What We Think We Know: An Argument on the Definition of Art
What is “Art?” I doubt anyone would argue that it is something which must have a creator in order to exist. That being said, its definition relies solely on the interpretation of its creator. But is it possible that the very essence of art is beyond human comprehension? And can it exist without human intervention, only to be manipulated as we see fit? In my opinion, the definition of art can be classified into two categories: The first being an expression of self in regards to human conceptual design, and the second as a divine blueprint for the natural world translated through beauty. Therefore, it is possible to categorize art as being either “bad” or “good” based the inspiration of its creator. Because art is either inspired by the negative ego of man, or for the positive love of the divine, there is a distinct moral conflict that arises when discerning what we deem to be good, and what appears inherently bad. What art is cannot fully be explained or understood, if we deny the existence of something beyond ourselves. Nor can it be good or bad, if we deny the existence of an inherent moral code.
As an expression of self, the value of art is chiefly egocentric and is an example of the nature of humanity. We have a desire to grasp and understand what we perceive to be reality, and to capture that reality as we see fit. Ultimately this makes art a subjective creation, because it is what we make it and nothing else. The art of self is largely conceptual in its design and takes on a modern twist as the creator seeks to understand the current world in their own mind’s eye. The piece of art is no longer something to be shared with everyone who it encounters, but is largely a reflection of the person who created it. In my opinion, this self-seeking concept is inherently what makes art “bad” and ultimately immoral. No longer is the expression of reality concerned with the outside world, but rather seeks to delve inward into the human mind. Being that we are creatures of a flawed nature, the more we dive into ourselves, the less we see the world around us, and the less we can contribute to our fellow man.
One example of this is The Design for a Colossal Clothespin Compared to Brancusi’s Kiss by Claus Oldenburg (pg 234, fig. 321, Silkscreen, Philadelphia Museum of Art). Without understanding the concepts the artist is trying to portray, all you see is a giant clothespin. The fundamental message in this piece is an emphasis on societies obsession with making everything bigger than is really is. It is ironic and satirical, but the concepts are an expression of the artist’s thought process, a self-centered interpretation of the world as he sees it. While each person is free to share their own opinions, the viewpoint that art is simply concepts we create to express our own truth limits it’s natural power to inspire it’s viewers into thinking beyond themselves. This is the fundamental reason intellectual concept art is, in my opinion, awful. If we limit art to be merely subjective in nature, it allows us to create our own definition of morality. With this in mind, anything human beings create could be art, from a dot of black paint on a white canvas, to a used toilet.
On the contrary, art as a divine blueprint comes from the artist’s inspiration found in the natural world. To understand this definition of art is to understand the possibility that it exists outside the realm of the human ability to create it. Art by divine design is the Grand Canyon. It is light that hits the leaves of trees just as the sun sets. Divine art is something that man tries to replicate, but cannot come from his mind alone. And ultimately it’s one impetus is to exemplify beauty. An artist who seeks to capture divine design is not limited by his own mind, nor is he inspired by his own sense of self. His art is altruistic in nature, and ultimately designed for the viewer. It is for this reason that I view divinely inspired art as an example of “good” art, with the emphasis being on a universal moral code we are able to tap into, but cannot manipulate or bend to our own will.
In his magical rendering of a perfect summer evening, Maxfield Parrish’s "Garden of Allah" is the idyllic interpretation of natural beauty as inspiration for the human consciousness to look outside itself. With his fantastic use of light, Parrish shows us a world that is almost ethereal. We are acutely aware of the women as part of their natural environment, not the central figures with the world existing around them. The piece looks almost dreamlike, as if we are observing a world that exists somewhere outside our realm of reality. It speaks of fairy tales and hidden truths. Ultimately it inspires the heart to appreciate beauty. While artists inspired by the divine cannot make a tree anything other than what it is, or bend light to be something other than light, they can manipulate the way each is used in order to inspire the viewer to look beyond what you see with your mind, and evaluate what you perceive with your soul. All in all, my definition of “good” art is that which goes beyond the realm of rational understanding and challenges mankind to look beyond its own minds.
In conclusion, one could argue towards the definition of art as man’s interpretation of himself. Concepts come from the mind, and in turn they are produced on the page, or the canvas, or through sounds, etc. We have a desire to express ourselves using various mediums that exist in nature. But the concept of art being solely an expression of self is intrinsically flawed, since the natural world exists beyond the realm of human comprehension, and can only be explored, but never tamed. Art seen as a selfish interpretation of the artist’s concepts has a purpose, but only for the artist, and is thereby immoral. While art inspired by the divine is an expression of the altruistic need to show beauty that exists around us, and to share it with others, making it an example of the universal moral code. Before you dispute this fact, go outside this evening and watch the sun set.
As an expression of self, the value of art is chiefly egocentric and is an example of the nature of humanity. We have a desire to grasp and understand what we perceive to be reality, and to capture that reality as we see fit. Ultimately this makes art a subjective creation, because it is what we make it and nothing else. The art of self is largely conceptual in its design and takes on a modern twist as the creator seeks to understand the current world in their own mind’s eye. The piece of art is no longer something to be shared with everyone who it encounters, but is largely a reflection of the person who created it. In my opinion, this self-seeking concept is inherently what makes art “bad” and ultimately immoral. No longer is the expression of reality concerned with the outside world, but rather seeks to delve inward into the human mind. Being that we are creatures of a flawed nature, the more we dive into ourselves, the less we see the world around us, and the less we can contribute to our fellow man.
One example of this is The Design for a Colossal Clothespin Compared to Brancusi’s Kiss by Claus Oldenburg (pg 234, fig. 321, Silkscreen, Philadelphia Museum of Art). Without understanding the concepts the artist is trying to portray, all you see is a giant clothespin. The fundamental message in this piece is an emphasis on societies obsession with making everything bigger than is really is. It is ironic and satirical, but the concepts are an expression of the artist’s thought process, a self-centered interpretation of the world as he sees it. While each person is free to share their own opinions, the viewpoint that art is simply concepts we create to express our own truth limits it’s natural power to inspire it’s viewers into thinking beyond themselves. This is the fundamental reason intellectual concept art is, in my opinion, awful. If we limit art to be merely subjective in nature, it allows us to create our own definition of morality. With this in mind, anything human beings create could be art, from a dot of black paint on a white canvas, to a used toilet.
On the contrary, art as a divine blueprint comes from the artist’s inspiration found in the natural world. To understand this definition of art is to understand the possibility that it exists outside the realm of the human ability to create it. Art by divine design is the Grand Canyon. It is light that hits the leaves of trees just as the sun sets. Divine art is something that man tries to replicate, but cannot come from his mind alone. And ultimately it’s one impetus is to exemplify beauty. An artist who seeks to capture divine design is not limited by his own mind, nor is he inspired by his own sense of self. His art is altruistic in nature, and ultimately designed for the viewer. It is for this reason that I view divinely inspired art as an example of “good” art, with the emphasis being on a universal moral code we are able to tap into, but cannot manipulate or bend to our own will.
In his magical rendering of a perfect summer evening, Maxfield Parrish’s "Garden of Allah" is the idyllic interpretation of natural beauty as inspiration for the human consciousness to look outside itself. With his fantastic use of light, Parrish shows us a world that is almost ethereal. We are acutely aware of the women as part of their natural environment, not the central figures with the world existing around them. The piece looks almost dreamlike, as if we are observing a world that exists somewhere outside our realm of reality. It speaks of fairy tales and hidden truths. Ultimately it inspires the heart to appreciate beauty. While artists inspired by the divine cannot make a tree anything other than what it is, or bend light to be something other than light, they can manipulate the way each is used in order to inspire the viewer to look beyond what you see with your mind, and evaluate what you perceive with your soul. All in all, my definition of “good” art is that which goes beyond the realm of rational understanding and challenges mankind to look beyond its own minds.
In conclusion, one could argue towards the definition of art as man’s interpretation of himself. Concepts come from the mind, and in turn they are produced on the page, or the canvas, or through sounds, etc. We have a desire to express ourselves using various mediums that exist in nature. But the concept of art being solely an expression of self is intrinsically flawed, since the natural world exists beyond the realm of human comprehension, and can only be explored, but never tamed. Art seen as a selfish interpretation of the artist’s concepts has a purpose, but only for the artist, and is thereby immoral. While art inspired by the divine is an expression of the altruistic need to show beauty that exists around us, and to share it with others, making it an example of the universal moral code. Before you dispute this fact, go outside this evening and watch the sun set.
"The Design for a Colossal Clothespin Compared to Brancusi's Kiss" - Claus Oldenburg
"Garden of Allah" - Maxfield Parish
