Your points are very well taken.
If we look at it from an historical perspective, I think we can decipher this. Hopefully I’ll be able to make my point. Otherwise I’ll be forced to concede. <G>
Without getting into a long discourse about Art History (which I flunked in college because I got pissed at the professor for being more concerned about the museum where the painting was than the kind of brush the painter used to paint the painting) let’s get some terms defined.
Art: The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
Artist: one, such as a painter or sculptor, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts.
Craft: skill in doing or making something, as in the arts; proficiency.
The Fine Arts: those which have primarily to do with imagination and taste, and are applied to the production of what is beautiful. They include poetry, music, painting, engraving, sculpture, and architecture; but the term is often confined to painting, sculpture, and architecture.
Aesthetic: of or concerning the appreciation of beauty or good taste: the aesthetic faculties. Characterized by a heightened sensitivity to beauty.
Beauty: an assemblage or graces or properties pleasing to the eye, the ear, the intellect, the aesthetic faculty, or the moral sense.
Moral: of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character
Immoral: violating principles of right and wrong; not adhering to ethical or moral principles; morally unprincipled; characterized by wickedness or immorality
Thus, the definition of the word “Art” is indeed subjective, to the degree that we must include the mores of the culture that produced, or is producing, the work. We could take two works from a thousand years ago to make the point; a Chinese painting and a Columbian sculpture. A thousand years ago, the Chinese painter would laugh if someone claimed the Columbian sculpture was “art”. Today, we can probably agree that they both are.
70 years ago, Norman Rockwell was not considered to be an artist. He was an “illustrator”. “Illustration” was not “art”. Now, it is. 50 years ago, Elvis Presley was not considered an “artist”. Now he is.
My contention is that “Art” (capital A) is not only something that ‘communicates’. While it is true that all Art communicates, it is not true that all communication is Art. The distinction has been wrestled with for centuries. About 40 years ago, a Swedish film was released in the United States called “I am Curious: Yellow”. This led to the Overlords trying to define “Art” as something that had “socially redeeming value”. They were on the right track, but trying to legislate social values is pretty tough.
I’m of the opinion that Art communicates with quality and good intention. This concept includes the idea of skill (craftsmanship) and morality.
To further define the distinction, we must take into account the role of the Artist in his society. The Artist exists within his society, within his culture. Judgment about the Artist’s work that is made outside the boundaries of his or her culture and social setting (social mores) is, to that degree, subjective. But, that does not mean that we can abandon all thought about the distinction between Art and “craft”. In order to clarify the distinction, we can look at the artist’s role within his group.
Artists have the ability to actually create their culture and society. In fact, that may be the underlying role of the artist! That is power. Power is an interesting word, and it has been twisted and perverted in the last 100 years. Most people think of the word as being connected to some physical force, or synonymous with some kind of violent physical energy or strength. But the true definition of “power” is quite interesting. I found it in an old dictionary, called the Century Cyclopedia.
Power: in general, such an absence of external restriction or limitation, that it depends only upon the inward determination of the subject whether or not it will act
Now, if we can accept these definitions, we can conclude that in addition to skillful craftsmanship (which is to a degree subjective within the social setting of the work) and beauty (also subjective for the same reason) we need to include morality in our definition. This is where we can run into trouble.
What if we concede that the Artist has the power to create his culture? Can this help us define “Art”? I think it can. If we do this, we must view Art as a vehicle to mold and shape society and culture. We must look at the Artist as a guide for the future. So, what do we want to see in the future?
I contend that we (people of good will like you and me) can easily divide our visions of the future into “moral” and “immoral” if we simply look at it from a wider perspective. On the one hand, we have chaos, torture, pain, anguish, and behavior designed to enslave or weaken the society/culture. On the other hand, we have harmony, spirituality, happiness, and behavior designed to enrich and enlighten. Yes, these are subjective! Yes, the concepts change within each society and culture.
But, the goal of the society or culture, no matter what it is, is to survive and be stronger; to make things better for each member of that society or culture. We can then conclude that those things which contribute to that betterment, no matter what society or culture, are “moral” and those that impede or restrict that betterment are “immoral”. If we then look at it from an even wider perspective; that of the entire planet, (still accounting for the subjective nature of the entire discussion) we can get a better grasp of the overall “goodness” and “badness” of any particular deed. While a deed may assist a particular culture, it may not be the best thing in the world for the culture next door. Conversely, there are deeds that we can label as “immoral” for both, and “moral” for both.
The entire matter can be better understood if we look at the intention behind the act of the creation. An artist, we could then conclude, would have a good intention underlying his act. A work of art could then be understood as something that communicates in a “better than average” way (good craftsmanship) the goodness of the society or culture, and a great work of art would do the same for the entire planet, or for more cultures than actually existed at the time the work was created.
Some act that included craftsmanship, and included better than average communication, but which intended to instill in the culture a fear, a weakening, a mental or spiritual pain or anguish, would, by my definition, not be Art. No matter what the skill of the craftsman, his “contribution” would in fact be anti-social. If he then claimed that his work was Art, then I contend he is either simply misguided, insane, or downright evil. If several people agreed that his work was in fact Art, then subjectively, it WOULD in fact, be Art. But only for them, not for me.
If the claim is made that a painting, a film, a book, or anything else that is repulsive and immoral (as judged by the entire culture or society based on its moral quality or lack thereof) is Art because it is some sort of helpful guide for the future (by intending to point out some evil in the present or the past), then I contend it is in fact communication, but it must not be automatically called Art by the group, culture or society which produced it, because it just might not be. It might be an insane person who has no good intention for anyone around him trying to get a few other people to agree that if they all think the same thing, it's not really evil, anti-social, and was created with the intention to make the culture feel worse. |
