Friday, August 04, 2006
Through the years, many people have tried to define art. However, until this day, none have been successful as the definition differs from person to person. The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English defines art as “the making or expression of what is beautiful in music, literature or painting”. This definition is incomplete as it does not incorporate all aspects of art especially the performing arts. To me, art is usually visual, with the exception of music, and it has the ability to affect its audience emotionally or spiritually.
Sight, being our most utilised sense, is one reason why most art is visual. Besides music, which works on our hearing, art affects us firstly at a visual level, then intellectually and emotionally with the help of our other sensory organs and processing by the brain. Art in the form of paintings, sculpture or writing such as poetry relies on sight to convey its message. Performing arts, dance and theatre, rely on a combination of visual effects and blending with music or sound to affect its audience. However what defines each of these various visual spectacles as art is still subjective.
As Arthur Danto, professor of philosophy at Columbia University, said, “You can't say something's art or not art anymore. That's all finished." With the rise of pop art, it can now be argued that anything even a simple line on a paper can be called art. In support of this point, Richard Wollheim feels: “The act of painting has to be an intentional one, i.e., the painter has to have the intention of making art. The act of painting has to be undertaken in a special way in order to be art.” So as long as the person states that he intends to create a work of art, anything he paints will qualify.
In opposition to this view, the Institutional Theory of Art states, "Painters make paintings, but it takes a representative of the art-world to make a work of art." So the task of defining art is left to people who claim to have knowledge about art. Yet, even these experts upon occasion cannot agree among themselves. If experts are unable to define art, what chance do we normal people have of defining art?
As Leo Tolstoy puts it “Every work of art causes the receiver to enter into a certain kind of relationship both with him who produced, or is producing, the art, and with all those who, simultaneously, previously, or subsequently, receive the same artistic impression.” These artistic impressions need not be experienced by experts in the field only even normal people can connect and respond to the piece of art. However, just because they share the same view as the expert, it does not qualify them as an expert and vice versa.
I feel that art or the defining of it is still highly personal or subjective as Leo Tolstoy quotes “To evoke in oneself a feeling one has once experienced, and having evoked it in oneself, then, by means of movements, lines, colors, sounds, or forms expressed in words, so to transmit that feeling that others may experience the same feeling - this is the activity of art.” As this quote shows, art starts out personal with a person trying to express his emotion, and again people respond differently so it is highly unlikely that many will feel or experience that same sensation.
Perhaps what art really is is simply whatever the interpreter chooses it to be. As Keats writes in his poem Ode on a Grecian Urn “Beauty is truth, truth beauty,” ---that is all/ Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.” Like beauty, perhaps art cannot be defined and hence every compliment or criticism is truth. Who are we to argue with others views?
keira:)
@ 12:00 AM
