Valeria Davis
Phil Oliver
Intro to philosophy
21 November 2014
Art
What is art? If you were to ask 10 different people to define art, you
might get 10 different answers. One person might look in awe at a piece of art
in a museum or gallery and think, “wow, this is beautiful artwork!” while
another person might look at the same exact piece in confusion and wonder why
it was even considered as “art” and displayed for people to look at. In some
cases, people are paying traveling and museum/gallery expenses to view art that
others would rather not waste their pennies on. If you ask Google what the
definition of art is a lot of slightly differently worded definitions will come
up. According to Merriam Webster, art is something that is created with
imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or
feelings.[1] I
like how it refers to art as “something” and not a more exact form of art. Art
can be anything! The fact that new art forms such as film and photography have
emerged and that art galleries have exhibited such things as a pile of bricks
or a stack of cardboard boxes has forced us to think about the limits of what
we are prepared to call art.[2]
Over time the meaning and forms of art have varied among different people and
cultures. Factors such as religious beliefs, rituals, fears, and desires have
all played an important role in how art was defined and created by different
cultures. However, art doesn’t always need deep emotions or a god behind the
reason for its creation. Sometimes art is just there to serve entertainment
purposes and be appealing to the eyes and ears. The variety of art forms is
quite large, ranging from paintings, plays, films, novels, musical pieces, and
even dance. What do these things have in common? Because these are all
completely different art forms and don’t seem to have much in common, some
philosophers started to question if art can be defined at all. With so many
different art forms available, there are also so many different ways in how art
can affect the person creating it and the person viewing or listening to it. Art
critic Clive Bell might help us better understand the questioning of the
definition of art. Bell’s theory of art is called the significant form theory.
According to this theory, all forms of art that create emotion in the creator,
viewer, and listener all share significant form. These significant forms
include things like line and color. In 1913 Clive Bell wrote a book called Art. In this book he relates aesthetic
emotion and the theory of art. The theory of significant form was stated by
Bell that: There must be some one quality without which a work of art cannot
exist; possessing which, in the least degree, no work is altogether worthless.
What is this quality? What quality is shared by all objects that provoke our
aesthetic emotions? What quality is common to Sta. Sophia and the windows at
Chartres, Mexican sculpture, a Persian bowl , Chinese carpets, Giotto 's
frescoes at Padua, and the masterpieces of Poussin, Piero della Francesca, and
Cezanne? Only one answer seems possible - significant form. In each, lines and
colours combined in a particular way, certain forms and relations of forms,
stir our aesthetic emotions. These relations and combinations of lines and
colours, these aesthetically moving forms, I call "Significant Form";
and "Significant form" is the one quality common to all works of
visual art. [3]
But what is a theory without a criticism of it? The first objection is that the
theory contains a circular argument. A circular argument means that the
proposed idea(s) do not contain enough to prove the statement. Therefore, it is
a fallacy. In Warburtons Philosophy: The Basics he explains that:
the argument for the significant form theory appears to be circular in that two
of its key concepts are defined each in terms of the other. Significant form is
simply those formal properties of a work which give rise to the aesthetic
emotion. But the aesthetic emotion can only be understood as the emotion felt
in the presence of significant form. This is unsatisfactory. If we cannot
escape this circularity of definition, then the theory will remain
spectacularly uninformative. We need some independent way of recognizing either
significant form or else the aesthetic emotion. Without such an independent
criterion of one or the other, the theory has a viciously circular definition
at its heart. It is like looking up the word ‘yes’ in a dictionary to find it
defined as ‘the opposite of “no”’; and then looking up ‘no’ to find it defined
as ‘the opposite of “yes”’.[4]
Another objection to this theory is that it cannot be refuted, or disproved. It
is almost impossible to prove that there is only one emotion that viewers feel
when viewing art. Clive would say that even if you looked at a genuine piece of
art but did not feel emotions from it, then you didn’t truly experience it. I
think it is silly to say that everyone should get the same emotions out of a
piece of art! Another philosopher, but not the last, expressed his views on the
philosophy of art. Georg Hegel (1770-1831) was an early 19th century
German philosopher who had a strong influence on western philosophy and other
parts of western culture. He was an art supporter as well as an art student.
Hegel created a more thorough philosophy of art than a lot of philosophers
before his time. Hegel claimed that: art expresses the spirit of particular
cultures, as well as that of individual artists and the general human spirit. I
like this quote a lot because it’s saying that art doesn’t just have to emerge
from large groups and cultures, but from individuals as well. He also said that
there is progress in art. Yes! Art is always progressing into newer and bigger
things. Whether it is doing so in a positive or negative way, I think that is
for each individual to decide.
To continue on theories, the idealist theory created by R.G. Collingwood
(1889-1943) adds to the list. This theory is different from other art theories
because it proposes the idea that art is not a tangible thing, but merely an
emotion or idea in the artist’s mind. In Philosophy:
The Basics it states: this idea is given physical imaginative expression,
and is modified through the artist’s involvement with a particular artistic
medium, but the artwork itself remains in the artist’s mind. In some versions
of the idealist theory great stress is put on the emotion expressed being a
sincere one. This builds a strong evaluative element into the theory. The
idealist theory distinguishes art from craft. Works of art serve no particular
purpose. They are created through the artist’s involvement with a particular medium,
such as oil paint or words. In contrast, craft object are created for a
particular purpose, and the craftsperson begins with a plan rather than
designing the object in the process of making it. So, for example, a painting
by Picasso serves no particular purpose, and was, presumably, not fully planned
in advance, whereas the table at which I am sitting serves a very obvious
function and was made according to a pre-existing design, a blue-print. The
painting is a work of art; the table of a work of craft. This is not to say
that works of art cannot contain elements of craft: clearly many great works of
art do contain such craft elements. Collingwood explicitly states that the two
categories art and craft are not mutually exclusive. Rather, not work of art is
solely a means to an end. The idealist theory contrasts genuine works of art
with mere entertainment art (art made with the purpose simply of entertaining
people, or of arousing particular emotions). Genuine art has no purpose: it is
an end in itself. Entertainment art is a craft, and therefore inferior to art
proper. Similarly, purely religious art, so called, is considered to be craft
because it was made for a specific purpose.[5]
(161) An objection to this theory is its strangeness. It is weird to think that
art is only existent in ones own mind or emotions, or that it serves to
particular purpose. Why should someone need a blue-print for their art in order
for it to hold some sort of value or meaning? I think if all artwork was fully
planned out beforehand, art in itself would lose some meaning. Collingwood’s
odd distinction between art object and craft objects and how to influences
their worth is hard to grasp. Philosopher, George Dickie, described various art
forms and how they relate in the institutional theory of art. He states that
things such as music, a pile of bricks, everyday objects, writings, and
photographs can all be labeled as artwork. They theory says that even though
all of these things differ greatly in content and appearance, there are two
characteristics that they all share. The first thing they have in common is
that they are all artifacts, meaning that they have all been worked on to some
extent by human beings. Typically an artifact has some historical or cultural
meaning behind it, but the book stresses that the term is being used very
lightly. The second thing that all of these artifacts share is that they have
all been labeled as art by someone with the appropriate occupation to do so.
For example, the gallery owner that chooses and displays the art, the person
who publishes the book, and the person who produces the music. Basically it
says that if you are the right person, anything you deem worthy of being known
as art will make it so. This theory is faulty because it does not distinguish
the good art from the bad art. There is no “good” or “bad” art, if it’s art then it’s just art. I’m sure this
theory has artists everywhere raising their hands and differentiating between
all the horrible and amazing works of art they have produced or witnessed. The
institutional theory is almost too accepting of all art forms. Some see this as
a positive thing while others may see it as a flaw. Regardless of all the theories, I think art is
whatever you want it to be.
[1]
“Art.” Merriam Webster. Accessed November 21, 2014. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art
[2]
Warburton, Nigel. Philosophy: The Basics.
New York: Routledge, 2013. Print.
[3]
Bell, Clive. Art. 1913. Print.
[4]
Warburton, Nigel. Philosophy: The Basics.
New York: Routledge, 2013. Print.
[5]
Warburton, Nigel. Philosophy: The Basics.
New York: Routledge, 2013. Print.
"Regardless of all the theories, I think art is whatever you want it to be." Seems too inclusive, but maybe that's the only alternative to being too exclusive.
ReplyDeleteWhat I want art to be: expressive of recognizably human experience. John Dewey said if you want to discover the sources of art in everyday life, look at the "tense grace of the ballplayer. That sounds good to me.
Of course, "the fountain" is also expressive of a universal human experience. So I guess we've got to include it too.