Lesson 2: What is Art?

Some Basic
Concepts
What is Art?

 Image Source: Link (http://www.an-mag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/andy.jpg)

Introduction – Defining Art

Here are some of my favorite works – works I have called ‘art’ without question:

Duchamp, Ready-Mades (http://www.tate.org.uk/learn/online-resources/glossary/r/readymade) : 

 

Gormly, Blind Light (http://www.theguardian.com/arts/gallery/2007/may/15/1) :

Van Gogh, The Café Terrace on the Place du Forum, Arles, at Night
(http://www.vggallery.com/painting/p_0467.htm) : 

Picasso, The Old Guitarist (http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/28067) :

 

What about these examples?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-ORhEE9VVg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-
ORhEE9VVg)

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-ORhEE9VVg)
http://shakespeare.mit.edu/romeo_juliet/full.html
(http://shakespeare.mit.edu/romeo_juliet/full.html)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EC2tmFVNNE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=_EC2tmFVNNE)

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EC2tmFVNNE)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWGCetMz8Uo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=cWGCetMz8Uo)
 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWGCetMz8Uo)
http://www.complex.com/style/2013/03/the-50-most-iconic-brand-logos-of-all-time/
(http://www.complex.com/style/2013/03/the-50-most-iconic-brand-logos-of-all-time/)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvgN5gCuLac (https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=MvgN5gCuLac)

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvgN5gCuLac)
https://www.graffiti.org/ (https://www.graffiti.org/)

It seems we are guided to think of classic paintings - ones that have made the art history books.
But all of the above are things that have moved me; works that I have found beautiful, life-
changing, inspiring and/or made my experince of life better or more meaningful, even profoundly
changed my mind in some way. 

Before reading on, consider all the examples above and answer this: are there any of
these you wouldn’t consider art? Why or why not? You can refer back to your
responses as you read on. 

Definitions of Art
Having been an instructor for many years I am inclined to offer a concrete definition at the
beginning of any subject; a definitive starting point from which we can move forward or expand.
Definitions are so often used at the beginning of lectures and books to allow an informed starting
point for discussion. A good definition provides necessary and sufficient conditions for
something to be included within that concept. In other words, it allows one to clearly establish
what is included and what is excluded: all and only things that meet the criteria are included by
that definition (Davies, 2005). I would like to offer such a definition, but even after much research
and reflection, I am at a loss when it comes to defining art in such a way.

Upon reflection, I begin to see that the popular media has been an influence in the way I have
personally defined art. I recall an episode of Murphy Brown when I was a child where the main
character tried to trick art critics by submitting an image her child made. Since we had some
abstract art in our home I remember wondering if those images on our wall somehow counted
less than other images.
More recently, I recalled a line from a movie that seemed to capture the way I felt about art at the
time:

“Art opens your mind to a new idea” (from film Mona Lisa Smile, 2003)

Mona Lisa Smile - "I…

"I…

The popular media presents us with many ideas about the boundaries and limitations of art and
may be one source that influences our perception of what we consider art and what it means to
us.

How do you think mainstream media affects how we determine what is considered

art? Can you remember any way the media has defined art in some way for you –
positive or negative?

Take a minute to take some notes: What is meant by "necessary and sufficient

conditions?” 

How do dictionaries define Art?

Looking for more concrete answers, I decided to turn to the ultimate source of definitions – the
dictionary. Looking ‘art’ up in the American Heritage Dictionary (2015), I found the following:
 Art: n. 1. a. The conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be
contemplated or appreciated as beautiful, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words.
b. Such activity in the visual or plastic arts: takes classes in art at the college. c. Products of
this activity; imaginative works considered as a group: art on display in the lobby. 2. A field or
category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature. 3. A nonscientific branch of learning; one of
the liberal arts. 4. A skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of
negotiation. See Synonyms at skill (https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?id=S5486700) .
5. a. arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks. b. Artful contrivance; cunning.
6. Printing Illustrative material, especially in contrast to text.

Better? I’m not sure – even after all those words to define art, I have more questions. It is a
comprehensive definition but seems to include almost everything to the point of not being very
useful. Under this definition, I can include everything from a hasty arrangement of flowers, an
apologetic text to my boyfriend, to the level of skill my friend has attained at a particular video
game. It has been said that a word that means everything means nothing. Maybe WordNet
(http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)  (Princeton University, 2010) can provide something
more concrete. 

1. art, fine art -- (the products of human creativity; works of art collectively; "an art exhibition"; "a
fine collection of art")
2. art, artistic creation, artistic production -- (the creation of beautiful or significant things; "art
does not need to be innovative to be good"; "I was never any good at art"; "he said that
architecture is the art of wasting space beautifully")
3. art, artistry, prowess -- (a superior skill that you can learn by study and practice and
observation; "the art of conversation"; "it's quite an art")
4. artwork, art, graphics, nontextual matter -- (photographs or other visual representations in a
printed publication; "the publisher was responsible for all the artwork in the book")

I feel the same about this list. It is inclusive but it doesn’t provide the necessary and sufficient
conditions for something to be considered art. I am looking for a definition that separates the
subject from what it is not by providing boundaries and idiosyncratic qualities. So, I began to
explore some definitions of art through history.

How have Definitions of Art Changed over Time?

Traditional Definitions: According to Adajian (2016), traditional definitions propose artworks are
united by one type of property. Generally, these properties are thought to fall into 1 of 3 categories:
representational properties, expressive properties, and formal properties.

Representational properties are mimetic or imitative properties, as discussed by Plato (see

complete works, 1997).
In other words, something is art if it is a recognizable imitation of something else. Carroll (1999)
proposed a more specific definition: an artwork may be called representational if a) the artist
intends it to be so and b) viewers/listeners generally recognize it as such. The problem is that,
although many works are easily recognized as what they represent, other works are not and are
still widely considered art. So, as a definition of art itself, this definition seems to fall short.

Expressive properties: art conveys emotion; thus something is art only if it was created to express
an emotional state or truth (Tolstoy, 1995).

There are some problems with this definition. First we have no way to know what the
artist/author/composer felt or intended to convey. Also, many ‘works’ we create are intended to
arouse emotion, but don’t seem to qualify as art, like an angry text to your significant other or
giving someone you love a flower to create happiness. Also, many pieces convey ideas or truths
but not necessarily emotion in the way we are discussing, consider again Duchamp’s Readymades
(http://www.tate.org.uk/learn/online-resources/glossary/r/readymade) (above). The primary purpose
appears to inspire intellectual thought, not evoking a particular emotion.

Formal proprieties include elements such as line, form, shape, etc. and principles such as rhythm,
unity, and proportion (see list below) and the theory of art known as formalism examines how
these elements and principles are combined in a work to create what is called significant form.
According to Carroll’s definition of formalist theory, “x is a work of art if and only if x is designed
primarily in order to possess and to exhibit significant form.” (p. 115). Generally, significant form is
thought to be the complex arrangement of each element into a whole.

1. Formal Elements of Art

1. Color: This element of art consists of 3 properties:
1. Hue: The discernable name of the color. For example, red or green, maroon or brick.
2. Value: The lightness or darkness of a color.
2. Intensity: The quality of brightness and purity. High intensity colors are strong and bright
whereas low intensity colors are faint and dull.
3. Shape: This element is 2-dimensional limited to height and width.
4. Line: This element of art refers to a point moving in space; can be 2 or 3 dimensional.
5. Form: Unlike shape, this element of art refers to the 3 dimensions of height, width, and
depth.
6. Space: This element of art includes positive and negative areas of a plane.
7. Texture: This element of art refers to the way things feel – or how they look like the might
feel when touched.
8. Value: This element of art refers to the lightness or darkness of colors.
2. Principles of Art
1. Rhythm: This principle indicates movement.
2. Balance: This principle combines elements to create a feeling of stability in the piece.
 3. Emphasis or Contrast: This principle combines elements in such a way as to stress the
differences among those elements.
4. Proportion: This principle concerns the placement of elements in relation to the whole and
to other elements within the piece.
5. Gradation: This principle combines elements through gradual changes in those elements.
6. Harmony: This principle combines similar elements to accent their similarities
7. Variety: This principle embraces the use of disparate elements
8. Movement: This principle is used to create the feeling of activity

(from: http://www.oberlin.edu/amam/asia/sculpture/documents/vocabulary.pdf)

The problem, of course is what is meant by significant form? Significant form is actually a theory
proposed by Clive Bell in 1914. Bell describes what he believes ties all work of art together, “in
each (work of art) lines and colors combined in a particular way, certain forms and relations of
forms, stir our aesthetic emotions. These relations and combination of lines and colors, these
aesthetically moving forms, I call ‘Significant Form,’ and ‘Significant Form’ is the one quality
common to all visual art” p. 3). It seems that all works possess some form, at what point may we
call this form ‘significant?’

Intuitively, each of these traditional definitions capture some forms of art and omit others.
Conversely, each may be easily interpreted to include works or actions that are not intuitively
considered works of art. The goal of capturing the necessary and sufficient conditions for art has
not been met. Moving from these traditional definitions, I have investigated some of the broader
theories of art inspiring them for answers.

Take a minute to take some notes: Summarize the differences among representational,

expressive, and formal properties of art? How do these distinctions inform how we
define art in broad terms?

Theories of Art

There are 3 major theories of art; these include functionalism, proceduralism, and historicism. In
general, most theories of art are subsumed under functionalism (Dickie, 1997). Functionalism
assumes that art fulfills a basic human need or needs and the definition of art must be centered
on those needs. A famous functional definition has been proposed by Beardsley (1979) “an
artwork can be usefully defined as an intentional arrangement or conditions for affording
experiences with marked aesthetic character (p. 729).” In other words, for something to be called
‘art’ it is necessary for it to produce or at least be intended to produce an aesthetic experience.
Beardsley defined the aesthetic experience as “pleasurable” (1969, p. 5), “refreshing and free from
inner disturbance or unbalance” (Beardsley, 1981, p. 560) and experience that “… relieves tensions
and quiets destructive impulses . . . resolves lesser conflicts within the self, and helps to create an
integration or harmony...refines perception and discrimination... develops the imagination” (p.
574). Still, problems with the functionalist approach center on defining aesthetic experience and
generally what the function(s) of art is or should be.

In contrast, proceduralism is a theory of art that requires the status of art be conferred by an
authority figure in the art world (Davies, 1990). The earliest procedural theory was advanced by
Danto (1964) who used a thought experiment called “The Perceptually Indistinguishable Objects
Argument.” In this thought experiment, consider 2 objects that look exactly the same: Duchamp’s
Fountain vs. an actual urinal. One is considered art whereas the other is not. Why? In Danto’s
words, “it is the role of artistic theories, these days as always, to make the artworld, and art,
possible (p. 581).” But there are examples, such as cave paintings, that are generally considered
art (and it seems intuitive they are art). Furthermore, it seems unlikely these painting were
produced with any theory of art in mind. Thus, while procedural theories are useful for including
avant-garde and modern and post-modern works more generally, they do exclude many works and
certainly any works produced before rhetoric (sorry, Venus (http://%20http://www.visual-arts-
cork.com/prehistoric/venus-of-willendorf.htm) )

Another theory has been advanced by Davies called historicism. According to Davies (2005), art is
itself is always in a state of evolution and so “something is an art work only if it stands in
appropriate relation to it's artistic forbearers" (p. 173). As a consequence, art at one time will not
be art at another time (Davies, 2005). One famous definition in this area is Levinson’s (1990)
intentional-historical definition “an artwork is a thing that has been seriously intended for regard in
any way preexisting or prior artworks are or were correctly regarded” (in Adajian, 2016, para. 22
(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/#HisDef) ). 

The purposes of these definitions are to establish clear boundaries between what is included in
the term art and what is not. I turned my attention now to more specific ways art has been
distinguished from another kind of work.

Can we Distinguish Art from Non-Art?

One way to try to capture the essence of something is to contrast it with something similar, but
clearly not a part of that concept. Below are some of the ways defining art has been approached
through the mechanism of contrast, i.e. defining what art is by presenting clear examples of what
it isn’t. Although there are too many ways to distinguish art than can be included in this lesson,
some of the major contrasts include: High art versus Low art, Canonical versus Non-Canonical art,
and Art versus Entertainment.
High Art versus Low Art

Instead of trying to distinguish Art from Non-Art; we can turn our attention to one of the most
commonly discussed contrasts in the world of art between “high” art and “low” art. Low is often
described as “popular” art. Though definitions are similarly difficult, most of us can distinguish
among examples within this contrast more easily than dismissing works as non-art. For example,
it may be easier to say that a comic book is more of an example of popular art than to say it isn’t
art at all. Likewise, in music, Beethoven is a better example of “high art” whereas Taylor Swift is an
example of “low art” and so on. I bet that, regardless of your personal experience with art or how
you have defined art for yourself, you can categorize the following into high vs. low art.

TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE: Take this Short Quiz

(https://learn.canvas.net/courses/1776/quizzes/18325)

Though this distinction does not posit which works are not art, there is an implicit, natural line of
thought that high art is more “real” art and low art more closely approaches the concept of non-art
(Fisher, 2005).