Art: A Futile Endeavour or an Important Task - Assignment Example

Defining Art: A Futile Endeavour or an Important Task? The task of describing the physical properties and nature of the world around us often defies our efforts, such as when we attempt to describe the colour purple without the benefit of having any other colour to use as a reference. Beauty, grace, and melody are also ill-equipped for definition without a cultural or social context to frame the definition. Art, which may be a combination of several senses colliding with the cognitive process, becomes especially problematic as we search for a definition. Recent centuries have evolved the meaning, as well as the definition, of art as more liberal understandings of the requirements are applied and new theories are encountered. Art is an important part of the life experience as it evokes feelings and emotions that attach themselves to the work in question and portrays the meaning of our culture. Yet, society continues to struggle with the definition of art. Art defies description; we may know it when we see it, but we can not define it as it is too complex, varied, and prone to individual subjectivity. To define art, it is first necessary to define where the art is at. The art may be the act of its production, the end result, or the sensation that the viewer experiences from the encounter. To be considered art, all three components must be consciously involved in its production. As an example, if a paint can inadvertently spills onto a canvas, it is not art even if it is beautiful. There was no action on the part of the artist that would elevate an accidental spill to the level of art. Likewise, if the art produces no sensation in the viewer, such as a bottle of urine, then the art has no artistic content no matter how much time and effort the artist spent. Allowing a work to be labelled art that does not meet these requirements results in the flood of mediocrity, and worse, that has recently come to the attention of the popular media. Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres described these types of works in the 18th century as, "…banality, which is a public scourge, which afflicts taste and burdens the administration, fruitlessly absorbing resources, it would be best to abandon exhibitions; to declare boldly that only monumental painting be encouraged" (cited in Harrison, Wood, & Gaiger, 1998, p.469). Ignoring this important aspect of art has been responsible for inappropriate bodily fluids being labelled and accepted as mainstream art. The standard definition of art includes the traditional view that artwork is characterized by the possession of representational properties, expressive properties, or formal properties (Adajian, 2007). This definition also would include many items that are not art and were never intended to be art. A shopping list would not be considered art, yet may qualify under this generic definition. This simplistic set of requirements is not complete enough and is too broad to be of any value. While it may describe some objects and acts that are not art, it stops far short of defining what art is. To accommodate and update this traditional definition, recent decades have seen a surge of theories and movements designed to justify new and unusual art forms. Any theory or movement that adequately defines art and aestheticism would be necessarily narrow and exclusionary. While some schools of art, such as the Dada movement believes that anything can be art, other movements, such as minimalism, believe that nothing is art. These extreme positions, in regards to the definition of art, only serve to include every worldly endeavour as artistically worthwhile, but do little to help define art. In fact, these broad, nihilistic, and inclusive movements dilute arts purpose, meaning, and cultural value. Art needs to be defined within a set of boundaries that are acceptable by cognitive recognition and reflect a sense of values. This does not imply that the values need to adhere to any preconceived framework of acceptability. While racism may be an unacceptable human value, its portrayal could serve as art. The definition needs to be explicit enough to be recognizable to our perception as emotionally unique. Several theories in recent decades have sought to explain art and define it for the purpose of labelling, but all are problematic. The process is unending and often ends in regressive or circular arguments. Institutionalism dictates that to be considered a work of art, the object or performance must be accepted by the art world as art. Yet, this mandates that we further define the art world. Is it the art consumer who decides or the art professionals? If it is the professional art community that sets the standard, then this brings into question the problem of defining a genre that is "partially constituted by the audiences that support them" (DiMaggio, 1987, p.441). According to Young (1997), "The members of an artworld have the capacity to confer arthood on some work in the absence of any evidential reasons whatsoever" (p.56). Their reasons may range from economic to political or social. Young (1997) contends that the only safeguard from abuse by the art world is the need for the members to act responsibly (p.56). These motivations for labelling an object or act as art are open to corruption and the mismanagement of the definition of art. Voluntarism has defined art as, "…the provision of satisfaction through the imagination, social significance, and harmony" (Weitz, 2003, p.14). Here again, further definition and benchmarks are required to assess the social significance of the act or object. These are subjective terms that would eventually lead to a nihilist point of view and a meaningless definition. We may understand what our art world is, and have our own gauge for social significance, but this reduces the meaning to the realm of individual taste and is not an encompassing definition. In addition to the myriad theories that abound with each new art form and every generation comes the short lived nature of the definitions. Pop art and modern art can sometimes be labelled before a definition can be formulated. As an example, Berger (2000) reports that Mimetic music, which considers language "to be the essential component of music, on par with harmony" was so quickly denounced by the music world that it requires "something of an effort of historical imagination and sympathy to understand how it could ever have been taken seriously" (p.139). An additional problem with the theories on art is that a theory needs to be able to be proven by hypothesis and capable of being disproved. Weitz (2004) argues that these theories are no more than "honorific definitions of art" and have been constructed to fit the situation and not "true or false reports on the essential properties of art at all" (p.14). A mediocre rendition of a soup can may be labelled and revered as art, but does its definition "confirm or disconfirm the theory that art is significant form or embodiment of emotion" (Weitz, 2004, p.14)? Any theory applied to art will need to have some foundation of knowledge that will need to be assumed. The rigorous requirements for theories makes them untenable when applying them to the area of art. It becomes clear when applying theory to art or attempting to form a definition that there are paradoxes that can not be satisfied. While art is based on its emotional appeal and the viewers reaction, emotion and reaction are subjective and individual judgments. These defy definition. To be broad enough to include all forms of valid art, the definition needs to be too inclusive to eliminate many things that are not art. The task of forming the definition becomes too complex. It is as Wittgenstein (1953) says, "… the phenomena of art are, by their nature, too diverse to admit of the unification that a satisfactory definition strives for, or that a definition of art, were there to be such a thing, would exert a stifling influence on artistic creativity" (cited in Adajian, 2007). While a proper definition would eliminate the mundane, deformed, and perverse attempts that some people portray as art, it may also discourage legitimate forms of art. In conclusion, forming a definition of art is an elusive endeavour that can not account for all forms and all tastes. Traditional definitions are over simplified and serve only the most general purposes. A definition that is too broad allows the most mundane efforts to be bestowed with art hood. Definitions that are too narrow eliminate legitimate works and forms of art. While theories may help frame a definition, they are unworkable when applied to art. Institutionalised theory comes with the reality that irresponsible members of the art world will label anything as art for non-artistic reasons. In addition, it eliminates audience input that is necessary when labelling and forming genres. Other theories are more of a fad and honorific rather than being useful in defining art. Any definition that is narrow enough to be useful will discourage some valid forms of art from entry into the field. Art is simply too complex, laden with subjectivity, and varied to be fit for any definition. References Adajian, T. (2007). The definition of art. Retrieved April 16, 2008, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/ Berger, K. (2000). A theory of art. New York: Oxford University Press. DiMaggio, P. (1987). Classification in art. American Sociological Review, 52(4), 440-455. Harrison, C., Wood, P., & Gaiger, J. (1998). Art in theory 1815-1900: An anthology of changing ideas . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Weitz, M. (2004). The role of theory in aesthetics. In P. Lamarque & S. Olsen (Eds.), Aesthetics and the philosophy of art: The analytic tradition: An anthology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Young, J. (1997). Defining art responsibly [Electronic version]. The British Journal of Aesthetics, 37(1), 57-66. Read More