because value is a matter of opinion. How much would you pay? Why does a painting appear more valuable in one environment than another? Why does promotion work? (Clue: there is a relationship between degree of attention and degree of communication) Elitism itself in art is explained by this principle. Because one group can see it is art (or pretends to) they are therefore more capable of perception than the crowd, and therefore superior. What are they doing? They saying “This new practice/thing is valuable communication.”
That’s all.
Because I have narrowed the scope of this essay, I do not here treat the relationship between art and technique. But the understanding here can be used to explode that topic.
It could be said, that communication must have intention in order to regarded as “true” communication, but there are several ways to refute that. One, in law, intention is an ineffable quality that is difficult or impossible to prove or disprove. Second, intention can be the intention to not have an intention. Third, nowhere in any usual dictionary definition is intention required for the word communication to apply. Fourth, the requirement that only sentient beings can communicate is a peculiarly Northern European tradition. It is not shared by most of the world, as in Africa or Asia where it is very strongly believed that “inanimate” objects can give and receive communication. It is nothing unusual for a Latin to talk to his sword or his pistol. In Japan, there is a tradition of “seeing stones.” They are “emanative” rocks. When discovered, usually in rivers, they are highly prized and will receive special places in gardens. Visitors will be taken near them without being told about them as a test of the visitor’s sensitivity.
It could also be said that if art is actually defined, then what are we going to talk about?
Art.
To show the possibilities for discourse, I have selected one of my favorite paintings. It was named “The Tempest,” but that came later. No one knows what Giorgione called it. He never explained it.
Let’s look at it. People have debated this painting for centuries. Whole books have been written about it. It’s “meaning” has always been a huge mystery.
Who is that guy with the walling stick? Is it a walking stick? Maybe it’s a spear shaft. A phallic object the goes with his exaggerated codpiece as was the style then. Is he the painter? Giorgione resembled this man. He is not looking at the woman. He’s looking off… somewhere, and he seems to be thinking. Perhaps he is looking back in time. Is he a wanderer? A soldier? There’s a bangage on his leg. Is that significant? And the woman with the child. She looks so vulnerable in her nudity, and yet the way she looks out at the viewer is anything but vulnerable. It’s like she’s saying, “You see? This is life.” Or is she? Her look can be construed as accusative. Then there is that divide, that watery gulch between the two figures, and the two figures are so differently painted. There is considerable texture to the man, but the woman is more smoothly painted. Is that significant? Did he paint these in two different periods? It’s like Giorgione put them together in the picture, but they are really in separate countries. Is that symbolic?
Was this autobiographical? Did Giorgione get a girl pregnant then leave her to her fate? That seems to be going on here, but maybe the guy died, and this allegorical. Maybe the woman is a friend of the painter and he felt compassion for her difficulty.
Then there is the storm in the background. We know this is Torino, but it’s a fantasy, Romantic Torino. There is a sense of something imminent. Doom? Danger? Change? And notice that tippy building behind the man. A world gone askew.
We will never know. Giorgione’s intentions, if he even had any, are not clear. We can only speculate.
What do you think? (There are no wrong answers.)
This painting demonstrates several things. It shows that the artists intentions need not be known for a communication to occur; therefore, artist’s statements of intentions are not significant. Indeed, it suggests that an artist would do well to dispense with any vanity on the subject. It suggests that the art that will be considered truly great will be the kind of art that is actually completed by the viewer. This is the singularly remarkable characteristic of art that comes down through history as truly great. Ambiguity of communication in art is a highly valued characteristic, evidently.
I have completely ignored technique here. That was intentional, but the opportunity for viewer participation (two way communication), when combined with dazzling virtuoso skill is a one two knock-out punch combination.
But the reason I picked this painting in particular is that it has historically demonstrates an amazing capacity to stimulate dialog. It shows that what makes art the most valuable in the eyes of people throughout the ages is something that generates communication far beyond it’s own time. That is one thing you can say for sure about any really famous piece of art.
If ever there was a proof positive that art is about communication, there it is.
Twenty thousand years of art history scream it from the mountain tops. It is writ in letters of fire across the sky.
But I’m afraid I won’t be able to participate in any dialog resulting from this post. I’m taking a long train trip tomorrow, starting before dawn, and as soon as I post this, I shall have to pack. Please do not think me rude if I do not respond. I will have a look at again Monday, but until then, I shall be offline.
Rex,
Wherever you are, thank you for this wonderful essay.
You help me to complete something I have been thinking. I recently commented that a good number of the best still life painters in Haarlem are doing craft, not art. Following your logic, there is no more reason to consider an expensive painting art than there is to consider an expressive chair not art. If we want to extend the boundaries of art in one direction, we must also consider removing the term from some objects that are traditionally classified as art. The basis for this is, does the object serve as a vehicle for communication? As you point out, this will depend on the viewer and his or her experiences. The same painting that I call craft could be considered art in the future, if all the related paintings by the artist are lost.
Likewise, we consider Greek painted vases to be art, but at the time they were being made they were more probably considered craft, at least in most instances. The surviving fragments are more likely to be unoriginal designs, on statistical grounds alone.
The concept of animals making art is fascinating. I believe that the aesthetic sense that human beings use to appreciate and communicate with art is present in animals. From an evolutionary point of view, it would be astonishing if it were not. And what do animals do with their art (be it inherited plumage, or expressive motion?) They communicate, obviously. And mostly about sex.
I think we could use some more sex art on this site. Thanks for including the first nude. Well, Angela gave us something in this direction already, we should not forget.
I disagree that inanimate objects can create art. If art is a form of communication, then it is something that can only be created by intelligent beings. I don’t believe in spirits or magic. But that’s just a personal view.
The word art is related to the word “artificial,” in a non-pejorative sense of the word. A sunset cannot be art, because it is not an artificial creation by an intelligent being. Well, I realize some will disagree here, of course. If you believe in the supernatural, then everything can be art.
I think perhaps the most valuable outcome of your stance is that art can be seen as a matter of degree. The answer in not yes or no — which is inherently divisive and does not lead to much more than a “yes/no” argument. In fact, the entire question of “what is art?” tends to disappear. In a sense I was seeking for this in my satire of that name, but you have done much better here. The question turns to the more interesting topic, what is being expressed? Is it some dull message spoken in a refined voice? Or is it an original idea whispered with a rasping voice? And what is that message?
Paul, quoting or perhaps paraphrasing Stephen Dietz said “Art is about craft.” I held up a contrary mirror to that statement and used the word “about” again.
Now, that would be an interesting claim if it was even remotely true.
Instead, what the article actually says is “Likewise, there’s a sense that craft is not what art is about, and therefore it’s unimportant.” and then proceeds to disagree with that sense.
So that part of the post is arguing that craft is important. Not that craft and art are identical, not that art is impossible without craft, but that if we reject craft as a signficant aspect of our art, we find our art isn’t as good as it might be.
Rex, first of all, this is an excellent post, well thought out, and I agree with much of it. But I question your definition of art.
What makes art different and special is that a communication that has value….The word “art” is used to describe any communication that can be valued as to excellence.
I can think of communications that have value that I wouldn’t consider art. A weather report might have value if I’m planning a picnic. A conversation with my accountant might have value if it helps me save money on my taxes. A red light at an intersection may have value because it helps prevent accidents. All of these communications may be excellent and valuable, but I wouldn’t consider any of them to be art.
I think what defines art is the context in which something is presented or viewed. The context might be determined by the creator (artist, writer, etc.) by a presenter (curator, editor, etc.), or by the viewer (reader, listener, etc.). What makes something art, I believe, is that it is viewed within the context of conveying, experiencing, or even expecting, an aesthetic experience.
Sometimes we know the intentions of the creator. If someone creates something, and they tell me it is art, I will look at in that that context. Whether it is good or bad, whether it succeeds or fails as communication, is another issue. Sometimes we either don’t know the intentions of the creator (like w/ Giorgione, though I think we can assume he meant his painting to be art), or we choose to look at something in a different context than the one in which it was created (like the Greek vases), but it is the context in which we view these things that makes them art.
Rather than there being degrees of art, I propose that the context (which can change) determines whether something is art or not. And that the things that can be evaluated are on scales from bad to good, failed to successful, emanative to non-emanative, or whatever other crtiteria you like. They are all extremely subjective, of course, and there will be plenty of disagreement.
Now if I put together a weather report, a letter from my accountant and a traffic light, and I claim it is a work of art, and you look at it knowing that, then it is. It might be terrible art, it might be at the bottom of any scale you might use to evalutate it. But it would still be art.
David:
I think what defines art is the context in which something is presented or viewed. The context might be determined by the creator (artist, writer, etc.) by a presenter (curator, editor…), or by the viewer (reader, listener, etc.). What makes something art, I believe, is that it is viewed within the context of conveying, experiencing, or even expecting, an aesthetic experience.
Possibly…..things aren’t art. Experiences are.
Colin, I agree. The purpose of an art object is to initiate an art experience. I think we can have art experiences without the objects, but the objects can help.
David,
And, therefore, the objects don’t need to be manmade?
That’s a good question. My inclination is to think that it either has to be man-made (or woman-made), or deliberately selected and re-presented, re-contexted (as in found objects). Hence the “artifice”. But I’m not sure. I could be convinced otherwise…
David,
Sorry about the gender specific phrasing.
If it is the experience that is important – the viewer/thing relationship – then what difference is there between, say, my experience of looking at a tree and my experience in looking at a painting of a tree?
Or for an example with more shades:
– painting of tree in landscape
– tree in heavily managed landscape (like a Capability-Brown park)
– tree in moderately managed landscape (a farm)
– tree in lightly managed landscape (a national park)
– tree
where does the ‘deliberately selected and re-presented’ line get drawn?
Damn, Colin, I’ve been thinking all day about your earlier questions and my not-very-well-thought-out responses. Here’s what I’ve come up with.
I think that art is not an experience, but a context. And within that context may exist art experiences, art objects, art actions, and artists.
Here’s a question. Let’s say you see someone chasing another person. He knocks him down, takes the thing that drops out of his hands, and runs back in the direction they both came from. What should you do?
It depends on context. Context detemines whether you just witnessed a crime, or are a spectator at a football game (American – I don’t know about rugby). The game creates the context for the things associated with it.
I think it’s the same with art. If something is created, presented or looked at in the context of art, then it is art. And I think it involves some level of human intervention. I also think there is some level of communication involved, even if it’s to say “this is what I saw”. Context is what allows not only a painting, a photograph or a Greek vase to be art, but also a urinal. Not all urinals are art, but Duchamp’s is, because he placed it in an art context. By that context I don’t just mean the museum itself, but the whole ongoing conversation about what art is. By bringing the urinal into the conversation, it became art.
I think a good test is to ask about something “if it isn’t art, then what is it?” If you can’t come up with a convincing answer then it’s probably art.
David-
The idea that an object is art when the context says it is, is fairly interesting.
But it’s also a way of separating art from non-art that suggests that, if I want to be an artist, my behavior should be entirely focused on context, and not at all on creation.
That is, I should immediately set aside my camera and printmaking equipment, and just focus on picking up sticks and getting them placed in the right ‘context’ (a gallery? A museum?).
Can I create the context just by declaring that my courtyard is the right context for art, and then create art just by dragging the firewood into my courtyard? Obviously the answer is ‘yes’.
If I go into an attic, and I find a forgotten painting by Vermeer wrapped in a blue polyethylene tarp, neither the painting nor the tarp is art. If I leave the painting in the attic, and drag the tarp to the Met, pile it on the floor, and put a hang tag on the wall saying it’s ‘Tarp Arrangement #1’ by Paul Butzi, the tarp becomes art but the Vermeer is still just a paint covered rag in the attic?
That doesn’t seem to be a way of drawing a distinction between art/not-art that is very useful in the real world of practicing art-makers. (or, if you prefer, people who until recently believed what they were making was ‘art’).
I’m left with the problem that I want to become better at making things that have certain properties. The properties I want these things to have inhere in the object themselves, not in the context in which they’re observed.
If the ‘art-world’ has now defined ‘art’ to mean ‘things which are observed in an “art observation context”‘, that’s fine by me, although I’m not an artist in that case. I’m something else, instead, and I’m almost entirely uninterested in art, which will probably be a surprise to my friends.
I guess I’ll just be ‘Paul, that eccentric guy who makes those funny non-art marks on sheets of paper that sometimes remind people of landscapes they’ve seen.’
I think a good test is to ask about something “if it isn’t art, then what is it?” If you can’t come up with a convincing answer then it’s probably art.
But what if you can come up with a good answer – does that mean it isn’t art?
In the case of the urinal I do have a convincing answer to what it is if it’s not art – it’s a urinal.
Not all urinals are art, but Duchamp’s is, because he placed it in an art context. […]
I think a good test is to ask about something “if it isn’t art, then what is it?” If you can’t come up with a convincing answer then it’s probably art.
And if, in reference to Duchamp’s urinal, I answer ‘if it isn’t art, then what is it?’ with ‘It’s a urinal’, does that mean that suddenly it’s no longer art?
David,
Your point about context is very close to the point others have made about intent.
If I’ve understood you properly then:
ITEM 1
A minoan potter makes a functional clay vessel. Somebody buys it and takes it home to drink out of – not art at this point.
The object breaks and is thrown out into the rubbish – not art at this point.
Two thousand years later a scientist finds it and studies it – not art at this point.
The country has a rule about found objects belonging to the state so the dirty, broken, useless object is passed to the municipal museum – whereupon it immediately becomes art?
ITEM 2
Paul’s Vermeer example
ITEM 3
I stumble across the most exquisite arrangement of shells on a beach. Arranged by no hand. I stand there struck by their beauty. Awed by their arrangement. Elevated and enriched by the experience. Not art.
I take a mediocre photograph of the shells and through my dastardly connections win the Turner Prize and get prime time in the country’s major gallery. Everybody looks at the photo and thinks ‘what a load of ……, my dog could have done a better job than that’. The experience is, shall we say, flat and unrewarding. But this is art?
—–
This is a serious question. Am I misunderstanding you?
Everybody looks at the photo and thinks ‘what a load of ……, my dog could have done a better job than that’. The experience is, shall we say, flat and unrewarding. But this is art?
Colin, this and all the other objections that others have stated above are of course totally valid. They are the sorts of issues that have been raised by any number of artists during this past century, including Duchamp. I don’t have any good answers. But I want to point out that this whole discussion has been happening within the context of art.
But it’s also a way of separating art from non-art that suggests that, if I want to be an artist, my behavior should be entirely focused on context, and not at all on creation.
Not necessarily. Your creation is taking place within the context of art. Aren’t there other things we all create that aren’t created in that context?
The properties I want these things to have inhere in the object themselves, not in the context in which they’re observed.
A very valid point. Rather than addressing it here, I’ll use that as the starting point for today’s post. It will be up soon (assuming I have better luck this week uploading an image).
Your creation is taking place within the context of art
So if I plant a tree with art in mind, it is an art tree.
If I plant it as a windbreak, it isn’t an art tree.
How does my neighbour tell the difference?
I’d say yes to both. Your neighbor may never know the difference.
David,
So before I consider an object as art I need to find the creator and ask them whether they intended it to be art?
And if they say, no, they didn’t intend it to be art, then I can’t view it as art?
But I want to point out that this whole discussion has been happening within the context of art.
You can, at most, know about the context of one side of a multi-faceted discussion.
Where I’m sitting, it’s not an art context. So what you thought was art was actually just messages from a photographer.
Confusing, eh?
Totally confusing :)
My proposition that context is the thing that determines if something is art or not is certainly not perfectly articulated, and there are plenty of valid arguments against it. But I have yet to hear a plausible alternative.
Rex made a good case for the idea that things are not art or non-art, but exist on a scale of artiness, that some things are more art than others based on the quality of their communication. But I don’t buy it. It doesn’t ring true to me. It seems to me that good art and bad art (subjective, of course) are both art, and that there’s some excellent communication out there that has nothing to do with art.
The idea that whether something is art or not is based on artist’s intention also falls apart, especially if you consider Karl’s example of the greek vases or Rex’s example of Giorgione’s unknown intentions. I’m also not convinced that art objects have some inherent self-contained quality that makes them art. If they did wouldn’t everyone see it and agree?
And Paul’s concern that we artists count on something we do being art to define us as artists seems more like an expressed personal need than a way to decide what is or isn’t art. And anyway, it fits in with my context argument, that if someone creates something and says it’s art, that in itself puts it in an art context.
So while I’m certainly interested in hearing arguments against my imperfect contention, what I’d really like to hear is a plausible alternative. What determines if something is art or not? Until I hear a better idea, I’m sticking with context.
David,
What’s not plausible about the experience alternative (where we started)?
Take my sea shells example:
I stumble across the most exquisite arrangement of shells on a beach. Arranged by no hand. I stand there struck by their beauty. Awed by their arrangement. Elevated and enriched by the experience. Not art.
I take a mediocre photograph of the shells and through my dastardly connections win the Turner Prize and get prime time in the country’s major gallery. Everybody looks at the photo and thinks ‘what a load of ……, my dog could have done a better job than that’. The experience is, shall we say, flat and unrewarding. But this is art?
You are already disposed of the communication case, the quality case and the intent case, so ignore those parts of the thread.
I’m looking at those shells right now (imagine…actually it is dark and raining, but imagine). I have no art context (it is just a beach). But I do have an art experience. If there was a different word for this, then I’d be happy to use it, but I can think of no plausible reason why not to refer to this as art.
There is an overlap between context and experience (ever the peacemaker ;-) ….). And that is state of mind. We can create our own art contexts. The painting found in an attic is art if we are of a mind to think of it as art. A different person in a different frame of mind sees it as junk and chucks it. Equally go into an Art Gallery (100% marks for context) in the wrong frame of mind and see things which are ‘known to be’ art dissolve into irrelevance.
What determines if something is art or not?
To me, this question is an irrelevance. The reason that nobody can agree whether object A is art or not is that there is nothing intrinsic in an object that makes it art. For some a pile of bricks is a pile of bricks. For others it is art. The bricks are just bricks. What is different is the relationship between the person and the bricks. Putting them in a formal art context is like hanging a big sign on them saying ‘real art’. It helps change our state of mind as we walk across the threshold. It opens us to an art experience. However, some people may see the same bricks in a builder’s yard and have the art experience, because they are already open to it. Context not needed.
If I can see art in the shells on the beach, aren’t I lucky? Why require me to travel to London to see the same shells in a gallery?
And Paul’s concern that we artists count on something we do being art to define us as artists seems more like an expressed personal need than a way to decide what is or isn’t art.
Actually, I don’t much care about what is art and what is not. The entire argument seems to me to be entirely beside the point. See my post at http://photo-musings.blogspot.com/2006/10/is-what-is-art-question-worth.html
Either what I do is art, or it isn’t. If what I do is art, then I’m an artist, and I’m fine with that. If what I do is not art, then I’m not an artist, but I’m not going to change what I do just so I get to use the label ‘artist’.
And anyway, it fits in with my context argument, that if someone creates something and says it’s art, that in itself puts it in an art context.
The problem I see with the theory that the art-ness of something is determined by the context is that it means that essentially everything that exists, has existed, or will exist, along with all the ideas that anyone’s ever had, is having, or will have – essentially EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE, is either currently art or is potentially art.
And so the term ‘art’ becomes synonymous with ‘everything’, which may well be correct but strikes me as rather less than useful. No progress on understanding has been made; it’s all sleight of hand. “Everything is Art”, you declare – well, great. But now the term ‘art’ is completely empty of meaning and can’t be used to communicate anything useful.
While I find these conversations interesting to read I always come away with the same thought. Which is that the viewer is what decides if something is art or not and for each person this is different – there is no universal truth to be defined.
And I find these discussions very similar to discussions about religion. A search for an absolute answer that everyone will agree on when there is none – well at least in my opinion.
For an interesting parallel community effort in attempting to define “what is art” check out the wikipedia article on art. And while the article is interesting what is more interesting is the discussion. I find it fascinating that they are struggling with such topics as “are computer games art” while over here the current struggle is “is art communication”. I suppose this shows the different make up of the 2 communities.
Colin: What’s not plausible about the experience alternative (where we started)?
Colin, I thought you were just asking if I agreed so you could ask me if the objects needed to be manmade :)
I’m not sure, actually, about either. I feel that art probably involves an experience, but I’m a bit vague about whether it actually is the experience.
Paul: And so the term ‘art’ becomes synonymous with ‘everything’, which may well be correct but strikes me as rather less than useful.
I’m not actually championing this, but it does appear to be the direction things are moving. Each new art movement seems to challenge the boundaries left in place by the previous one.
Lisa: I find it fascinating that they are struggling with such topics as “are computer games art”
It’s hard for me to think about this right now. I’m busy guarding my place in line to buy the new Playstation :)
Lisa, I can’t speak for the others, but I would more characterise what I’m doing as discounting definitions rahter than looking for one.
If there was a good sound solid plausible (add any other approval word to taste) definition of art then I would be disappointed to miss it for the sake of a few evening’s thought.
There is a plausible evolutionary explanation of why art exists, but, I think, that the uses of art have outgrown those beginnings – even if they are still attached.
Which is that the viewer is what decides if something is art or not and for each person this is different And can differ for any one person from moment to moment.
That there is no universal definition (agreed), doesn’t mean that there is no universal truth. ….the viewer is what decides….. is capable of being a universal truth, no?
I don’t want to know what art is, I just want to make sure that I know what art isn’t (and there is a whole bunch of cultural, social, and upbringing reasons behind that). For, if we know what it isn’t, then we are free.
David,
Thanks for playing.
Colin I was not discounting the conversation – I was just drawing a parallel. And I don’t think this is a few evenings conversation but instead an ancient conversation and certainly one I have had and been exposed to for years.
As to the parallel –
My first year in college I ended up with a born again Christian as a roommate one quarter. After a few days of comments I told her I’d make a deal with her – I would give her 1 night to convert me, I would do my best to be listen with an open mind and then after that the topic was off limits (not religion but of me being inferior by not being the same as her).
So I gave her a shot – she brought in reinforcements and they spent quite some time with a booklet going through what was an interesting logical argument on why they were right. I listened, didn’t ask many questions and honestly thought about what they said. It was an interesting experience.
I think they figured they had me. But when it was over I turned back to one of the first pages of their booklet and pointed out that through the whole thing they made an assumption that I believed in god in the first place – and since I didn’t everything else that followed didn’t work for me.
And Colin that is what I see you doing. You listen but because you don’t have the same fundamental belief about what art is you discount the definitions one by one.
The difference is you believe that if you keep searching you will find the truth.
Where as I believe I can learn something from each of the arguments – and infact there are pieces of what everyone has said that I really like and am mulling over to see how it fits into my personal view point. But I do not believe I need to discount what others believe about art for me to come to my own understanding.
To me it’s about accepting that maybe we are all right in our own ways, instead of finding a single right that we can all accept.
As to my roommate – we got along great after the attempted conversion and had a lot of interesting conversations.
David – isn’t it a Nintendo Wii that you should be searching for?
My ex is a computer science professor and over the last few years he developed a new degree program at DU for computer game development. It is a joint degree between the computer science and art department. They focus on “humane gaming” and their first game Squeezed with a theme of migrant farm workers is about to be released. Computer Gaming at Denver University
Art? I’m not sure – but my 14 year old son is interested.
Lisa
The difference is you believe that if you keep searching you will find the truth.
No.
I am entirely comfortable with what I think to be the case. However, when intelligent people forcefully argue that something is the case I am open to being ‘converted’. Along the way I will suck whatever value out of whatever it is they are saying and incorporate those bits that seem to make sense.
If somebody is prepared to say not just that ‘x is true’ but to present the logical basis for that statement, then I will listen. If I can’t detect a flaw in the logic then it shifts my understanding. If I can, it doesn’t.
When I observe that their statement is based on a belief I lose interest in it fairly rapidly.
During this last year various people have told me with passion that ‘art is x’. I have been shouted at and abused for not also believing in the true light. Since I have had the time, I have listened to what these various true lights are, and considered them.
I got involved in this thread (which has been very little about the post) because David said something interesting, which on deeper examination turned out to be very interesting. And whilst I don’t think he is literally correct, he has shifted my understanding.
Trust me. I aim to convert nobody. I will from time to time point out logical errors, but as I have said, arguments never challenge beliefs.
But I do not believe I need to discount what others believe about art for me to come to my own understanding.
People can believe what they want. Truly they can. But what they can’t do is tell me what to believe.
I think that a number of us have had a very reasoned and reasonable discussion in this thread. That doesn’t often happen – even in this blog.
I think that a number of us have had a very reasoned and reasonable discussion in this thread.
Sorry to have interrupted. Carry on – I’ll go back to making craft.
David – isn’t it a Nintendo Wii that you should be searching for?
Ha! To be perfectly honest, I wouldn’t know the difference :)
I’ve just been hearing about long lines and stampedes to buy the new Playstation, so that came to mind. Besides a little bit of Pong and Space Invaders when I was a kid, I’ve never actually played a computer- or video-game. I’d much rather play my guitar or a good game of volleyball, paint, read a book, sleep, or have an entertaining disagreement with Colin.
I ended up with a born again Christian as a roommate one quarter. After a few days of comments I told her I’d make a deal with her – I would give her 1 night to convert me…
When I was in college there was a group that used to come around to the dorm rooms to try to convert everyone. One time they asked me “don’t you want to go to heaven”? I said, “no, I’d rather be with my friends”.
For some reason they never knocked on my door again :)
When I observe that their statement is based on a belief I lose interest in it fairly rapidly.
Colin, have you ever read what Alan Watts wrote about the difference between faith and belief? He defines belief as clinging to a world view, and faith as the confidence to look at the unknown and accept whatever you find there (he explained it better than I just did).
I don’t want to know what art is, I just want to make sure that I know what art isn’t….For, if we know what it isn’t, then we are free.
Would you list a few things that aren’t art? I want to see what I can do with them.
Sorry to have interrupted. Carry on – I’ll go back to making craft.
Lisa, you didn’t interrupt. You are part of the conversation.
Lisa
Sorry to have interrupted. Carry on – I’ll go back to making craft.
There is no point in me explaining what I meant, for if I have offended you then I have offended you. Sorry.
David,
Colin, have you ever read what Alan Watts wrote about the difference between faith and belief?
No, but I understand the distinction that philosphers make. I was discussing this with someone only last week.
I’m not sure that Alan Watts’ distinction, as you’ve summarised it, would be regarded as the normal distinction between those words. But rather than pick away at your summary, is the original accessible anywhere?
I think it’s in The Wisdom of Insecurity.
I’m sure I’ve butchered his distinction in my paraphrase of it. As I recall it was in the context of comparing some aspects of Eastern and Western religions. Which philosophers should I look at to see what you’re referring to?
David
Would you list a few things that aren’t art? I want to see what I can do with them.
I’ll name that tune in ….. four :-)
Your question is open to interpretation because of the use of the word ‘things’.
My comment was in the sense of ‘art is x’. Your question could also be read in the sense of ‘x is art’.
People say ‘art is x’ to me. Um, let’s pick one that nobody has said (I believe) here. Art is Self-Expression. I say, there is an implied end to that sentence. Art is Self Expression to you. You can put anything in place of the x that you like (I think. I am open to the idea that there is an x that doesn’t require the rest of the sentence).
The reason we (in the broadest sense) can’t agree on what the x is, is that there isn’t an answer. Consequently I can’t tell you what art isn’t. I can only tell you what art isn’t for me.
Because the statement ‘art is x’ also implies a universailty (if there is no implied second part to the sentence to limit the idea to a single person), then I sometimes point out that if art isn’t x to me, then it can’t be x (or I’m lying or deluded). The statement ‘art is x’ breaks even with one exception, unless one implies the for me part of the sentence.
‘x is art’ runs into the same issue. People look at the famous pile of bricks in The Tate and go ‘is art’, ‘isn’t art’ ‘is….isn’t…is…..isn’t’ ad infinitum. If somebody asks me ‘is the pile of bricks art?’ I can only answer whether it is, or isn’t, for me. I have no idea whether you will look at the bricks in a different light. People (in the broadest sense) will not agree on whether ‘x is art’ because there is no answer. Consequently I cannot list things for you that are not art, and whilst I could tell you a few things that are not art to me that would be a bit sterile (although potentially fun).
Have I successfully dodged the question?
David,
Which philosophers should I look at to see what you’re referring to?
I’ll ask those who know and find you a reference.
Have I successfully dodged the question?
Yes. You’re good!
Rather than answer in a whole bunch of separate comments, I’m putting my responses in one loooong comment. The way our sidebar works, I’ll see a whole list of “Rex Crockett on Art and Communication”s and that would just look too hoggy. This way, I’ll appear just once.
Karl,
I’m now in Fresno, California, staying at one of my houses recouping some of my investment losses and drumming up some portraits for some cash. I’m also working on my illustrated novel about Rome in the age of Octavian.
A couple of points to touch on.
Regarding life and life forms, I did not say that inanimate objects can create art. I suggested that we can perceive it as such if our cultural or philosophic background allows us to. You suggest that yours does not. You are in the majority when it comes to to people who have been trained in the sciences in Western culture, but you are responsible enough to see that as a trained viewpoint and open enough to see how others could view the universe differently.
That’s refreshing.
I have no ax to grind there myself, but I wanted a definition inclusive enough to account for such a multiplicity of perception, and I do believe I succeeded. My opinions are informed by a long fascination with Asian and African art in particular, and one day, perhaps I will take you to the seeing stone exhibit at the Huntington in LA, and you might have to revise your opinion about “inanimate” objects. They even have a sign warning people about the area. Sometimes people faint.
In other traditions, they simply feel that there is more to “animation” than the merely human. This is scientifically plausible. It is just difficult to test with our current instrumentation, and so as a theory, has to be shunted until means of testing can be discovered or developed.
Regarding craft, I well recall a fascinating article in Smithsonian magazine which studied Appalachian folk art. These people have a long history of disdaining anything which is of no immediate practical value, and yet in their crafts they have continously transcended the limits of “pure” functionality with clever, original, and beautiful forms — flower arrangements in gardens, gate construction, chair design, quilts, on and on. Amusingly, they will all swear to God Almighty that what they are doing “is not art.”
I’m really a working class guy, you know. Did you know? I come from a long line of masons, shipwrights, carpenters, blacksmiths, farmers, ranchers, and yes, soldiers. We Crocketts are good shots, every one of us, not just the Tennessee branch of the clan.
I was raised to be a good craftsman. I heard this from every side from all my many relatives. One was to do the best one could at everything. Work was to be well done without exception as a matter of personal honor even if you lost money, for your reputation was more important. There was no shame in getting dirty or working with one’s hands.
As an artist, I bring these blue collar pride sensibilities to my work while at the same time through all my years of colleges I never forgot my “base.” So I have a soft spot for crafts and craftspeople and a certain contempt for work that has to be “explained” in order to be understood.
So my original, instinctive, definition for art was “craft plus.” I have always had a visceral repugnance for badly crafted or ugly work which was proclaimed as art, but then I kept finding exceptions (but I won’t list them here), so I knew that “craft plus” was not inclusive enough. It did not explain ALL art, only most. It began to look like the plus, whatever it was, was really more important than the craft and that the craft or skill was really the carrier wave and not the thing itself; furthermore, the carrier wave itself need not be only skill.
Paul,
It’s my turn to attempt to talk with my foot in my mouth. :)
Yes. You said, “Likewise, there’s a sense that craft is not what art is about, and therefore it’s unimportant.”
My bad.
The context did suggest that craft is important and should not be ignored.
I could not agree more. I am a very, very craft oriented artist. I have never explicitely said so because my work says this for me. That is beside the point though, for nevertheless, the above statement does read like it’s a statement that “art is about craft.”
So it was me paraphrasing you, paraphrasing Dietz.
In my earlier post Does Technique Matter? I never stated my opinion. I put it as a question. It was a test. I wanted to answer the question: “Are these people here in this group worth talking to?”
I wanted to see if it was understood that there is a relationship between art and craft, that craft alone did not make art, that at least some people understood it was possible to have very good art with merely ordinary craft.
I was gratified. The dance was understood. These were people who were worth talking to. I would not be casting pearls to swine, as I have felt I was doing in other forums. It seems we have all seen ordinary expressions of our skill really wow people while things we thought were really technically superior left people cold, and we have all wondered about this.
The relationship between art and craft is a topic that will no doubt continue to generate dialog.
But I apologize for mis-quoting you. What I should have said was “In my response to Paul’s post I said…”
As I’m sure you understand, I needed to explain my phrasing and move it to a better one, but that phrasing first appeared in a comment to your post.
David,
You pose a real challenge with your context definition, and I thank you. A tremendous advantage to putting up one’s thoughts on a forum like this (with people like you) is that any slightest flaw in an argument will be seen and addressed.
I believe I can answer your objections in a convincing way, however.
First, I noticed you honed in on the word “value” and continued to use that rather the word “quality” which I almost immediately switched to, so your argument is based on a fallacy: you re-define the term then argue against that narrowed, false definition.
You really have to have the full richness of the term “quality.” I used ‘value” initially because I needed to provide a contextual pointer away from the other sense of the word “quality” which is “the essential thing, the essence.”
So you assumed that I was saying could be construed as merely “valuable information,” and since that is obviously not art, the definition was not true.
Well, if you construed it that way, then the fault is mine. I was writing very, very quickly. I thought I had made it clear that I was using the sense of quality defined as: excellence: the highest or finest standard, but I see that I did not.
Even so, it is conceivable that weather report could transcend the usual form to become, indeed, art, and I must say, I have seen a few weather reports that did.
However, you go on and posit another definition for art. Lest I make the same mistake I made with Paul, I shall quote you in full here.
I notice that the thread devolved (as in rolled down, not de-evolved like so many people misunderstand the term) from there, so I’m going to pick it up here and not address further points.
I would suggest the following.
You, David, are an exceedingly sophisticated guy. You are able to experience things as art that are way beyond the capacity of probably a huge majority of the human race, so I know that the context definition is true for you. But it does not explain well enough how and why so many others experience art as art, so it is too exclusive to be greatly useful, and too inclusive to frost, as they say, any cake.
If true, it limits success in the arts to those few who can win the modern art lottery and get placed in the the prestigious locations, for there is the ultimate context.
Later, when you deny the “degreeness” of art…
You re-insert again that dull two valued “art, not art,” then flip again.
And we are left once again with the “it’s all opinion anyway” useless non-definition of a definition.
Since I was writing fast to people who I knew were very observant and educated, and since I was still, typically, already writing a long post, I left out a lot of stuff. I was hoping that someone would see that the subject of communication already implies context and that this will greatly effect how a piece of art is viewed or indeed is even perceived as art at all. So your definition is contained by understandings about communication and is already explained.
At the beginning of my response to you, David, I thanked you. I meant it. I have to do some rewriting, Context deserves some real space, and I need to be more explicit about some of quality’s more ineffable aspects. I can see others have given you a hard time on this context thing already, and I don’t want to think I am trying to do the same because the fact is, I really like you, and I’m glad you brought this up.
Re Duchamp’s Urinal
Time to hit the books. Sorry. Duchamp did the urinal thing to refute the context definition. It must have been hilarious for him to see that he had the opposite effect.
David,
The wikipedia article belief contains a fair summary of the distinction that philosophers make.
In the context of our discussion: Belief is usually defined as a conviction of the truth of a proposition without its verification would be relevant.
The Stamford Encyclopedia of Philosophy here (very slow to load) takes the word ‘belief’ and does the full works on it, and along the way reminded me of why I didn’t take Philosophy any further at Uni.
Rex! Welcome back.
I should point out that I don’t have what I consider a perfectly thought-out definition of art. It is constantly evolving, or perhaps de-evolving. There are plenty of holes in my thinking.
There seem to be at least two possible ways to think of what the word “art” means. One is to think of it as a measure of something, such as quality or excellence, and to see it existing on a scale. Statements such as “she has raised … to an art” are using the word in this way. In that sense there is not so much art or non-art, but degrees of art.
Another way to use the word art is to think of it as denoting certain things (or experiences?) that we will call “art”, some maybe better than others, to differentiate them from other things that are “not art”. In this sense, when we say we are talking about art, we know (or hope we know) we are talking at least about some of the same things.
Both ways of using the word are problematic, the second perhaps even more than the first. At least in the first sense, while we may disagree about how much art-ness something has, we at least can agree that we’re talking about degrees of quality. The second sense of the word art is difficult because a.) there are so many diverse opinions about where to draw the line that separates art from not-art, and b.) much of art history over the past century is actually a history of challenges to accepted definitions of art.
I don’t think we’re any closer to figuring all this out, but it sure makes for an interesting discussion :)
Colin, thanks for digging around and finding me that definition. It fits the way I think of the word “belief”, but says it more clearly than I could have. Not going to have time to look at the Stamford link now. Seems like it would take awhile to read through…
You, David, are an exceedingly sophisticated guy. You are able to experience things as art that are way beyond the capacity of probably a huge majority of the human race…
Rex, it’s very nice of you to say that, but I doubt it. What I can say is that I’m very open to seeing things from multiple, often contradictory viewpoints. I’m also painfully aware of how little I know about anything. But I always enjoy learning more.
But it does not explain well enough how and why so many others experience art as art, so it is too exclusive to be greatly useful, and too inclusive to frost, as they say, any cake…If true, it limits success in the arts to those few who can win the modern art lottery and get placed in the the prestigious locations, for there is the ultimate context.
I think the “context” I had in mind is much more inclusive than exclusive. If anything the danger is that it could potentially include just about anything, and therefore mean nothing. I hadn’t thought of context as being hierarchical, so it never occurred to me that there would be an ultimate one.
As far as “success”, that has as many possible definitions as “art”. Seems like a good subject for another post :)
Thought you might enjoy this cover for the invisible poet kings CD. Artwork by David Palmer and Giorgione.
Ah David,
That’s just toooo cool.
I’m sorry I missed this earlier. Thanks for leaving a comment on my blog. That’s always a good way to get my attention.
Wow…. I’m late to the party (8 years late, it seems).
However, the art of the communication contained in this blogpost is the manner in which it cuts to the heart of the issue. As someone who has been dealing with several artistic communities that appear to evince a belief that art is for art’s sake and that the idea of communication taints art and sets illegitimate boundaries, I’m profoundly grateful for the thoughts contained herein. Nicely done!
i didn’t read any of this i just scrolled down but it was no use because there were no pictures on here