Defining Artist Intent and Expression - Coursework Example

Defining Artist Intent and Expression Introduction There are different concepts that apply to art, all which make a difference in the end result of artwork and the presentation of different pieces. For many, this relies on philosophical interpretations that are a part of the work. Others make assertions through artwork that is based only on an understanding of form and the aesthetics of the art that is a part of each creation. A statement that relates to this is based on the question of whether one is a philosopher or an artist. Thomas Hirschhorn quotes this through saying, “I am not a philosopher, I am an artist.” When considering this quote, one can agree with the statement made. The intention of making artwork for the purpose of creating art instead of making a statement that is based on philosophical agreements allows one to understand how art can be created only for the purpose of expression and for representing a different form of art. Defining Art To become an artist that only works with art for form and aesthetics, is the need to first define what art is. This allows one to move outside of the philosophy of art for the sake of interpreting different beliefs and ideals. When looking at art for the sake of creation, one finds that this is based on the expression of aesthetics. Art becomes one that is defined by a natural expression that is formed from art. One of the theories that relates to this is the aesthetic theory. This states that art is defined by the properties of beauty as well as art forms that oppose beauty and aesthetics. The concept that this displays with art is one that moves beyond the complexities of defining art and instead states that art is only for or against the aesthetics that are displayed in different forms and in the techniques that are used. The concept of the aesthetic of arts is one that questions the true nature of what it means to be an artist, not for a purpose or for a philosophy, but instead for the creation of aesthetics and expression1. Once one moves beyond the basic definition of art, then philosophies will often be added into the expression, such as formalism, emotionalism and other theories. This leads to other definitions that are based on philosophies, as opposed to the ideal of working with art for the sake of aesthetics and production of creativity. This has led other artists into a definition of art that takes out the extra philosophies, definitions and intent behind the work. This leads into a de-definition of art, which is created only for art sake. The mediums that are produced and the expressions that are created are only for the sake of art and to use creative powers within different mediums. This creates objects that are not identified or which can’t be anything but art and are not defined by aesthetics, philosophies or by the nature of creativity2. Motives and Intent of Sub – Concepts of Art Even though there is a specific understanding toward the concepts of art and the de-definition of creation, there is also a purpose that moves behind the creative works. This is not a philosophy, but instead is considered one that is based on the intent of the artist and the ideals that are behind the creation. There is a dividing line between the art and the artist as well as what is created. The nature of art is one that can be defined simply by what is seen by the observer and what is occurring. This creates the philosophies and ideologies that many relate to. However, the artist does not have to have this intent and can be led to the works of art through the sub-concepts that are a part of the creation. Sub – concepts include the medium created, the expression that is displayed and the understanding of aesthetics in the piece. This intent is one that is not philosophical in nature, but is simply a response to the sub – concepts that an artist understands when working with creativity3. For the artistic work to become a philosophy or a part of a thought process, as opposed to just art, would be the need for the art to have strict definitions and expressions. For instance, when an artist is producing a work, the intent and the motive would have to be clearly reflected. If an artist is interested in a social dilemma, concept of how objects relate to ideas or other concepts, then it is reflected in the creativity expressed. However, this definition of the artist, as well as the motive portrayed, may differ from the interpretation of the viewer. At the same time, if the artist has no intent or motive behind the nature of the art and defines it only as art, then the viewer can create a different philosophy. In both of these examples, art is defined only by the sub-concepts as well as the definitions that others relate to when producing or looking at art. The artist that does not apply intent, motive or philosophy to the expressions created is considered as an artist instead of a philosopher. The production created is one that doesn’t have an interpretation by the artist and is created without definition. The true artist is one that is able to define art only on the terms of creation and expression, as opposed to meaning and purpose that has to be used to create form and aesthetics4. Philosophy and Art The opposing definition to those who work only as an artist for art sake is contradicted with those who believe that every artist is also a philosopher. The philosophies that are identified state that there is a purpose behind every creation and this is linked directly to what an artist thinks as well as how they approach subject – matter. The technique that is produced as a result is a reflection of the subject that has been looked into and is understood from the artist by their own thoughts, intentions and philosophies. In this particular instance, all art is philosophy as it is a reflection of the artist and their belief systems, symbols and relation to life5. Those who look at art as one that is defined by philosophy add into this definition by looking at cultural artistic works and the way in which the past and present works reflect art according to belief systems, rituals and patterns. In this instance, it is seen that the development of the environment through culture, politics, economy and intellectual belief is directly reflected in the art that is produced. The philosophies that are a part of this are linked directly to the ideal that art is measured according to the ideologies of civilization and what is being produced or accepted at a particular time frame6. Even though these specific philosophies have been diffused into art and art work, many also have shown that these are not a representative of the artist, but instead are a response to the current conditions of a given society. The surrounding environment and those that are viewing art will have a relationship not only to the artwork, but will also be under the impression of the social, political and cultural influences that surround the current conditions. The idea of art with a philosophical basis, in this instance, is not one that is based off the artist. Instead, it is a response to the community in trying to find and create meaning for what is produced. The artist; however, is one that can define philosophy through the concept of art for art’s sake. This means that the artist doesn’t have to carry the same environmental or cultural meaning or philosophy, even if the surrounding viewers and environment responds in this manner7. Defining Art for Art’s Sake The rebellion against philosophy as a main purpose for artists and as a recognized proponent of interpretations of viewers then leads into the definition of art for art’s sake. This interpretation was given by Nietzsche in defining his own artwork and philosophies. Nietzsche believed that there was no other purpose in art except to create art. When viewers interpreted this according to the environment, cultural means and social understanding, it contaminated the purpose of art. The purpose that he saw was reliant on expression and creativity that had no other purpose. The influence that this had was to create art that was designed to hold no meaning, but instead led into the expression of a piece only to define aesthetics and to represent creativity8. The beliefs of Nietzsche of art for art’s sake are further confirmed through a line of followers, such as Dewey. However, the difference in this is not only to take away the intent, definition and purpose of art for only creativity and expression. Dewey notes that there doesn’t need to be a philosophy behind art, but only a production. However, the creativity that is made by the artist is always a reflection of something for the viewer. The specific focus is to use the arts to create and express something that is more powerful and which shows a sense of dramatization. However, even though this presents a theme and requires a response, it is not based off a philosophy. Instead, it is based only on the human elements that pertain to a specific subject, all which make up the structure that is a part of art9. The concept that both Dewey and Nietzsche presented in art for art’s sake was one that was not based on philosophy but instead pertained to concepts of morality and how the viewer responded. When one could produce art for art’s sake, then the response from the viewer was able to move beyond philosophical thought and intellectualism. The end goal for the artist becomes one of an emotional, psychological and physiological response to what is occurring in the artwork. Achieving this expression, as opposed to a philosophy, was then able to create a more significant piece of art that didn’t require only thought, but instead allowed for creativity that associated with the human experience10. The challenge that was created with this specific philosophy was based on the concept of moving beyond the philosophy that was a part of artwork. Instead, the challenge and the value of art were in finding something that was able to move beyond the foundation of the artist and the intent of the artist. Nietzsche believed that, when the artist had no intent, but simply produced the work, than it would naturally create responses that could move outside of philosophies and into more dramatic expressions. This particular concept is one that comes directly from Plato and his philosophy that art is only a mirror and reflection of expression. This reflection is one that is both from the artistic understanding of drama, as well as a different and personalized expression that the viewer relates to11. Defining the Intent of the Artist and Viewer For art to move beyond philosophies and into the concept of artwork for expression is the need for the artist to define their intent. The expression that is used as well as the approach that each artist takes is what defines the creativity, subject matter and the ultimate response from viewers. For instance, if the artist believes that they are a historian, than the works that they produce will reflect cultural and social aspects that relate specifically to history. However, if the artist’s intent is to create a deeper understanding of an event, such as the Holocaust, and the dramatic events related to this, than the outcome will be different. In this instance, the artist is no longer a historian or philosopher, but is instead an artist that is producing expression for the sake of art12. For an artist to be a philosopher instead of an artist there would be the need to focus on the materialization of ideas. This takes away the idea of aesthetics, expression and creativity. Instead, the materialization of ideas is only based on the intent of the artist and the position in which they take in society. This leads to a sense of incompleteness with the expression of the art, specifically because it is not the intended nature of art that the artist is creating. For the work of art to be complete, the expression has to lead back to creativity and the production of creating art only for aesthetics and expression13. According to Thomas Hirsschhorn, the focus of the artist and the expression given, no matter what the idea, always comes back to one being an artist and not a philosopher. The concept of being an artist relies solely on the expressions that one makes as well as the intent of the artist that is producing the work. The subject, appearance, and affect that each work produces then portray something that is art, as opposed to being a philosophy of art. Hirsschhorn believes that the works of art that are created always rely on the artist’s intent as well as the response from the viewers. The contemporary displays are no more than artistic expression about objects and events, which are then portrayed, observed and critiqued with the question of what intent is behind the artwork14. This interpretation is one that is able to lead into philosophies; however, should never be limited to this by the artist intent. The motive and intent of the artist is able to produce the works that are expressive and creative for society. By focusing on only this, the artist will be able to incorporate environmental surroundings and philosophies that materialize in the work. . However, Hirschhorn believes that this should never be the end goal or topic as it leads to a lack of expression and artistic work15. Conclusion The concept of being an artist and not a philosopher is one that should always be the focus and intent of the artist that is focusing on creativity or artistic works. According to artists such as Hirschhorn, Nietzsche and Dowley, this specific focus and intent is one that is able to produce stronger artistic works than having a philosophical viewpoint. It is the viewers that are able to depict the philosophies, interpretations and understandings of the artwork. This is based on their concepts of reality and understandings of the environment surrounding them16. The viewpoint that is created is one that can be agreed with, specifically because the artist’s intent should be based on the definition of aesthetics, form and producing art for the sake of expression and for art. The outside intent of philosophy is one that limits the material production and the viewpoint created from the artist. Functioning as an artist with artwork, instead of as a philosopher, is then able to create a stronger expression that viewers can relate to within any medium of art. References Bell – Vilada, Gene. Art for Art’s Sake and Literary Life: How Politics and Marketing Helped Shape the Ideology and Culture of Aestheticism. (Nebraska: University of Nebraska, 1975), pg 11. Dickie, George. ‘Defining Art.’ American Philosophical Quarterly. 6 (3), (1969). Pgs 253-256. Diffey, T.J. ‘Essentialism and the Definition of ‘Art.’ The British Journal of Aesthetics 13, (2), (1973), pgs 103 – 120. Foster, Hal. ‘An Archival Impulse.’ October 110 (2004), pgs 3-22. Frasco, Lizzie. ‘The Contingency of Conservation.’ Penn University. (2010). Retrieved from: http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=uhf_2009. Godfrey, Mark. ‘The Artist as Historian.’ October Magazine. 120 (2007), pgs 140 – 172. Langer, Susanne. Philosophy in a New Key: A Study of Symbolism of Reason, Rite, and Art. (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1942) pg. 3. Price, Amy. ‘Nietzsche and the Paradox of Tragedy.’ British Journal of Aesthetics.38 (4), (1998), pgs 384-393. Rosenberg, Harold. The De-Definition of Art. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972) pg s. 7 – 12. Shusterman, Richard. ‘Art as Dramatization.’ The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. 59 (4), (2001), pgs 363-372. Singer, Irving. ‘The Aesthetics of Art for Art’s Sake.’ The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 12, (3), (1954), pgs 343 – 359. Tylor, Edward. Primitive Culture: Researches Into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Art and Custom. (London: Bradbury, Evans and Company, 1971), pg 23. Walden, Jennifer. ‘Eating Well: The New Materialization of Ideas.’ Language and the Scientific Imagination (2010) Retrieved from: http://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/15302/35_Walden.pdf?sequence=1. Walsh, Dorothy. ‘The Cognitive Content of Art.’ The Philosophical Review 52, (5), (1943), pgs 433 – 451. Weitz, Morris. ‘The Role of Theory in Aesthetics’. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 15 (1956) pgs 27 – 35. Westcott, James. ‘Gut Feeling: Thomas Hirschhorn’s Superficial Engagement.’ TDR 51 (2), (2007), pgs 171 – 175. Read More