It began with a discussion with a friend around the subject of art, and how a widely agreed upon definition doesn't seem to have been established. This then led Stacey Childs (editor of digital magazine, disco underworld http://www.discounderworld.com) on a quest to find out the real definition of 'art'.

It began with a discussion with a friend around the subject of art, and how a widely agreed upon definition doesn't seem to have been established. This then led Stacey Childs (editor of digital magazine, disco underworld http://www.discounderworld.com) on a quest to find out the real definition of 'art'.

The quest began with my definition of art, which then led to a mini psychotic episode to work out why my definition was wrong. It went something like this:"Hmmmm. Art" well it is something visual, which I admire because I couldn't reproduce it myself. Which is a very personal definition of art. Something I may not like may be something someone else likes and regards as art." (Silent thinking over the point I have just raised with myself)" after a bit" "But what about the term 'con artist', which means that someone is a swindler who exploits the confidence of his victims, here art maybe loosely termed as a specialised skill, whether visual or not."

After a little more thought I decided to concentrate on the kind of art that produces something visual, but then realised that some music, cocktail mixing and perfumery may be considered art, so I had to broaden my definition there. I then decided to concentrate on art which is a product of admiration by some, not necessarily all, but then thought back to the con artist, who probably is admired by other cons, and if he isn't, then he isn't a con "artist" at all. Hmpfh.

Right, so the relationship between both my definitions was that they involved someone being skilled enough at something to have the outcome described as art. But does it matter who does the describing?

Yes, I think so.

Picasso could have wrapped a turd up in a blanket, called it art, and someone would have paid real money for it. Hell, if no one was going to put in an offer, I would put up a few dollars. On the other hand, I could make a piece of turd wrapped in a blanket. But I bet no one would buy it.

So could a poo in a blanket be called art, or is that just a ridiculous suggestion? If so, then where do ridiculous suggestions stop, and real art start? And who says something is "art"?

I propose that there is a huge social aspect to this "art" idea. For example, dada, the movement started in Switzerland during the First World War. Although some would term it a "cultural movement", as it was a response against the outbreak of war, it is still a style of art. Dada was anti-war, anti-reason and anti the logic of the bourgeois capitalist society the dada-ists blamed for starting the war. The output of the cultural movement was "artistic" material, such as poetry, performance and the work of perhaps the most famous artist from the time, Marcel DuChamp.

DuChamp took everyday objects such as a urinal and a bicycle wheel, mounted them and presented them as art. These things are worth tons right now, and people are willing to pay for them and call them art. Due to the anti-bourgeois movement of the time, for something to be termed "art" it had to challenge the bourgeois ideals and reject their standards of art.

So I'm getting closer to a definition: One person other than the producer must be involved and think the product is worthy of being called art. That then makes the producer the artist and the product the art, whatever that product may be. The act of describing something as art is enough to make it "art" (whatever that may be).

Time to go to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia says:
"Art is the process or product of deliberately and creatively arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. In its narrow sense, the word art most often refers specifically to the visual arts, including media such as painting, sculpture, and printmaking. However, 'the arts' may also encompass a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music and literature."

Good definition Wikipedia although I am still convinced that to be classified as art it needs to be acknowledged by more than the producer.

Leo Tolstoy throws another spanner into the works by identifying art as a use of indirect means to communicate from one person to another.This adds an interesting element to the idea. Communication is a given. Art is created to say something. Whether that message be loud and clear or the opposite, art still says something. How it says something is varied, but if art wasn't meant to communicate then it would not exist. So art means something (which goes back to the Wikipedia definition) although communication comes in many forms. Think also of my earlier idea that art is personal; if only one person is
being communicated with (the art maker), is it still art? Leo Tolsoy probably wouldn't think so. I have a sneaky suspicion I would disagree, which blows my theory about art needing to be acknowledged by more than the producer to smitherines.

Having come full circle, I decide to ask my audience and associates. The ideas I got in return confirmed that everybody had
different ideas of art:

There was the communication side of things:

"Art is a form of expression."
"Art is anything that makes you think, that has a meaning, whether or not it's functional."

The personal:
"Art is a definition of you, it comes from you. It is what you think and believe in."
"An expression of one's personality"
"Art is something I used to be able to define before I got an education."
"Art is an outlet for all the things in us which cannot be rationalized, pigeonholed or clearly labeled."
"Art is the result of creation, its beauty lies either in its physical appearance to the beholder or of the feelings and motivation that led the creator to create."

And art as a human condition:
"Art is all the questions we're left with, after all is supposedly learned and explained. It's what, next to science, moves the human race forward.""Art is expression and is the opposite of nature which is expressionless. Although both will often be appreciated in the same terms. An easy test for the presence of art is to look for people. If you see one, there be art!"
"It's a way for us to record our existence, make a mark, it's the sophisticated 'X was here' scratched on a park bench."
"Art is a culturally learnt activity that recognises and reorganises patterns, and conforms or challenges the viewer."

With all these great ideas, the old adage "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", came to mind. Maybe "Art is in the eye of the onlooker" could be a good definition?

Another thing I think is important is the idea of change and fluidity. The traditional ideas of art: painting and drawing, have been expanded over time as humans find new ways to express themselves through dance, photography, graphic design and eventually computers. What was once a physically tangible idea can now exist purely in cyber space, on the computer screen, or in the case of improvisational dancing, one second. Art is no longer material or tangible, but is fluid and ever-changing, personal and objective.

So what conclusions have I reached at the end of all this rambling? (It was quite an interesting topic to research and write about, I hope you enjoyed reading it also).

Conclusions:

Art is personal.

Art is a human condition.

Art is fluid.

Art is made to communicate.

Art means different things to
different people.

In the words of Leon Green, (a reader of disco) "lets not try to tie down a definitive explanation; it's more fun to make it up as we go."

February 2009