[Bups-dis] Defining art

[Bernie Doeser]

Defining art is something I would put in the same category as juggling soot
or herding cats, i.e. a theoretical concept which stands little chance of
successfully being carried out. Art History abounds with arguments over the
artistic value of specific artworks which I would suggest is symptomatic of
the subjective nature of what is considered art. When a TV Art programme
needs a bit of confrontation on the subject of modern art all they have to
do is invite Brian Sewell or Robert Hughes on the show - both respected
critics who think Tracy Emin is a fraud. (My comments refer to visual art,
which is my interest, but I believe they apply equally to all of the arts).

The things that affect our conception of art are (and I would suggest my
list is incomplete)

	- our culture
	- our experience / age / gender
	- our education
	- the time (i.e. decade) we make the judgement
	- the effort we can put in to studying the artwork
	- our motives (peer group pressure, financial)
	- the length of time between the item being created and our
judgement

In effect everyone may well have a different perspective on what is and
isn't art, and by extension what is and isn't good art.

Ernst Gombrich said in The Story of Art that it was impossible to determine
what was good art without the benefit of 50 years hindsight. There are
movements that become fashionable and fall out of favour and vice-versa
which illuminates the importance of the transient state of the spectator in
determining art.

I'd suggest it would be more fruitful to follow up on David's second point -
why is art significant to us. I suspect that is a distinctly human concept,
and one which is not necessarily developed in all of us. In this respect we
can put it alongside other concepts such as freedom, justice and empathy.
Why is it important and can we justify its existence. As a thought
experiment, what would be different about a world where art did not exist?

Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: bups-dis-bounces at list.bups.org [mailto:bups-dis-bounces at list.bups.org]
On Behalf Of David Mitchell
Sent: 30 January 2007 11:11
To: BUPS dis
Subject: [Bups-dis] Defining art

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email:
BUPS-DIS at bups.org
-

 
  I agree that most people don't really question they mean by 'art', but
rather in practice employ the term as a vague reference point to a
particular set of, socially designated and established, cultural objects
[Shakespeare plays, Byron poetry etc.]. Of course any effective definition
must go beyond this, simply pointing to a collection of objects and saying
'that is art', and must instead explain why it is that we call these things
'art' in the first place. 
   
  Of the possible 'definitions' of art it should be evident that: 'something
accepted/endorsed by the art world' is inadequate, since logically speaking
the 'art world' could anoint virtually anything as art. However the idea of
art as 'something chosen, selected or thought of by the artist' is equally
insufficient. Setting aside the obvious objection that 'artists' don't
necessarily always produce 'art'; we are left with the problem of how to go
about defining an 'artist'. Isn't such a person merely someone who produces,
or has produced, 'works of art'? If so, this means to identify 'artists' we
must be able to say what constitutes a 'work of art', [otherwise how would
we know if a person has produced one, and qualifies as an artist] but then
we're simply back where we started. As such unless we accept the idea that
'anything can be art' [in which case why bother calling it 'art', since
there would be nothing to distinguish 'art' from anything else] neither of
these
 definitions gets us very far.
   
  My suggestion then would be that, instead of focusing on the intentions of
the artist or some process of 'legitimisation' by the art world, we should
look towards art itself, our relationship with it , and the role it plays in
human life and culture in general. One useful, though by no means necessary,
starting point along these lines would be to ask what separates a piece of
art from the typical products of mass culture. For example why do we want to
say that an episode of East-enders or Celebrity big brother is not art,
whereas a Euripides or Dario Fo play might be? Further we might ask why
human beings seek to experience, or produce, art at all, especially given
that it can be difficult and disturbing [a point connected to the earlier
discussion about 'negative emotions']. And why is it that some value 'art'
so highly, to the extent that it often regarded as mans greatest achievement
and his most noble pursuit? In short, to understand art, and move towards an
idea of
 how we go about defining it, [which is a movement towards the same thing]
we must place art back within its proper evaluative context in human life
and experience. Hopefully by doing this we can cast light on the nature of
art, as well as the role that suffering and 'negative emotions' play within
it.
   
  David
   

 		
---------------------------------
 The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from
your Internet provider.
_______________________________________________

-
Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list
at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml