ku # 522 ~ it's matter of educated opinion
Friday, June 20, 2008 at 09:18AM 
Forest floor detritus • click to embiggenA little while back the ever-popular yet oft-dreaded topic of What Is Art? was bantered about here on The Landscapist. As is nearly always the case, the populous idea that Art is whatever I deem it to be was proffered right along side the other regularly conflated idea that Art can not be defined.
In response to which I put forth a single word - "educated".
Sorry if this sounds elitist, but the fact remains - the more you know, the more you can know. That adage holds true for just about any human endeavor. Everything builds on what came before. Knowledge matters.
"Ok.", you might say, but how does this help define Art?
In my time, I have done quite a bit of investigating into the matter of what makes art, Art. I was even a credited consultant for the seminal book, The New Color Photography by Sally Eauclaire. In this book, published in 1981, art critic Eauclaire (my next door neighbor) explored the formal and technical innovations of forty of the most prominent color photographers of the time - Eggleston, Shore, Meyerowitz, Callahan, Grover, Epstein, et al - and systematically examines and compares their work. My relatively minor participation in this book was, nevertheless, a seminal moment in my growth and development as both a picture maker and an viewer of pictures - two decidedly different disciplines (more on this in the next entry).
All of that said, it should not be inferred that I have all the answers but it does seem readily apparent that there is, in fact, a consensus in the Art world regarding the experience of viewing Art. By extension, an easy to comprehend notion regarding is it Art? / what is Art? can be inferred or deduced.
The most straightforward elucidation on the experience of viewing Art that I have encountered is in the book, Photography's multiple roles wherein there is an essay, Spaces for the self ~ the symbolic imagery of place, by (take a deep breath) Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. In it, he writes:
When approached as works of art, photographs are created to express an individual vision that ranges far beyond the recording of personal history. And viewers may decode the message of art photographs along many more dimensions than they can snapshots pasted in family albums. While domestic pictures are likely to have stronger meanings and a more important place in a person's identity, photography as art is likely to provide a broader range of experiences, and lead to a more diverse growth of perceptual and cognitive abilities.
There are many ways of looking at any work of art. They vary from a passing glance to a deep involvement of the senses, the mind, and the emotions. What is usually called an "aesthetic experience" is simply an intense involvement between a viewer and the work. Aesthetic experiences can be briefly described as having four dimensions:perceptual responses, which refer to visual elements such as balance, form, and harmony; emotional responses, which emphasize personal reactions to the feeling embedded in the work; intellectual responses, which include theoretical and art historical questions; and, finally, what might be called communicative responses, wherein there is a desire to relate to the artist, or to his or her time, or to his or her culture, through the mediation of the work of art.
Now, without question, there are many who would disagree with this aesthetic experience as being the sine qua non for their personal aesthetic experience. OK, fine. But that personal preference simply does not negate the fact that Art critics, curators, gallery owners / managers, collectors and other influential individuals or institutions who are the key holders / gate keepers to the world of Art hold those truths to be self evident in determining what is and what isn't Art. Or what, at the very least, might be considered to be Art.
And, yes, when viewing a work, different viewers will bring different biases towards one or more of the 4 dimensions - such as the academic lunatic fringe and its fetishistic preoccupation with # 3 - but I don't have a single problem with all 4 dimensions as necessary in some substantive manner for a work to be considered as Art.
These criteria define nothing less than a hierarchal order in field of Art, no more or less than other definable criteria determine hierarchal order in any other field of human endeavor.
Which is not to say that opinion doesn't enter into it. It does. One could even say, in heaping doses ...but ... that said, what really matters is the educated opinion of those who weight in on the matter.
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comment: Jim Jirka asked: "... is it for me to define my picturing as art, or is it for someone else to define it as art?
my response: IMO, I really think that it is for others to decide whether what you make is Art or not. Ultimately, it's up to the educated viewers of one's work to determine whether or not it succeeds, in any meaningful manner, in touching them in the aforementioned 4 domains / dimensions. This does not mean that on occasion the "educated" do not miss the mark or get it wrong. Time tends to be the ultimate arbiter of that.
And, of course, the "educated" can't see every body of work there is to see. Not by a long shot. One skill an emerging / developing Artist needs is the determination, the tenacity, the hustle (both meanings), and the unadulterated chutzpah to get one's work seen by the "educated".
All of that said, with a bit of education, self-scrutiny, and self-knowledge, I believe one can have an inkling of what one is making.
Reader Comments (3)
I agree with all points made by you in today's post. But is it for me to define my picturing as art, or is it for someone else to define it as art? I just picture subjects that interest me at the time I experience it. Never in my mind do I consider if it is art or not.
There is an educated ocean between us (joke). Seriously, i see here some kind of linguistic mismatch. You correctly make a distinction between viewing and producing.
What i do not get is why you seem to link together Art with a judgement. Art may be good or bad, valuable or not, but defining a thing Art is a liability of the sole artist, even if he/she is a pure trash maker.
Afterwards the critic, or the curator or some ranking system will come up with some judgement about the value of that particular piece of Art.
There is however an exception in photography where being Art has been devised as a quality (long) after the making. In general few photographers considered themselves artists.
Funny that in renaissance nobody called himself an Artist but instead "painter" or "sculptor". Art was more a quality of the making like in "made with art".
In common language we sometimes equate Art (or better being Artistic) with an " aesthetic judgement". There has been a time where some people decided for every body else what was art, they were not nice times.
Yes, I agree, but.....(there's always a but), the art world is immense and includes not only the works as defined by this good definition, but works that are purely decorative. While you might hate the pretty picture of the rose, there's a whole segment of society for whom that defines art. There are people whose art is based on the interior design of their home - the colors match so it is great, with no consideration for emotional response, intellect, or communication.
There are people that will look at more abstract pieces and call them garbage. Is it because they are uneducated or because that type of image doesn't communicate anything to them. If it doesn't communicate to them, why does it make such strong statements to others?