What is Art?

Written by Maddy Chelmis

The age old question that still persists. The simple answer would be, everything; an answer I agree with to a degree, but an answer that has ironically, generated more questions for me than answers. 

Personally I would respond to that question quickly with “whatever you want it to be”, if I were avoiding a complex and oftentimes heated conversation. However, if that was that, this would be a very short blog post. 

Firstly let’s address the basics, the obvious categories the various sectors of art are put into. We have the visual arts which include the likes of painting, sculpture etc, performing arts such as music and drama, decorative arts like enamel work and furniture design, graphic arts which is usually explained as the visual arts on a two dimensional plain, and finally literature which fosters in poetry, story etc. With such an expansive list of activities that can be considered art, you can imagine how hard it is to determine what ‘real’ art is right? 

Enter an artists favourite, and least favourite word. Subjectivity. If you personally dislike a piece of artwork and somebody else claims it to be their favourite piece, who are you to say they have bad taste based on the principles of subjective opinion. This is where it all gets a little blurry… because I think we can all agree that we have, in our lifetime, seen a piece of art that is objectively bad. But what makes it that way? What makes ‘bad’ art? Why can Pollock splatter paint on a canvas and it be garnered a masterpiece, but when I do it it looks like I accidentally pierced a hole in the paint can? 

There are a lot of elements to consider when looking at art, so let’s take a look at the principles and elements of art. 

The principles of art include: 

·      Movement 

·      Unity

·      Harmony 

·      Variety 

·      Balance 

·      Contrast 

·      Proportion 

·      Pattern

The elements of art include: 

·      Texture 

·      Form

·      Space

·      Shape

·      Colour

·      Value 

·      Line 

Now we have a comprehensive list of what ‘makes’ art, shouldn’t it be easy to decipher what is art or not? Unfortunately not… However with these principles and elements in place, it makes it easier for artists to conjure up interactions between these criteria to help them create a piece of work that is aesthetically pleasing, whilst also giving the viewers a baseline for analysis. I think having definitive elements and principles of art is definitely helpful, because as much as I am an advocate for free expression, some direction is needed to assert art as a serious creative discipline. 

As well as these basic principles there are a plethora of theories that attempt to explain what art is and how it should be experienced. For example formalism is a theory developed by Bloomsbury painter and critic Roger Fry and the Bloomsbury writer Clive Bell[1] that analyses  art based solely on the basic visual elements alone, such as composition, line etc, without consideration for the deeper more philosophical, emotional or political meanings behind the artwork. Take a still life painting of a vase of flowers, as formalists we would meticulously pick apart the artists consideration for composition, scrutinise their use of colour, and revel in their precise line work. But we have failed to address other considerations made when creating this piece. How was the artist feeling when they made it? What is the historical context of the piece? Why did they paint it? Does it tell us something about the political climate of the time? Or, did the artist just want to paint some flowers?... 

Moving on from very surface level analysis, we delve into the more superficial realm of aesthetics. Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy that deals with the study of beauty and taste, which can become an incredibly hot topic when discussing art and why or why not it is appealing. So what makes art beautiful? As humans we have a desire for order, symmetry, and ultimately beauty, so it would make sense for artists to try to create pieces that people actually want to look at. In terms of art, beauty is usually referred to as an interaction between line, colour, texture, sound, shape, motion and size that is pleasing.[2] So when these elements clash, do we create ugly art? If art is not beautiful, is it still art? 

German philosopher Immanuel Kant believes “the aesthetic experience of beauty is a judgement of a subjective, but common, human truth.” He argued that all people should agree that a rose is beautiful if indeed it is. He also believes beauty cannot be reduced to any basic set of characteristics.[3] This way of thinking jumps out to me as immediately contradictory. Kant proposes that all people should agree that a rose is beautiful if it is decided it is…but how do we decide that it is in the first place? Surely we must have to measure its innate beauty against a set of characteristics that certify its beauty? But Kant also believes that beauty cannot be reduced to a set of characteristics…so how do we determine beauty. Excuse my inquisitive waffle, but do you see my point? 

Although, we must keep in mind that aesthetic judgement is not fact. It is purely based on taste, beauty in the eye of the beholder right? We must process aesthetics intuitively rather than objectively. 

So we have discussed the basics of formalism and aesthetics. Let’s move onto the question we all love to ask, but hate to hear, “but what does it mean?”

The Cambridge dictionary defines art as:

            “The making of objects, images, music etc. That are beautiful or that express feelings.” 

Let’s look at those last two words, “express feelings”. Now we’re in even more of a muddle because we have a THIRD element to consider when deciding whether something qualifies as art or not. What if a piece doesn’t express feelings? Enter conceptual and postmodern art! Something I have learnt while studying art, is that there will always be a movement or artist to throw a spanner in the works once you think you’ve figured it out. Conceptual art specifically creates work that is void of emotion, it is detached and oftentimes not even tangible, so can we even assess it for its artistic properties? 

Personally I like my art with a side of emotion, but I don’t disregard art that is purposefully muted. Oftentimes art is a major emotional outlet for people, and whether they like it or not, feelings will be accidentally poured into artists work, ready for critics to absorb and comment on, making brash and sweeping statements about the artists mental state. It seems quite invasive when you put it like that. But as artists we take that risk. We throw ourselves into vulnerability, we (sometimes) empty our souls onto the canvas and throw our art into the world to be judged and misread. And sometimes we don’t. Sometimes we want to make a sculpture because playing with clay is awfully nostalgic and feels nice. Sometimes we draw a picture because “I felt like it”. When we assert that all good art needs to have an intrinsic meaning behind it, we disregard artists who thrive off of materiality, who have a knack for turning everyday objects into absurdly expensive art objects, or just want to create because they like it. Not all art has to be deep. 

However, some art has immense meaning behind it. And that’s okay too! Some artists use their work as commentary, either on the surrounding social climate, as a confessional, or as escapism. There are infinite ways in which you can assign meaning to a piece. But that’s a whole other ball game. 

So we have three main categories in which we can judge a piece of art from. A formalist approach, an aesthetic approach and a contextual approach. What we must remember here is that there is no one specific set of criteria that certifies a piece of work as ‘art’. 

Art is a language, with its main goal being to communicate, whether it’s trying to communicate a political, spiritual or philosophical idea, communicate beauty, communicate pain or other emotions, communicate history, tell a story, or communicate humour. To me art is unique to the individual and can be expressed in so many different forms, some more conventional than others, yet the universal language remains the same. We may never have a solid answer to the ever present question “what is art?”, and I think that’s a good thing. Because if we ever got a firm answer, I fear art would stop expanding, it would stagnate, and we would lose the creative licence we have all been granted by trying to adhere to a set of rules that were never meant to be put in place. 

So, to me, art is whatever you want it to be, and if you want to be an artist, congratulations, you are one! 

---

[1] ‘Formalism’, TATE, accessed June 2021, https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/f/formalism

[2] ‘What is Art?’, Boundless Art History, accessed June 2021, https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-arthistory/chapter/what-is-art/

[3] What is Art?’, Boundless Art History, accessed June 2021, https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-arthistory/chapter/what-is-art/