This is a good definition, and largely overlaps with my definition as we discussed recently.
I think for pragmatic reasons we shouldn't define art as what an artist does, because it might cause people to think in essentialist terms and never try to make art because they assume they are not an artist.
My feeling is that art should not have a "message" or "idea", but should have a "vision". The difference I think, is that a message/idea is something more abstract and detached, whereas a vision must be experienced/felt, and is tied to a particular point of view. It's about seeing through another's eyes.
I also think we shouldn't exclude useful things from being considered "art". Although there is a relevant distinction here. If it *communicates* the artist's vision, it is art, but if it *actualises* the vision, it is design. Art points beyond itself.
I'm not big on pragmatic reasons. I resist the notion of treating people like Pavlov's Dogs or trying to control language or concepts. (I'm a small-l libertarian who sees reality as wide and wild.) If people are put off by the definition to the point of never trying to make art, I don't see that they have the artistic motivation in the first place. Part of my definition is the abiding drive, and all the artists I've known or heard of (including myself) wouldn't be put off by someone else's definition. Indeed, part of being an artist seems to be a dedication to going your own way regardless of the opinions of others.
Interesting distinction between message/idea versus vision. It seems yet another spectrum. I suspect those turning out movies that reek of "The Message" see themselves as having a vision. Maybe the difference is between the division between communicating a message (aka preaching) versus telling a good story. Even so, the boundary is very fuzzy and hard to define. Parables, for instance, are message-heavy. It may boil down to the artists intentions, which ties back to your notion of intentionality.
I don't follow the distinction between "communicating" and "actualizing". Utilitarian things can definitely be made with art in mind in various ways. For instance, the fretwork on some homes was certainly made by an artist. Or musical instruments. Or even furniture. Again, it might boil down to intent. As you say, vision.
I mentioned on your Note thread that I don't believe in the notion that "everyone is an artist". I don't subscribe to the notion that everyone is anything. I suspect we differ on this? If so, it would definitely affect our mutual definitions of art and artists. 😃
Fair point about pragmatic reasons, but I think there's still the valid objection that defining art in that way relies on a kind of essentialism that I think is untrue. We might all have different tendencies to different degrees, but I think even these are fluid.
Yes, message vs vision is definitely fuzzy. I think part of it might be that with message, you know exactly what the creator wants you to think about it, whereas with vision/art, they convey the vision/experience and then you are free to make of that what you will. There's no right answer.
My point about communicating vs actualizing is that sometimes a creator has a vision, but that vision is not something that needs to be communicated to another mind, it needs to be made real. Eg if a designer has a vision of a really sleek phone that's nice to look at and to hold, they are not trying to communicate that vision to the phone users, they are just trying to make it a reality. I don't think that's art. On the other hand, where there's some intricate and functional architectural design, that directs the mind beyond the architecture itself and imparts a larger vision, then that is art.
I wouldn't say everyone is an artist, but I think anyone can be. I think an artist is someone who makes art, and everyone is capable of creating art. I think everyone can train themselves to cultivate that deeper vision and to communicate it.
You've got me curious. Do you reject essentialism in general or just in this case? Do you reject it in all cases of human talents (for instance athleticism or musical ability)?
Excellent point about unmistakable messages in art verses being free to interpret it. How we perceive art is a key aspect for me. It may be a great way to distinguish between preaching versus art. I've written in the past about how art is an inkblot that reflects our self. Good art often says as much about the perceiver as it does the artist.
Not sure I understand why the phone can't be art or why a painting, sculpture, movie, or musical piece isn't also necessarily actualized. (The famous Trimline phone, for example, was a beauty to behold both visually and technologically. I still have one.)
As to everyone, might we agree that anyone can create art, but only those with a talent for art can create good (enduring, evocative) art? When I was younger, there seemed a possible future path for me as a musician, but after interacting with what I saw as "real" musicians, I realized I wasn't one. Yes, I had some technical skills and could play, but I didn't have that undefinable "it".
In contrast, a good friend of mine blew me away with his ability. One time, hanging out with him and other friends, he was playing someone else's guitar that was hooked to a guitar synth. The other guy kept changing the patch (sound), and my friend would noodle around for a bit getting the feel of the new sound and then launch into jamming on it in a way that was perfect for that sound. My jaw was on the floor. It was breath-taking. And an excellent example of a real musician in action.
OTOH, I discovered I had a talent for theatre lighting and — much more usefully — computer programming. I guess that's why I distinguish between talents and skills. The latter can be acquired but the former are innate.
I'm not sure re essentialism... I don't think there are different essential types of people or any kind of fixed, well-defined categories. But on the other hand, I know that I have a brain for maths and philosophy, because I naturally gravitated to these early in my childhood, demonstrated ability in them, and have had a continuous interest in them. And my siblings have no interest in these, which kind of baffles me tbh. And I think a lot of personality is innate too. And I don't doubt that art (or perhaps a particular art) is for some people like maths is for me. I suppose my only real issue is the idea of hard boundaries between types of people and these things being entirely fixed.
The distinction I was trying to draw with the phone, is that a creator might have a vision of what they want their creation to be or to look like, but the vision that art is concerned with is more than that. It's not just the end product, but their inner vision/experience that they want to transmit to those who perceive it. All art is necessarily actualised, but if it's not also communicating something beyond itself, I don't think it is art. When we look at a painting, we don't see it as just paint on canvas, we see something through it. When we look at a beautiful cathedral, we don't just see the building and geometry before us, we're drawn into an experience of the transcendent. There's no reason in principle that a phone couldn't do that though.
Yes, I think it's fair to say that only those with talent for art will create great art. There is almost a kind of magic when you see someone truly gifted and a cut above the rest.
It sounds as if your family experience confirms there is at least some truth to essentialism. I agree the lines are soft, and that categorizing people is bound to fail (I've long resisted labels). I do think innate talents are real — the extreme example being prodigies (Mozart always springs to mind). Or the naturally athletic. My sense is that humans vary physically, and brains are physical, so it makes sense affinities and talents vary.
This is starting to feel like I'm trying to persuade you, and I'm trying to avoid doing that sort of thing. Just take it as my 2¢ worth and leave it at that. I'll leave final words on the matter to you.
Ah, okay, lightbulb on with regard to the phone! Good design versus art. It kind of ties back to what I wrote in the post about art being a form of communication between creator and consumer. And the sense of transcending. One might admire a sleekly designed phone, but it doesn't go beyond that. The designer isn't communicating that much (just, "isn't this cool?!"). In contrast, an artistically designed watch or clock (or as you said, architecture) might invoke a lot more than mere admiration.
> "There is almost a kind of magic when you see someone truly gifted and a cut above the rest."
Yes, exactly. That magic is what I feel with talented musicians (like the friend I mentioned) but absent in those (like me!) who've just learned to play. It's kind of a Dunning-Kruger thing. I'm good enough to recognize that I'm not *that* good.
Yes. I really love footnotes.
This is a good definition, and largely overlaps with my definition as we discussed recently.
I think for pragmatic reasons we shouldn't define art as what an artist does, because it might cause people to think in essentialist terms and never try to make art because they assume they are not an artist.
My feeling is that art should not have a "message" or "idea", but should have a "vision". The difference I think, is that a message/idea is something more abstract and detached, whereas a vision must be experienced/felt, and is tied to a particular point of view. It's about seeing through another's eyes.
I also think we shouldn't exclude useful things from being considered "art". Although there is a relevant distinction here. If it *communicates* the artist's vision, it is art, but if it *actualises* the vision, it is design. Art points beyond itself.
Thanks. I think it does, too.
I'm not big on pragmatic reasons. I resist the notion of treating people like Pavlov's Dogs or trying to control language or concepts. (I'm a small-l libertarian who sees reality as wide and wild.) If people are put off by the definition to the point of never trying to make art, I don't see that they have the artistic motivation in the first place. Part of my definition is the abiding drive, and all the artists I've known or heard of (including myself) wouldn't be put off by someone else's definition. Indeed, part of being an artist seems to be a dedication to going your own way regardless of the opinions of others.
Interesting distinction between message/idea versus vision. It seems yet another spectrum. I suspect those turning out movies that reek of "The Message" see themselves as having a vision. Maybe the difference is between the division between communicating a message (aka preaching) versus telling a good story. Even so, the boundary is very fuzzy and hard to define. Parables, for instance, are message-heavy. It may boil down to the artists intentions, which ties back to your notion of intentionality.
I don't follow the distinction between "communicating" and "actualizing". Utilitarian things can definitely be made with art in mind in various ways. For instance, the fretwork on some homes was certainly made by an artist. Or musical instruments. Or even furniture. Again, it might boil down to intent. As you say, vision.
I mentioned on your Note thread that I don't believe in the notion that "everyone is an artist". I don't subscribe to the notion that everyone is anything. I suspect we differ on this? If so, it would definitely affect our mutual definitions of art and artists. 😃
Fair point about pragmatic reasons, but I think there's still the valid objection that defining art in that way relies on a kind of essentialism that I think is untrue. We might all have different tendencies to different degrees, but I think even these are fluid.
Yes, message vs vision is definitely fuzzy. I think part of it might be that with message, you know exactly what the creator wants you to think about it, whereas with vision/art, they convey the vision/experience and then you are free to make of that what you will. There's no right answer.
My point about communicating vs actualizing is that sometimes a creator has a vision, but that vision is not something that needs to be communicated to another mind, it needs to be made real. Eg if a designer has a vision of a really sleek phone that's nice to look at and to hold, they are not trying to communicate that vision to the phone users, they are just trying to make it a reality. I don't think that's art. On the other hand, where there's some intricate and functional architectural design, that directs the mind beyond the architecture itself and imparts a larger vision, then that is art.
I wouldn't say everyone is an artist, but I think anyone can be. I think an artist is someone who makes art, and everyone is capable of creating art. I think everyone can train themselves to cultivate that deeper vision and to communicate it.
You've got me curious. Do you reject essentialism in general or just in this case? Do you reject it in all cases of human talents (for instance athleticism or musical ability)?
Excellent point about unmistakable messages in art verses being free to interpret it. How we perceive art is a key aspect for me. It may be a great way to distinguish between preaching versus art. I've written in the past about how art is an inkblot that reflects our self. Good art often says as much about the perceiver as it does the artist.
Not sure I understand why the phone can't be art or why a painting, sculpture, movie, or musical piece isn't also necessarily actualized. (The famous Trimline phone, for example, was a beauty to behold both visually and technologically. I still have one.)
As to everyone, might we agree that anyone can create art, but only those with a talent for art can create good (enduring, evocative) art? When I was younger, there seemed a possible future path for me as a musician, but after interacting with what I saw as "real" musicians, I realized I wasn't one. Yes, I had some technical skills and could play, but I didn't have that undefinable "it".
In contrast, a good friend of mine blew me away with his ability. One time, hanging out with him and other friends, he was playing someone else's guitar that was hooked to a guitar synth. The other guy kept changing the patch (sound), and my friend would noodle around for a bit getting the feel of the new sound and then launch into jamming on it in a way that was perfect for that sound. My jaw was on the floor. It was breath-taking. And an excellent example of a real musician in action.
OTOH, I discovered I had a talent for theatre lighting and — much more usefully — computer programming. I guess that's why I distinguish between talents and skills. The latter can be acquired but the former are innate.
I'm not sure re essentialism... I don't think there are different essential types of people or any kind of fixed, well-defined categories. But on the other hand, I know that I have a brain for maths and philosophy, because I naturally gravitated to these early in my childhood, demonstrated ability in them, and have had a continuous interest in them. And my siblings have no interest in these, which kind of baffles me tbh. And I think a lot of personality is innate too. And I don't doubt that art (or perhaps a particular art) is for some people like maths is for me. I suppose my only real issue is the idea of hard boundaries between types of people and these things being entirely fixed.
The distinction I was trying to draw with the phone, is that a creator might have a vision of what they want their creation to be or to look like, but the vision that art is concerned with is more than that. It's not just the end product, but their inner vision/experience that they want to transmit to those who perceive it. All art is necessarily actualised, but if it's not also communicating something beyond itself, I don't think it is art. When we look at a painting, we don't see it as just paint on canvas, we see something through it. When we look at a beautiful cathedral, we don't just see the building and geometry before us, we're drawn into an experience of the transcendent. There's no reason in principle that a phone couldn't do that though.
Yes, I think it's fair to say that only those with talent for art will create great art. There is almost a kind of magic when you see someone truly gifted and a cut above the rest.
It sounds as if your family experience confirms there is at least some truth to essentialism. I agree the lines are soft, and that categorizing people is bound to fail (I've long resisted labels). I do think innate talents are real — the extreme example being prodigies (Mozart always springs to mind). Or the naturally athletic. My sense is that humans vary physically, and brains are physical, so it makes sense affinities and talents vary.
This is starting to feel like I'm trying to persuade you, and I'm trying to avoid doing that sort of thing. Just take it as my 2¢ worth and leave it at that. I'll leave final words on the matter to you.
Ah, okay, lightbulb on with regard to the phone! Good design versus art. It kind of ties back to what I wrote in the post about art being a form of communication between creator and consumer. And the sense of transcending. One might admire a sleekly designed phone, but it doesn't go beyond that. The designer isn't communicating that much (just, "isn't this cool?!"). In contrast, an artistically designed watch or clock (or as you said, architecture) might invoke a lot more than mere admiration.
> "There is almost a kind of magic when you see someone truly gifted and a cut above the rest."
Yes, exactly. That magic is what I feel with talented musicians (like the friend I mentioned) but absent in those (like me!) who've just learned to play. It's kind of a Dunning-Kruger thing. I'm good enough to recognize that I'm not *that* good.
Yes, I think I have to concede there's that much truth to essentialism. You have brought me round a good deal, and I appreciate it.
>It kind of ties back to what I wrote in the post about art being a form of communication between creator and consumer. And the sense of transcending.
Exactly!