What is Art?

Easy answer: It's what an artist makes!

It’s one of those old and challenging questions: “What is art?” As soon as someone made the first cave painting, someone else probably asked, "But is it art?"

“Looks like something my kid could do.”

The question likely cannot be answered objectively; everyone has their own definition of art. This post explores the definition I eventually landed on.¹

To begin, there are at least three general questions we can ask about art:

1. Is it art?

2. Is it good art?

3. Do I like it?

Defining art (or trying to) is about the first question. Critical review (whether a piece of art is good) and personal taste (whether you like it) are separate matters, at least for this post.

Art is hard to define because, like love, it’s so fundamental. That makes it relatively easy to describe (one can cite the Mona Lisa or Burns & Allen), but hard to define. Definitions depend on more basic concepts, which obviously fails with the basic concepts. And basic concepts tend to have many diverse instances that are hard to gather under even a descriptive definition (the canonical example: define a chair).

As with love (or chairs), art’s diverse nature is demonstrated in its variety of expressions. Any definition we attempt needs be equally large in scope.

Complicating things considerably, art is a form of communication between the creator and those who consume it.² This duality between creator and consumer complicates the definition, since it presumably must apply to both. It also raises the question of whether art is art if created strictly for the artist and never consumed.³ If the answer is that consumption is not a required part of art, then art can be defined strictly in the context of the artist.

Which brings me to my definition:

Art is that which is created by an Artist.

Of course, this just moves the question to, "Okay, smartass, then what is an artist?"⁴

My definition of art — that it is created by an artist — does one very important thing for me: it narrows the scope to products of the mind. It draws a line between that which is simply beautiful or appealing and that which was made in a creative act.

A sunset or a mountain is not art, no matter how beautiful it is. The Grand Canyon, despite that its breath-taking beauty and majesty make me weep (seriously, literally) is not art.

But depictions of beautiful things, photographs, paintings, perhaps even written accounts or songs, can be.

On the other hand, this definition does exclude the consumer of the art.⁵ I confess I haven’t quite worked out that side of the equation yet. I lean towards considering them distinct and viewing a theory of art consumption as art appreciation and criticism.

“Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth; And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings; Sunward I've climbed, …” ~High Flight, by John Gillespie Magee Jr.

Now what about a shuttle launch?

Here's another thing where the beauty, power and majesty (not to mention the implications behind it) also brings me to tears. The shuttle is a human-made thing; the launch is done by humans. Long ago, when I saw the NASA IMAX presentation of a shuttle launch, I was so profoundly affected, I could not speak without sobbing for several minutes.⁶

I'm going to say that the shuttle launch comes close to being art but doesn't quite cross the line. Behind its design and construction, the shuttle (and its launch) has primarily a utilitarian function. My definition of art requires that the primarily intention by the artist be to create a work of art, a personal expression whose main function is to be art.

This doesn’t mean art can’t be added to a utilitarian object (on tools or buildings, for example), and it also doesn’t mean utilitarian objects can’t be approached and made artistically. Again, the intent of the artist is significant.

Which brings me to trying to define what I mean artist:

An artist is one who is driven to create an interpretation and expression of their perception of reality. Artists have a deep need to express themselves in their chosen medium, and that expression takes the form of a representation of some aspect of the world around them.

I see two major components to this:

Perception & Interpretation: Art interprets some aspect of the artist's perceived reality. The reality may be completely imaginary, partly imaginary or based fully on reality. A novel might have imaginary aliens on an imaginary planet. Or ordinary people in an ordinary setting.

Expression & Medium: Art is the expression of the artist's interpretation. The expression has many forms (mediums): music, paint, sculpture, cinema, dance, literature, etc. There is always some medium of expression for Art. Expression is the bridge between artist and consumer; it is how the artist and their art speak to us.

Artists are those who are driven to express their interpretation of reality. Artists are people who have a need to create Art.

---

Let’s consider some examples and ask whether they are art.

Is paint “randomly” drizzled onto a canvas art? How about a painting of a Campbell's soup can? How about a sculpture that’s a urinal named “Fountain” signed “R. Mutt”?

“But is it art?”

I think the primary answer is found in the intent and expression of the artist.

Randomly applied paint can be intentionally selected for color palette. The application of color may be random, but the overall expression may not be. Consider Jackson Pollock's work, for example. Repeatedly applying random splashes may result in something the artist intends. His results are strangely compelling. I read an article once involving a mathematical analysis of his “randomness” that found interesting things about a consistent fractal dimension in his work. He “randomly” drizzles paint until the work looks finished to him. That’s the artist, the eye, the intent.

An interesting example involved throwing paint into the air stream of a jet engine to splash on a canvas some distance away. That seems more a gimmick to me (like wrapping a landscape or building in pink plastic), but art might be found in the expression. On some level, “never been done before” is a valid credential for a work of art. After all, art is fundamentally about creativity.

Andy Warhol's famous soup can paintings had a specific message; they were intentional statements. They reminded us that someone designed the label artwork on all those things we buy. Someone’s day job as a commercial artist. He asked us to notice all that quotidian art we’re awash in daily. Definitely, the soup cans were art. They also make a plea for the importance of the consumer. What are those paintings if never seen?

Likewise, weird sculptures can be an intentional statement. One difficulty might be determining whether the statement is insightful or banal. And in cases like these, the oddness of the medium — or even its offensiveness to some — can distract from the message.⁷ Still, art points can be awarded for “never been done” and if the message isn’t too occluded by the medium, then even that urinal is art. Possibly lame or silly art, but still art. Good is an orthogonal axis.

An artist’s (or wannabe artist’s) cynicism or financial/social thirst can detract from their artistic intent — a “cash grab” or lazy “fan service”. Again, intent is everything. Authenticity is important to art.⁸ Art comes from the heart.

One might also question whether art with a social message is more than (just) art. In such cases, is the primary purpose the utilitarian function of preaching using art as the medium? I believe it is. There is nothing wrong with preaching (my dad did it), but I do think it’s an added axis. Performance art in general often divides into “rippin’ good fun” versus fable, allegory, or instruction.

In fact, it’s actually rare for art to be entirely message-free (some music and images might accomplish it; maybe). The spectrum actually varies from “mostly entertainment” to “obvious preaching”. Many find the latter unappealing.⁹

---

There was a bit of bitter battle between film critic Roger Ebert¹⁰ and lovers of video games as to whether video games are art (as Ebert perceives film to be). I think there's no question that these games contain visual and musical art. The question really boils down to whether the game as a whole is.

Ebert's point was that no matter how artistic chess pieces might be, the chess game is not art. But I think the video game itself is the chess pieces (and therefore can be art). Playing the game is no more art than playing chess is, and I think some conflated playing with the game itself.

Yet I resist calling the games themselves art because the purpose behind their creation was utilitarian. No question they contain some often-stunning art. No question serious artistic skill (by trained artists) went into its making. An interesting nuance: Some original games were labors of love, ideas that burned in their creators’ hearts and demanded to be expressed. As expressions of a personal interpretation of reality, those could be considered art.

---

As mentioned above, there are some important questions with regard to art:

1. What is art versus not art?

2. What is good art versus bad art?

3. What is art you like versus art you don't like?

I’ve tried to address the first one, but my answer may not appeal to you. I suspect all three turn out to be subjective. The third one obviously is entirely so. There might be some objective criteria available for the second (assuming we do have some sort of handle on the first).

The quality line can be blurred by artists with great artistic soul but poor technical skills (or meager resources). Sometimes the inner artist shows through, though. What often shows most is the creativity, care, and intent.

I think we see this in those cave paintings. These artists re-created reality as they perceived it. That these paintings are evocative across the millennia shows the soul and heart put into these works. It bridges the eons between us and shows us human souls have been perceiving, interpreting, and expressing the world for a long time.

This seems to entirely remove technical skill as a criterion for good versus bad art.

And perhaps in return offers one criterion. Good art endures. It survives fashion changes and even social changes. Mozart endures. Shakespeare endures. Picasso endures. Michelangelo endures. Dickens endures.

And perhaps there’s another criterion. Good art is universal.

Okay, that’s enough from me. How do you define art and artists? Is it entirely subjective? Does too much message detract from art? How does the art consumer fit into the equation? Is art really art without a consumer? Is it possible to objectively define “good” versus “bad” art?

Until next time…

1. Which isn’t to say I won’t go flying off somewhere else someday.

2. As an aside, art is one of those things that, once created, is consumed by many and is sometimes consumed repeatedly by individuals. yet after any amount of sharing and consumption, the original remains intact.

3. If an artist arts in the forest and no one sees it, is it still art?

4. The Zen reply would be to define an artist as "one who creates art," but that would make this a much shorter article.

5. I’ve spent years trying to find a better word than consumer that includes book readers, music listeners, media and performance audience, painting and sculpture viewers, and all the myriad ways of… well… consuming art.

6. My lady friend at the time completely did not understand, and I could tell she looked down on me for it. Just one of many reasons she's ancient history now.

7. As Marshall McLuhan said in 1964, “The medium is the message.”

8. There is a debate about whether authenticity can only come from someone native to the art’s domain. I think the answer is no. Authenticity has more to with understanding and experience than with origin. There is also that sometimes an outsider sees things an insider is blind to. And nothing guarantees an insider’s accuracy or authenticity.

9. Disney has been really struggling with this, and many long-time fans of Indiana Jones and Star Wars are seriously unhappy with the direction taken. Marvel has also suffered from a perception of too much ‘The Message” in recent years. Disney apparently blames the fans.

10. RIP Roger. The only film critic I’ve ever really taken to, and one who taught me a lot about film criticism. One of his best tips: Always judge a film by its own terms (not what you want it to be).