What is Art?
In our time, the answer to this question is under the control of the art elite. The answer to the question is simple:“Art” is x,
where x is a variable. The value of x is approximately “something that an ordinary person could never understand.”
The reason that x is a variable, and not a constant, is because its value must continually change. If ordinary people begin to understand what x is, then the value must change, so that they do not understand what x is. The reason for this is simple also: If people understood what x was, then they could answer the question “What is Art?” themselves, and there would be no need for the art elite. Thus, the art elite must continually change x, as a matter of survival.
Even though ordinary people cannot understand art (by definition), they can still see it. True, the art elite has developed a form of art called “conceptual art”, but even this is given a physical manifestation. The art elite has not yet, to my knowledge, succeeded in selling tickets to an empty museum.
To continue, ordinary people can see art. But what they see puzzles them, and often they do not like it. In general people are content with things they do not understand, if they like them. They may even be tempted to think they understand the thing that they like. In order to prevent this presumption, the art elite has found it necessary to further refine the definition of Art. Thus,
“Art” is x,
where x is something an ordinary person could never understand, and alsosomething that an ordinary person does not like.
It is clear that the interests of the art elite do not coincide with those of the ordinary person. An ordinary person would like to be able to go to a gallery or a modern art museum and see something he or she likes, and perhaps even understands. The art elite must not allow this to happen.
How can we escape the power of the art elite? It might seem like a good idea to abolish the word “art” altogether. Consider the following situation: you are in a modern art museum, and a member of the art elite points to a pile of plastic dog shit on the floor and says, in a reverent tone, “This is Art.” If we abolished the word “art”, then the sentence would be reduced to “This is . . .” The member of the art elite would be left with an embarrassing silence. And what would be left except a plastic pile of dog shit?
To abolish the word “art” would throw the art elite off balance, but it would not take away their power. The reason is that “art” is only a word, and abolishing the word does not abolish the concept it refers to. It would only take a short time for the art elite to confer and settle upon a new word or symbol (perhaps even x) to refer to the same meaning (or lack of meaning) that the word “art” used to refer to. And we would be no better off than before, except that we would have x museums instead of art museums.
The best way to deal with the art elite is to attack the very source of their power, the control over the question, “What is art?” The way to do this is to make a new definition:
“Art is what [fill in your name here] likes to look at.”
This might seem too simple to be useful. But please, take a moment to think of the implications.
19 Responses to “What is Art?”
Dan Bodner on painting with photographs
"I walked into my new studio and this was the view, these water towers – which are typically New York. I thought, 'yeah I should do that.'"
In early 2005 Dan Bodner changed the focus of his artwork from the human figure (painted from life or imagination) to cityscape. At the same time he began to use digital photography to study his subjects and his own work.
Bodner often makes photographs under conditions that would be difficult to paint from life, like the night scene above, or snow storms. He is in particular interested in the effects of city lights on the sky. From a large number of photos he selects a sample which he studies by making pencil drawings.
The drawings are not direct copies, but interpretations that combine elements from more than one photo. After he finds the composition, Bodner makes small oil sketches to study color. Then he makes a large painting based on all of these elements. In the end, some paintings are similar to the original photographs, others diverge substantially from the source images.
Photographs are not only Bodner's subjects, but a way to study his own work. He has found that by making a photograph of a painting, he can see it as though looking for the first time. As Bodner explains, "By making the photographs daily, I can get a distance from the work as I'm painting it."
Photography is associated with all aspects of Dan Bodner's cityscape artwork, a connection which he finds appropriate. Bodner explains:
I want to use photography as a source for my work because we cannot separate how we see from the way photography has informed our vision. I think photography allows painting to be what it is today.
________
first part of this interview
I agree with you that if museums were filled with the art that the average person admires today, there might be a tendency to what you call Kitsch. But I think in a short time, as people started exercising their judgments, the artwork in museums would be far better than it is today.
That means that the average joe is being taxed to allow the purchase and storage of art that is of no interest to them. Worse than that, the art purchased with the money is discussed in terms that seems specifically designed to exclude them.
This could have caused the art elite to direct taste toward the tastes of the average person (to get more money to spend), but it has gone the other way. Art needs to be wacky and not understandable to make it seem special enough to go on taking money from the people who are excluded from the discussion. The art establishment needs to be able to say ‘you will never understand, so trust us, and give us the money anyway.’ If questioned hard enough by the popular press they need to answer in language opaque enough to make people with more interesting things to do give up. It is a sad fact that the very people who think that art in the Tate is a joke are those who are paying for it.
I don’t think you are right about “What is Art” is being answered by a more concentrated few than before. There has never been so many people involved in Art as there is right now. That is why it is so hard to tell what is Art these days, because so many people have an opinion and so many different kinds of artists make art. That is why you can go into a gallery and view anything from a video installation to a naturalistic romantic painting. The diversity has never been greater.
As for public spending, does it matter? The average Joe is being taxed to build roads, pump oil and make wars that should be of no interest to them either. Industrialized nations of the world allow the destruction of this planet’s climate and eco systems.
I think there are elements of both factors contributing to the elusive definition of art (the elitism of the Elite, and also the exploratory nature of art). The danger of trying to defeat the former is that you may kill the latter as well.
Karl, I think that you’re right, there were historically periods where great art was appreciated by the general public. Like for instance during the Italian Renaissance. But look at what was different then: a.) There was no mass media - no movies, tv, newspapers or internet. Most people couldn’t read. Painting and sculpture were the only forms of culture or entertainment in town (well there were a few others, but you get the idea). b.) Art was funded by the elite back then too, but what that meant was the Church, and rich patrons who were supporting the Church. Almost all art was religious, and was meant to instill religious awe in the minds of the illerate public.
I think a huge change occurred in the 19th century with the invention of photography. It took over many of the traditional functions of painting, and also gave artists an incredible new set of tools. If artists were going to keep being artists, they had to redefine what they were doing. It’s been a slippery slope since then.
I also think the ubiquity of movies and tv programming have, for better or worse, replaced most of the narrative functions of art (and of books too, I’m afraid). People go to those sources for their stories. If you consider them part of the larger set of “all art forms”, it’s pretty clear that some art (whatever you may think of it) is appreciated by the general public.
I have lots to say but my English is too weak thus all I can to do is just heartily welcome you to my sites on a web. I hope we both will have a good time there (I say both because I expect to get your feedback that will be not just the reply but the start of our pen-friendship that would be what the art is for (for joining the hearts for the eternities under-feet)