I have taken several art classes in my past, whether it was required for school or simply for self-interest. After seeing numerous works of art by famous artists all around the world, as well as art created by my peers, I have always had one burning question in my mind. After reading “Art for Life’s Sake” by Ellen Dissanayake, it only burns stronger in my mind because I have a difficult time answering it definitively.
In our world today, what defines art? Can anyone take a canvas, stroke a paintbrush back and forth a couple of times and call it art?
Personally, I do not think every thing that ends up on a canvas or a piece of paper is art. Art in my mind is something that is intentionally created to evoke an emotional response, and at the same time is aesthetically pleasing. While, I agree that people have different ideas in their minds about what is and isn’t aesthetically pleasing, this is what makes the field of art so great. Ellen states it is important to recognize that “what is said (or written) about a work is not only necessary to its being art, but is indeed perhaps more important than the work itself. There is no appreciation of art without interpretation” (19). This is a strong quotation and I completely agree with it because it speaks on the idea of interpretation. The original artist will not always be present to provide insight on his or her piece of art. Therefore, the interpretation that it receives from others is crucial to the inherent essence of the work of art. As a result, I think art has to be able to evoke some kind of emotion or response from viewers to be actually defined as art.
For example, if you allow a dog to play around with a canvas or other medium for art, the dog can do various things, to include chewing, tearing, scratching, or leaving paw prints. When the dog is finished, some artists would call it a “work of art”. I do not agree that this is art. Like I mentioned before, art in my mind has to evoke an emotional response, and at the same time, be aesthetically pleasing. Most people would have some sort of emotional response to what the dog did, but not everyone would find it aesthetically pleasing. The fact that some people may enjoy it while others do not proves that art revolves around a great degree of individualistic interpretation. Hence, it makes it even more difficult to truly define art.
While this example intensifies the debate in regards to my original question, I also want to pose another one: Why do you think people interpret art differently when it is placed in a museum, compared to elsewhere? What does it mean for museum art to be “viewed through a lens of knowledge of their place in a tradition?” (19).
January 23rd, 2015 at 09:20
I really like your question about what defines art. i have the same feeling about art. sometimes is really hard to understand what is art. sometime you think you got what is art then the next artist just destroys your definition of art. that makes me so confused. sometimes its just looks so similar between each art. after i read the article i think art is something that can present the motion or the activities of human personally or socially. what you think about that? for example, in your post that you say that not always something ends up on a canvas or a piece of paper is art. i totlaly agree with you. but you can not say that some simple canvas cannot be art. maybe it present the victory of wars or something meaningful. then i would say that is art for human. i have a question for you after i read your post. what you think about if a dog play with a some cans and that can destroy something very important in the war. do you think that should be defined as art?
January 23rd, 2015 at 21:59
I appreciate your point of view, you though that art should “evoke an emotional response” and “aesthetically pleasing” also you gave an example that why a dog do something can’t be called the art. I agree that art should have emotional response and have nice looking, and different people have different standards of beauty. Maybe one object can be treated as art in some people but treated as trash in other people. I think the way to define art is based on time period, for example, now people use currency to define art. People do not care what meaning of artwork; they just care how much money does this artwork worth. Like the example you wrote about the dog in museum. If this dog leave paw prints in a piece of paper and someone find and decorate it, then want to sell it in high price, there will be always someone to buy it.
January 25th, 2015 at 22:15
I do like your view point and i agree with the fact that not everything that is on a canvas or written down is art. What i am having a more difficult time wrapping my head around is when you say art is something that must provoke an emotional response. That seems way too broad of a category for me. I believe every action provokes an emotional response. I think art is defined as something that is intentionally created for the purpose of expressing an emotion and hoping that one the audience feels that same emotion. As to your last question, I would say that people view art at a museum differently than anywhere else because a museum is viewed as a temple of sorts for art and if art is not in a museum it is not necessarily seen in the same context. But similar to that art from a son or daughter is viewed sometimes higher than that of a famous painter.