Disambiguating ‘Art’ and It’s Associated Terminology

     Have you ever wondered what exactly ‘makes’ something art? There are many different definitions that explain art to be a study, practice and or observation whether it be in relation to scientific arts or the art of thinking (i.e. philosophy) but in this case I will be defining art and it’s related terminology in regards to the traditionally  aesthetically appealing…visual arts. 

     Inexplicable..unexplainable..indefinable..enigmatic..these are only a few words you’ll come across when seasoned professors and students a like try to define the words ‘art’ and ‘artist. The New American Webster Dictionary (third edition) printed in 1995 defined the two words in the following ways:

Art: n. 1, any system of rules and traditional methods for the practice of a craft, trade or profession; the application of knowledge and skill. 2, works designed to give intellectual pleasure, as music, sculpture, and esp. pictorial representation. 3, skillful workmanship 4, cunning; guile (1)

Artist: 1, one who pursues a pictorial art, esp. a painter. 2, a performer in an art of entertainment. 3, a person of special skill (2)

     To make this a bit easier to read I will use these definitions as the generic meaning when I refer to art and artist without quotations and when I am not directly critiquing their meanings. With this said I will now explain to you my dilemma. I decided to write my paper on this particular topic because as an art major (and philosophy minor) and an active displayer of paintings in the community I am often labeled quite casually as an ‘artist.’ Many may find this a complimentary term…at 17 I am very young to be showing in professional galleries let alone be a sophomore in college…however I am extremely sensitive to it (the label ‘artist’) and my paintings/drawings/other creations being labeled as ‘art.’ Personally, I am a strong believer in the saying ‘truth is relative.’ I’m a rather open person, I accept new ideas, I try and ‘walk in others’ shoes’ to try and understand their perspectives and because of this combined with the fact that art is extremely subjective, I find it hard to come up with a solid definition of exactly what art should be to everyone. In my heart visual art is and should be a representation of the artist’s feelings, emotions, and a story of his /her life…something very personal. This intimacy is what gives the piece life and adds interest…one doesn’t necessarily need to follow a bunch of rules and go through an art book of techniques to make an aesthetically appealing image…it comes from within. To me, art is a tiny piece of the creator plastered onto whatever medium he/she is using to show the world what he/she feels. To me…a watercolor flamingo you buy at the local market is not art. Perhaps it’s just the ‘artist’ in me that feels this but doesn’t that sort of ‘art’ just seem empty? Soulless, boring and flat…it may be the most realistic painting of a flamingo in the entire world with great composition, wonderful form, perfect, vibrant colors…and yet it’s flat and just..lifeless. I appreciate the artistic talent the creator has in being able to produce something so lifelike and beautiful as it is a rather hard skill…but as for value and interest it holds nothing for me. Now, of course, since art is subjective there are people that will look at that same flamingo and stare in awe…perhaps part of it is the skill involved but perhaps that (although generic) painting holds something special for just that individual. Maybe a woman sees this flamingo and thinks about how much she adores flamingos and how the little hut in the background reminds her of the time she went to camp in Florida…because a story unfolds for this one person, this generic piece becomes art…meaning is added and that sustenance gives life to the painting for that person (3.) I’d like to think that this seemingly generic form of ‘art’ is intended by the creator…painting that something that means nothing to them but perhaps means worlds to the casual bystander…but unfortunately money, greed and commercialism (byproducts of corrupt media) are usually the culprits behind the decline of personal thought projection. 

     Now that we’ve accomplished very little other than establishing my personal view on the definitions of art and artist, what about societies view of these terms as a whole? And what about media? Since media usually reflects and caters to the wants and needs of society wouldn’t the definition of those terms being made by the media be the least ambiguous of all? Let’s take a closer look at that. A good example of understanding and determining what media and society decide are stereotypical of a person or thing if you are unsure is by looking at simple clip art. Because they need to be simple (enhance the document rather than take from it) yet strong enough to get the idea/point through they are an easy way to spot stereotypes (5.) Let’s start with artist. When you type in the word artist you will find several pictures of people in front of large canvases with an easel and a palate of paints, a paintbrush and 95% of the time they have a hat on (4.) What are these images telling us? Apparently an artist is someone who paints, usually on impressive large scale canvases held up by a full size easel, artists use brushes made of hair, artists use kidney shaped plate-like things to mix their paints on and artists have unique, sometimes socially uncomfortable style. If you take a close look at many films and other types of media this holds truth there also. Although it may not be as direct as clip art…characters who are artists usually do have a unique personality or sense of style and (obviously) they also usually do some form of art. If you type in art in clipart what usually comes up is either a. an abstract  b. imitations of great master works or c. pop art. Usually there’s something Picasso like and obscure…usually there’s a simpler rendition of the Mona Lisa…occasionally there’s an Andy Warhol-like montage…and usually there’s something with some shapes and squiggles and splotches of color (4 and 7.) What does this tell us? It’s evident that people associate great masters with immaculate skill (all or most of whom are now long deceased) that do extremely life-like, beautiful oil paintings of portraits of people and landscapes to be artists; it’s evident that people also associate things that are strange and awkward (i.e. Picasso’s style was extremely shocking for his time and still arouses interest today)(7) for the human eye to observe should be viewed as art (this goes back to the unique, sometimes socially uncomfortable sense of style and or personality stereotype of the artist him/herself); apparently art can be associated with common, mediated objects that people are already associated with only with changes in color or repeated several times on one canvas and what would art be without color, shapes and zig zag lines…that is what all art is made from so of course those simple basic techniques any 5 year old could produce should be regarded as art as well. It’s apparent that the mass majority of media and society see art as paintings, either amazingly life like or crazy and obscure…of course due to the rather naturally whacky persona of the creator. There is of course an almost equally but still smaller amount of people that also regard pop art, more digital arts, dance, abstract things, drawings and such as the same type of ‘art’ as the art of painting however the generic stereotype of art and artist for the LARGEST percentage of (American) people comes in the form of a unique, quirky person who enjoys painting either crazy abstract things or extremely realistic portraits or landscapes. 

     With this being said it is rather obvious that the act of trying to define words such as art and artist is complicated, lengthy and tedious due to the subjective, philosophical nature of the terms. But isn’t everything subjective? Society influences media…media influences society…it’s a never ending circle. Where did it start? Well…which came first the chicken or the egg. Humans by nature are extremely subjective, opinionated creatures…that’s part of what separates us from other mammals (9)(from an analytical/scientific standpoint.) Since humans have their own thoughts, feelings and emotions and it’s impossible to understand another’s perspective 100%, then is there a truth? Are facts real? What defines reality? According to principles in mass media and society, culture forms our reality and our reality is the whole truth. Take into consideration Khuram Barars thoughts on objectivity:

A statement if successfully verified to be ‘true’ becomes an objective ‘fact’. To be verified to be ‘true’, in this case means only that the ‘external object’ confirms whatever is stated in the objective statement. The meaning of the ‘objective fact’ is only that it is in agreement with whatever is shown by the ‘external object’. The ‘external object’ here, however, may not be in agreement with the reality. So the ‘objective fact’, which is in agreement with the ‘external object’, may not be in agreement with the reality. If, however, the ‘external object’ is in agreement with the reality, then the ‘objective fact’ also shall be in agreement with the reality. Under these conditions, ‘objective fact’ and ‘truth’ shall be same (6.)

Also take into consideration the following quotes:

Gerard Vaughan, director National Gallery of Victoria- Art can take many forms – visual, musical, performing but for me a work of art is something created by the human mind that has the capacity to move me – it has a real aesthetic, emotional and spiritual element (8)

Mark Fraser, director, Sothebys- Art only becomes art on those rare occasions when both the mind and the senses are simultaneously stimulated (8)

Felicity Hampel, QC, president, Liberty Victoria- Art is the creative expression of thoughts, ideas or emotions, which stimulates the senses or the imagination of the beholder (8)

Bala Starr, curator, The Ian Potter Museum of Art- Impossible to say. (When asked the question ‘what is art?’)(8)

Richard Smithers, campaign coordinator, Bicycle Victoria- Art evokes a response that takes me away from the humdrum of what I am doing at the time, and lets me see from a new perspective (8)

So back to Barars postulation…lets incorporate Felicity Hampels quote, “Art is the creative expression of thoughts, ideas or emotions, which stimulates the senses or the imagination of the beholder,” into his formula. So if her statement is verified and thought to be ‘true’ by an external object such as one not associated much with ‘art’ than it is now an objective ‘fact.’ However, what if the individual is not in agreement with reality? Since reality is defined by culture, for the individual to agree with Hampels quote would only mean that said individual either a. comes from a different culture (thus a different reality where said opinion would be truth) or b. he IS in agreement with reality and thus the objective fact becomes the truth. In both cases it is obvious that reality comes from person experience and (again) perspective on a small scale. The absolute ‘truth’ of definition is always obsolete when put under specific circumstances. Humans are subjective by nature so stereotypes are but the easiest way to describe something on a basic level for those who don’t understand or wish to delve deep into something they’re not familiar with. The quotes I listed above are but a few of hundreds of different opinions on what exactly art is. I also found thousands upon thousands of essays, periodicals and other intellectual literature pertaining to the definition of art and the philosophy of it’s existence. According to media, society and the general population, art is a visual, aesthetically appealing representation of an object, person or thought and an artist is one who has the ability to create such things. 

     In conclusion, Art and Artist are but two words constantly attempted to be defined, understood and used in the correct context, as much of human languages are. Language is a paradox…contradictions are inevitable and humans will forever be on a circle of a journey toward understanding. Media and society circle each other and create their own paradox leaving stereotypes as an easy way to create a basic understanding…a simple ‘truth’ for all. 

References

1. “Art.” The New American Webster Dictionary. 1995.

2. “Artist.” The New American Webster Dictionary. 1995.

3. Adajhian, Thomas. “The Definition of Art.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 23 Oct. 2007. Stanford University. 10 Dec. 2007 <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/>.

4. “Barry’s ClipArt Server.” Barry’s ClipArt Server. 10 Dec. 2007 <http://www.barrysclipart.com/>.

5. “Media Stereotyping- an Introduction.” Media Awareness Network. 10 Dec. 2007 <http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/stereotyping/>.

6. Babar, Khuram R. “Subjective/Objective Statements.” Khuram WordPress. 10 Dec. 2007 <http://khuram.wordpress.com/2006/08/30/subjective-objective-statements/>.

7. “Famous Artists.” Think Quest. 10 Dec. 2007 <http://library.thinkquest.org/J001159/famart.htm>.

8. Backhouse, Megan. “The Definition of Art and Artist. No Two are the Same.” Educational Cyber Playground. 15 Oct. 2000. 10 Dec. 2007 <http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Arts/whatisart.html>.

9. Wertz, Ama, comp. An Abstract Definition of Humanity. 9 Sept. 1999. 10 Dec. 2007 <http://www.nutball.com/classes/maryann/wamanda1.html>.