In my high school English class we did a group project revolving around the question “what is art?” The word “art” seems so commonplace, but try to stick a definition to it—it’s a lot tougher than you might think.
For one part of this project my group members and I walked around downtown interviewing random people and asking for their interpretation of the word “art.” One man claimed that “art is making something out of nothing and making money off of it.” A second man said that “art is drawings and designs.” And a lady claimed that “it’s a form of expression that goes beyond words.”
I found it interesting that when we asked the question, “what is art?” seven out the ten people interviewed implied that art is solely visual, four claimed that art involves a career or income, and four additional interviewees (not included in the ten used for the project) could not even answer the question.
Perhaps we were asking a trick question though. Does art really have a set definition? Depending on the perspective, art can range from literature, to paintings/ drawings, to dance and music, to fashion, to architecture, and so far beyond.
Wikipedia claims that “art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect.” While this may be one of the better definitions I’ve come across so far, I still notice a couple of flaws. My first problem with this definition is that many artists do not do things deliberately. Some let the paint drip, some smash and overlap objects randomly until they’re satisfied with the appearance--a lot of times art is accidental, not deliberate. This definition also implies that something considered to be art to one person may not be considered art to another. But does this mean that if one person’s emotions, sense or intellect are not affected by a certain painting he can say that it’s not art, even if someone else thinks it is?
Our visit to the art museum raised this question in me. As we stood in front of the first abstract painting where Mark introduced us to art analysis, I overheard someone say “that’s not art, I could do that.” And I think that fosters an interesting conversation…
You are preaching to the choir here! I mean, I have yearned for and sought a rigid and set definition of art, but I never found one. Now, I understand that art is a personal definition and a personal experience. Nobody can tell you what to think or force you to share opinions.
ReplyDeleteOne of, if not my all time favorite paintings is Van Gough's "The Starry Night." When I look into that painting, I see the sky, I see potential, I see the world, all that is and all that could be. I get lost in the sweeping gestures, manifested as strokes of the sky. It is an experience in itself.
I have that response to a painting that I have loved since childhood, but if I were to look at other paintings, my reaction might be different, or even nonexistent. Therein lies the true answer to "what is art?"
Art is what YOU make of it, nothing more, nothing less.
i agree that there is no set definition of art. I think art is anything that can make you feel something. For me art and emotions are very much intertwined. Standing in front of a painting or listening to a song can make you feel connected to the artist and anyone else who has shared this experience with you. Art connects people. I think another criteria of art is it has to be beautiful. This does not mean the classic sense of beauty however for different things are beautiful to different people. But in its essence all art is beautiful to someone.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Andrew and Carolyn very much so. I know I personally am not skilled in art in any way. But when I look at a piece of art, and I feel something I know that it has full-filled its purpose of being art. Art should be able to make uneducated artists feel inspired. It should reach out to people of all ages. It should make them feel something, on purpose of course. Its definition is meant to make you think and to become curious. Art is beautiful because it is human made sometimes, and not because of the talent that was put into it. Art is a bi-product of human emotion, and therefore it is beautiful just like us.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Carolyn's point, that art must be beautiful, yet beauty is subjective. I remember taking one look at a sculpture at UMMA, the metal rod with words on it, and thinking, "That's stupid." Someone next to me cried, "No! It's art!" but all I could think about was how it was ugly and pointless. To me, that piece was no more artistic than the bookcase in my room, but to other people, including the artist and the museum curators (obviously), the piece represented something special and symbolic. We all know the cliche that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I think it's fitting to say that art is in the eye of the beholder as well.
ReplyDeleteI think that the "random" aspects of art fall under the intellectual category of the wikipedia definition. These unusual techniques in pieces that are considered great represent groundbreaking innovation and inventive thinking. Its like the piece that i saw at the museum that consisted of grey lines caused by taking threads out of a canvas. This was original and unique and it is what earned the piece its spot in the museum.
ReplyDelete