Definition: A thing is art If the maker intends it to be art.
You might immediately object that since the sentence is circular, then it cannot work. But I think it does nonetheless.
Take this picture:
Takezo and Bjarke making art. Cones and sticks on concrete and bricks.
Is it art? No, it is not. I took it today with the intent to depict my sons making art. My intent was not to make art, and therefore it is not. What my two sons have made in the picture is art, or at least I think so. I did not ask them - that would be futile, as they really have no concept of what art is. This raises the question if something can be intended to be art if the maker doesn't know what art is, but since it by definition is something of intent alone, I think I can say with confidence that they meant it to be art. The meaning of the object is unknown, and by definition there doesn't have to be any. I have previously heard another definition stating that art is that with is made to convey a statement, but that doesn't work. My sons made art, but had no statement, and I have made things that made a statement, but wasn't art. Would anyone say that a poster of scientific work that I made is art, for example. I think not. I also think that some art does not make a statement, like portraits that was just meant to depict a person, as was common before the invention of photography.
However, someone could take the picture above and show it with the intent of making art, and then it would be. Be my guest.
That is interesting.
ReplyDeleteI think there is no intent by your childrem which makes me wonder if art can be made randomly. I like to think that there are some objective parameters in the acknowledging of art but in fact it seems there is no such thing as objective, in art. Again, I hate to think of it as just a subjective reaction.
Perhaps there are definitions for certain situations....thank you for the query, anyway!
Why don't you think children has intent to make art? There was clearly no functional purpose to what they made.
ReplyDeleteIf art can be made randomly, then non-living things can make art? That sounds ludicrous.
What is I make explicit non art art.
ReplyDeleteThe art of making no art?
Cheers Arend
How does the concept 'eye of the beholder' fit in your definition? Perhaps if I intend someone else's non-art to be considered art then it is art but only to me? How much interaction if any is required for 'intent' to make something art?
ReplyDelete- JS
We should have very strikt rules and laws governing this, and a comitee that decides: Art or non art.
ReplyDeleteCheers Arend
I thought I made it clear that no one should take me seriously. Not generally, just on art. Also on chemistry (yuck!). And well nevermind.
ReplyDeleteSounds great with a committee. Could be like the inquisition, since they'll have to get to the intent of the would-be artists. What were you thinking when you pissed up that tree? Eeh... It was with the intent of making art. Oh ok, then. You're free to go, and we'll dig it up and put it in the Guggenheim.
I was more thinking in this direction:
ReplyDeleteThe judges are 200 people and all must love the "piece of art" otherwise it will be declared junk...
Or one coud put a number to the art: 99% art, 10% art...
Cheers Arend
I think a group of people should get together to decide who is qualified to be on such a judgmental committee.
ReplyDelete- JS
Arend, that would make it a question of good vs. bad art. There's lots of art that I hate but still acknowledge is art. Lots!
ReplyDeleteI think art versus non-art should be in the eye of the individual beholder. A person will consider something "art" if it permits them to have whatever type of experience they seek art in order to obtain. The intent of the would-be artist certainly determines their own definition of the finished work. However, the judgment of whether a given work is "art" or not must be made separately by each individual who encounters it. Which is why current pop culture, especially in America, has the tendency to have talking heads refer to every parroty entertainer as "an artist". because a viewer or listener whose tastes are not clearly self-defined will experience all manner of (what I personally feel is) inane schlock as art, simply because they're told that's what it is.
ReplyDeleteAnd truly, whether it's because someone told you "this is art" or because--like seeing your kids happily playing with pinecones--the experience of a given work might move you to name that work "art." And you'd be right.
My question is: can I buy it? I think it is fabulous and I will pay $10,000. You haven't sold it yet, have you?
ReplyDeleteYou still have it, right? I mean, you didn't, by any chance, destroy this fabulous one-of-a-kind piece?
I think this is an interesting discussion (your joking intent notwithstanding). Remind you to show you something the son of a colleague of mine did (roughly around Takezo's age, maybe younger).
If you'll pay me (them) $10,000 for it, then it was certainly not destroyed, and we will bring it to you asap.
ReplyDeleteOften art is misinterpreted by the critic, and what one didn't intend to be art is considered such.
ReplyDeleteWhat if the criteria was... art is art if someone considers it art?