But, Is It Art? Part I

Hey, Tim Jones, here.

I've been asked by some commenters here at JA.O what I thought about abstract art, and whether I appreciate any modern art (like that of Robert Motherwell, shown at left).

Now, I am no expert on anything. I am a practicing artist (a painter ) *begin hypnosis - VISIT MY WEBSITE - end hypnosis* with a Master's degree in Fine Art. Maybe something worthwhile rubbed off while I was in college, but I do not present myself as any kind of Art Pundit.

I am also really not that well-read, so I can't lay claim to any great depth of historical knowledge.

What I can try to do is to clarify some terms and state, in very simple language, what I believe art is and is supposed to "do". Art should not be presented (in my view) as the exclusive purview of highly trained experts. If you have to read a paper to understand a painting, it has already failed as a work of art, in my opinion.

I had a professor once, who traced the meaning of the word art back to it's Latin root ars, pointing out that this was also the root of the word artificial. He went on to say that, in a sense, everything that is not from nature, that is "man-made", could be called "art".

This was received with knowing nods of approval at the time, probably even from me. It is an idea that still holds a great deal of sway in the world of modern art. The idea was that we should not take a narrow view of what is and is not art, which sounds okay, until you try to really begin talking about art.

The truth is, this is just not the way that people think and talk. In this broad, philosophical view of art, the tissue that I just used is "art". So is the notepad I just scribbled on, my shoelace, and every other human artifact you can think of.

The logical conclusion to this kind of thinking led the Dada-ists to hang latrines in museums, and still resonates to this day.

So, what separates art and fine art from non-art? Here is where it might help to draw and define some broad categories. You will see that there will be a good deal of possible overlap between them.

To get the ball rolling, I offer these working categories:

DESIGN - Everything that people make has a design. A tent, a spear point (like the one pictured) a clay pot, a mocassin, a tissue - all are made with an ideal design in mind. The actual object may be more or less close to the ideal, but the design is still evident. The design of an object can be pleasing, but this is not necessary. While some man-made objects may incidentally strike people as pleasing, the same is true of non-man-made objects. Design - in itself, then - would not be what we would call "art" in any commonly understood usage of the word. Art certainly incorporates design, but art is more than just design. Some design is so consciously elegant, though, that it becomes...

DECORATION - You might think that early in human history, people made plain things and gradually began to decorate them over time. There is no evidence for this, in fact. People have always decorated things. It's what we do, and part of what makes us qualitatively different from the animals. From the beginning, people wanted to make their stuff look cool. So, clay pots received etched, painted or stamped decoration. Clothing was beaded and fringed and dyed. Spears were hung with feathers. People tattooed their skin. Decoration is just built into human beings.

Some of these decorations had symbolic meaning, and some did not. Decoration could be a simple geometric pattern, or an actual picture of something else. The purpose of the decoration, though, was always to add something (appeal, interest, information, etc...) to an already existing object, and was not there to be appreciated simply for itself. So while art can incorporate elements of decoration, decoration - by itself - does not constitute art. Decoration can, however, begin to take on the characteristics of...

ILLUSTRATION - Now we come to the real magic of art; that is, the ability to invoke, or to make present (in a way that is truly mysterious) something that is not there. Not only objects and creatures, but events and environments can be re-presented, merely by the etching of lines or the arrangement of pigment. You probably already have an intuitive grasp of something else that separates illustration from decoration - storytelling. Where do we generally find illustrations? In books.

Illustration exists, not to enliven some existing object or tool, but at the service of a story, or narrative. Many great pieces of art are illustrations, including so many of the wonderful religious icons you are familiar with. Norman Rockwell was proud to be called an illustrator. The strong narrative (story) element in his art makes it very illustrative. All illustration is art, then, but at times it can be elevated to...

FINE ART - What sets fine art apart from illustration is the way it treats this element of narrative or story. All images tell some kind of story, of course, but in fine art the narrative element is subordinated to the visual, sensual properties of the depicted objects (like in the piece at left, by artist Jeff Legg).

It might be a landscape, a woman, a bowl of fruit... but a piece of fine art exists as an homage to some discreet part of creation. Fine art is meant to be appreciated in itself, and by itself. It needs no underlying narrative (as a religious icon or other illustration does) to make sense of it.

Many great illustrations (like Michelangelo's Pieta) cross over into the area of fine art, owing to the importance that they give to the native visual properties of the depicted objects, environments or people. Great artists often walk a line between illustration and fine art.

There is a danger, in pushing an illustration toward becoming fine art, that the visual elements of the image will overwhelm or detract from the desired narrative. This is why many religious icons are so graphic and simple. Too much attention to realism would actually serve as a distraction. As long as people can readily recognize who the icon symbolically represents, things like realistic shading or accurate anatomy are unnecessary.

There is, conversly, also a danger in allowing a piece of fine art to become bogged down in sentiment and narrative, to the detriment of the image. If an object can't stand on it's visual properties alone, then it's presence in a piece of fine art becomes questionable.

Now, because of the arrangement of the above categories, you may have the idea that I think that fine art is superior to illustration, illustration to decoration, etc... . This is not the case. All of these things are good and necessary in their own right. The reason they are placed in a kind of ascending order is because each successive category comprehends, or incorporates, all the previous categories. So, all art involves design, but not all design is art. This will also be important in the next post...

BEYOND? - There are those who posit another kind of art that passes beyond mere illustration or representation, and becomes something greater. I will examine that idea in my next post, where I discuss Realism, Abstraction and Non-Objective Art.

There will be a quiz next Thursday. Bring two #2 pencils.

If you have read this far, God Bless You!!

Comments

[Barbara]

If I may, I'd like to share a link to a child's artwork:

http://www.artakiane.com/home.htm

What is so amazing is that she is so young, and yet never received any training. The ability to create is truly God-given.

[John E]

This post reminds me of this artwork called "Midnight Blue", by Barnett Newman.

http://www.museenkoeln.de/ausstellungen/wrm_0506_ansichten/default.asp?lang=en (Go to exhibits and then artists)

I'm no purveyor of fine art either, but come on, this is fine art?

[Ed Peters]

I forget who said it, but it's perfect: "If I can do it, it ain't art."

[bill912]

"If you have to read a paper to understand a painting, it has already failed as a work of art, in my opinion." Or, as the late sci-fi writer, Robert Heinlein, put it: "Obscurity is the refuge of incompetence."

[Boa]

I wonder why so many artists prefer to paint fruit falling out of a bowl.

[J A Baumgartner]

"I forget who said it, but it's perfect: 'If I can do it, it ain't art.'"

It was the eminent Canadian philosopher Red Green who defined art thusly.

[Ed Peters]

JAB: naw, it was earlier than that, I'm sure.

[Tim J.]

"I forget who said it, but it's perfect: 'If I can do it, it ain't art.'"

There is something to that. Another definition of art is "skill aquired through learning and practice".

That seems to have been forgotten, though, in favor of the "everything is art" view.

[bill912]

The "everything is art" view reminds me of something else Heinlein wrote: "These days, every neurotic with astigmatism and a blowtorch calls himself an artist."

[Tammy]

We went to the art museum this weekend. My husband split his time between making fun of the abstract art and making fun of the people viewing the abstract art :) I seriously, SERIOUSLY can't stand the overanalysis portion of the art world (any form of art, dance, theater, writing, visual arts). That stuff is analysed to death by no-tallent hacks who like art and wish they could produce it, but lack either the training or the talent... or worse still... the vision. Actual artists who are masters of their craft seldom sit around and write 20 page analyses of why the indigo in that painting represents xyz and evokes qrs. They're out there PRODUCING art. They've internalized the rules, the craft, the history behind what they're doing, they arn't sitting there deep in thought, pondering every brush stroke or sentence written. I didn't enjoy that stuff in high school and I didn't enjoy it in college where I was unfortunate enough to go to a conservatory that was equal parts hands-on and analyising things until you were ready to puke. Knowing why you like something and understanding your reaction is one thing. What some of these people do is just a sin.

[Discomike]

I am fairly new to the JA.O website, and just recently discovered this particular article.

I have been in constant debate with my friends regarding the whole notion of art for a very long time. This article was very good, and very closely resembled my own position, up until the end.

When Tim said:

"Too much attention to realism would actually serve as a distraction. As long as people can readily recognize who the icon symbolically represents, things like realistic shading or accurate anatomy are unnecessary."

I had to disagree and comment. If one is going to elevate the various notions of art, and the very nature of art itself, then one cannot divorce the element of beauty from the Fine Arts. Beauty cannot be simply relegated to "recognizable symbolism", nor the "intelligably sublime". Beautiful art is a reflection of that which is most beautiful and so therefore must reach to be the most perfect depiction of that which is most beautiful. As such, the highest subject for art is of course Christian in nature.

My objection lies with the notion that fine art does not necessarily need to possess realistic shading or accurate anatomy. While I would never relegate the highest forms of art to perfect proportion (to do so would deny the lisence of artists to play with coloring or proportion to depict the sublime), such alterations must be made in order to "perfectly" depict the highest beauty. For instance, the Crucifixion by Georges Rouault is intelligable and readily recognizable (people know what it is depicting immediately), but it is also very ugly. When compared with Caravaggio's "Doubting Thomas", one can make an immediate distinction between the levels of beauty in both works.

So, I believe that intelligibility is not the only thing necessary in Fine Art, but the highest degree of competence in reflecting that which is most beautiful, which means that the highest attention to detail is necessary.

[xiaonanok]

Welcome to our website for you World of Warcraft Gold,Wow Gold,Cheap World of Warcraft Gold,cheap wow gold,buy cheap wow gold,real wow gold,sell wow gold, ...
Here wow gold of 1000 gold at $68.99-$80.99 ,World Of Warcraft Gold,buy wow gold,sell world of warcraft gold(wow gold),buy euro gold wow Cheap wow gold,cheapest wow gold store ... ffxi gil buy euro gold wow wow gold--buy cheap wow gold,sell wow gold.welcome to buy cheap wow gold--cheap, easy, wow gold purchasing.World of Warcraft,wow gold Super ...
We can have your wow gold,buy wow gold,wow gold game,world of warcraft gold, wow Gold Cheap wow, Cheap wow gold,world of warcraft gold deal,Cheap WOW Gold ...

Welcome to our website for you World of Warcraft Gold,Wow Gold,Cheap World of Warcraft Gold,wow gold,buy cheap wow gold,real wow gold,sell wow gold, ...
Here wow gold of 1000 gold at $68.99-$80.99,World Of Warcraft Gold,buy wow gold,sell world of warcraft gold(wow gold),buy gold wow lightninghoof instock Cheap wow gold,cheapest wow gold store ...
ffxi gil wow gold--buy cheap wow gold,sell wow gold.welcome to buy cheap wow gold--cheap, easy, wow gold purchasing.World of Warcraft,wow gold Super ...
Wow gold- Gold for buy gold wow lightninghoof instock EU-Server: ...wow Gold EU: starting from 84,99?; 3000 WoW Gold EU: starting from 119,99?. wow Gold- Leveling Services: ...
We can have your wow Gold,buy wow Gold,wow Gold game,wow gold, Cheap wow Gold, Cheap World of Warcraft Gold,world of warcraft gold deal,buy cheap wow gold,Cheap WOW Gold ...

Here wow Gold of 1000 gold at $68.99-$80.99,World Of Warcraft Gold,buy wow Gold,sell world of warcraft gold(wow gold),Cheap wow gold,cheapest World of Warcraft Gold store ...