What is Art?

What is Art?

Throughout time people have been trying to define the term art: this search for the meaning of art started with Plato and has not stopped. The complexity of the term has been causing controversy for centuries. As a matter of fact, art is so hard to define that some even claim the word is undefinable and that there is no point in finding an actual way to interpret the meaning behind it. The question “What is art?” always seemed to be important, but during the second half of the 20th century it became fundamental. This happened mainly because of the changes which took place in the artistic field during the early 20th century, which certainly made artistic practice evolve radically. The fact that movements such as the Dada appeared during the beginning of this century made people strongly question the meaning of art: now it was harder to see the distinction between what was actually art and what was not; because now even the most common object could be perceived as art. For instance, let us take a look at The Fountain by Marcel Duchamp: this is clearly an everyday life object (a urinal) which one would not necessarily consider an artwork right away, but it became art because the artist reclaimed it as such. This new art concept along with movements such as Cubism, Expressionism, Surrealism or Fauvism made the society of the time question the boundaries of what was previously considered art. That is to say that, before these movements appeared, art was not as hard to identify: it was easier to define a certain object as art or not, because there was a noticeable difference between artworks and normal objects. This difference could be explicitly understood through the form and content exposed on the objects which were considered artworks: these were significantly different from daily life utensils. For example, for an object to be seen as a painting or a sculpture, it would have necessarily and respectively two or three dimensions: this does not always happen nowadays.

There are two main philosophical trends which try to understand what art is: Essentialism and Analytic Philosophy (D’Orey, 2007).

Essentialism takes the essential properties of an artwork to try to grasp the meaning of art. These properties include all the necessary characteristics which make a certain thing a work of art and – once found – they make it possible to always decide if a certain thing is art or not. This way, a thing will be considered art if it contains in itself all the characteristics defined as crucial. The problem which arises from the essentialist way of trying to get to the meaning of art is the fact that the different authors who follow this line of thought, including Plato and Aristotle, have never come to an

agreement on which properties are actually essential to define a thing as art. This happens because the authors have a different view on what is truly important when one is trying to define art. Nowadays, the different attempts of Essentialism to understand what art truly is are usually considered a failure (D’Orey, 2007), due to the fact that there never seems to exist a definition which could actually include all forms of art. Nevertheless, when referring to Essentialism, one can mention Clive Bell as one of the last authors who tried to capture the essence of art (D’Orey, 2007). On his work Art Bell says the following:

“He who would elaborate a plausible theory of aesthetics must possess two qualities — artistic sensibility and a turn for clear thinking. Without sensibility, a man can have no aesthetic experience, and, obviously, theories not based on broad and deep aesthetic experience are worthless.”

Bell continues this idea by adding that only the person who uses art as a source of passionate emotion can actually have an understanding of what aesthetic experience is. That is to say that a lot of intelligent people, including great thinkers, do not have what Clive Bell calls an aesthetic experience because they lack an artistic sensibility and, therefore, have difficulty “distinguishing a work of art from a handsaw” (Bell, 1914). Moreover, the author claims that:

“The starting‐point for all systems of aesthetics must be the personal experience of a peculiar emotion. The objects that provoke this emotion we call works of art. All sensitive people agree that there is a peculiar emotion provoked by works of art. I do not mean, of course, that all works provoke the same emotion. On the contrary, every work produces a different emotion. But all these emotions are recognizably the same in kind (...) there is a particular kind of emotion provoked by works of visual art (…) This emotion is called the aesthetic emotion (...)” (Bell, 1914).

In other words, works of art must have an essential quality that is common to all of them and which provokes the aesthetic emotion which is crucial to the understanding of what art is. Clive Bell gave the name of significant form to this essential quality which always appears when one sees an artwork.

By comparison, Analytic Philosophy takes a more objective and rigorous approach to art, where argumentative clarity and precision are seen as fundamental. This philosophical trend rejects essentialism in art, tries to use a clear type of language and prohibits the use of generalizations (that would work as rules) on arguments related to aesthetics. One may say that, when talking about something as subjective as art, Analytic Philosophy does not seem like the right path towards its comprehension, once art is ambiguous, vague and contains in itself several different meanings.

Nevertheless, the appearance of this philosophical trend in the field of art seems very important, as it looks at the term art taking into account the artistic movements of the 20th century, which did not fit in the essentialist perspective of art (D’Orey, 2007). Analytic Philosophy argues that art is surrounded by a group of problems which are liable to be explained and it tries to explain these problems with very empirical and logical arguments that, if joined together, may be seen as theories. Moreover, this trend does not usually look at the question “What is art?”: it asks instead if questioning what art is makes any sense. The answer is usually negative and, therefore, the central argument of the authors that follow an Analytic Philosophy’s perspective is that art cannot be defined, due to the impossibility of finding a common trait to every object which is perceived as a work of art. One of the most relevant authors for Analytic Philosophy is Morris Weitz who wrote The Role of Theory in Aesthetics. In his work, the author claims that the biggest concern of the different theories of art has been determining the “true nature of art” (Weitz, 1956). The main problem is that these theories have a very specific and differentiated idea of what they consider being the the fundamental properties a thing needs to have in order to be considered art. Weitz says the following:

“Aesthetic theory—all of it—is wrong in principle in thinking that a correct theory is possible because it radically misconstrues the logic of the concept of art. Its main contention that "art" is amenable to real or any kind of true definition is false. Its attempt to discover the necessary and sufficient properties of art is logically misbegotten for the very simple reason that such a set and, consequently, such a formula about it, is never forthcoming. Art, as the logic of the concept shows, has no set of necessary and sufficient properties; hence a theory of it is logically impossible and not merely factually difficult. Aesthetic theory tries to define what cannot be defined in its requisite sense.” (Weitz, 1956).

Nevertheless, these theories help us on the elucidation of the concept of art. That is to say that, even though one is never able to find the true meaning of art, one is able to discover several paths which may lead to an elucidation of the ways art is used and of what can be included in its realm, but one must understand that:

“"Art," itself, is an open concept. New conditions (cases) have constantly arisen and will undoubtedly constantly arise; new art forms, new movements will emerge, which will demand decisions on the part of those interested, usually professional critics, as to whether the concept should be extended or not. Aestheticians may lay down similar conditions but never necessary and sufficient ones for the correct application of the concept. With "art" its conditions of application can never be exhaustively enumerated since new cases can always be envisaged or created by artists, or even nature, which would call for a decision on someone's part to extend or to close the old or to invent a new concept. (…) What I am arguing, then, is that the very expansive, adventurous character of art, its everpresent changes and novel creations, makes it logically impossible to ensure any set of defining properties. We can, of course, choose to close the concept. But to do this with "art" (…) is ludicrous since it forecloses on the very conditions of creativity in the arts.” (Weitz, 1956).

As Weitz shows us, there is an impossibility of giving a true definition to art due to its subjectivity and openness. Therefore, art is an ever-evolving term, because artists come up with new ideas and concepts constantly and these change the perception one has of what can be seen as an artwork. Nevertheless, as previously mentioned, the different theories and ideas around the term art are important, because they help us get closer to the different meanings of art and they help us understand the difference between artistic practice and other practices.

Contemporary Art

In addition, it is also important to take into consideration the concept of Contemporary Art. So, what is exactly Contemporary Art? It was already shown that defining art seems to be impossible, due to its subjectivity and ever-changing state. Therefore, the definition of Contemporary Art is also doomed by that impossibility. Even more so, if we take into account the fact that this period of art is still happening nowadays. Nevertheless, it is possible to try to understand when this period started and some of its characteristics which are, of course, in a permanent state of change. The Irish Museum of Modern Art gives the following description of the term:

“The term Contemporary Art refers to current and very recent practice. Attributed, approximately, to the period from the 1970s to the present, it also refers to works of art made by living artists. Contemporary Art tends to be assessed thematically and subjectively, drawing on an expanded range of theoretical and practical disciplines. Contemporary Art can be driven by both theory and ideas, and is also characterised by a blurring of the distinction between art and other categories of cultural experience, such as television, cinema, mass media, entertainment and digital technology.” (Moran and Byrne, 2009).

As one may clearly see by this definition, Contemporary Art is different from other periods of art in the sense that it uses means to communicate which did not exist in the past. Therefore, it clearly challenges the idea behind the term art and its conceptualization, because now we are talking about using means to communicate an idea which are completely new and go beyond any previous attempts made by artists. Moreover, many artists nowadays want the public to engage with their artworks – some even claim that the artwork is not finished till there is this interaction with the public (look at the case of relational works of art which follow a Relational Aesthetics approach). Nevertheless, it is important to note that not all contemporary artists follow this method: there are many different approaches to art in our days. It is these different ways of seeing art and of doing it that so well characterize Contemporary Art: there are no concrete movements or techniques that everyone follows. Contemporary Art is instead made of a plurality of ideas which sometimes clash with one another, since each artist has a different way of working and seeing art. Therefore, it is extremely hard to identify movements or common traces among these forms of making art, which once again proves the impossibility of defining the term, not only contemporarily speaking, but also as a whole (due to its permanent state of change).

Moreover, Contemporary Art mirrors contemporary life and society: this englobes the private and public sphere. Contemporary artists like reflecting on the ever-changing state of culture and cultural interaction: on history, beliefs, memory, identity and values. In addition, some other artists like to reflect on subjects related to conflict, violence, the environment, human feelings (which may include the artist’s own personal feelings), science, literature, forms of working, among others. This way, one may clearly see that Contemporary Art touches literally on every aspect of human existence which goes from human constructed things to the relationship of humans with nature.

Bibliography

BELL C. (1914), Art, London: Chatto & Windus

D'OREY C. (2007), O que é a Arte?, Lisboa: Dinalivro

MORAN L. and LONG D. (2009), What is Modern and Contemporary Art?, Dublin: The Irish Museum of Art

WEITZ, M. (1956), The Role of Theory in Aesthetics. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism [online], available: https://prettydeep.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/weitzroleoftheory.pdf, (correct on: 2018.01.01)