December 2, 2008 · Posted in Assignments
To conclude our journey through the Arts, tell me what you think after hearing Hemon and Ghosh discuss their life in literature. Writing is an art form. A novel constructs a reality outside the reader, all other forms of art communicate a moment, a thought, an emotion. The human imagination is able to construct a reality out of words, a feeling out of music, and color out of pigment and water or oil.
What is Art then?
Comments
-
Cultural Map
"The Original Topography of Manhattan Island from the Battery to 155th Street" From Report on the Social Statistics of Cities, Compiled by George E. Waring, Jr., United States. Census Office, Part I, 1886. (Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection, University of Texas-Austin)
he wrote an op-ed in today’s NY Times about the attacks in Mumbai. Just thought someone might find it interesting. I forgot to copy-paste the link and I don’t wanna go back, but it’s NYTimes.com, opinion, contributors
Alex,
Who is “He” Please paste it so we can respond, or you can just send it as an e-mail to the class.
Orna
Amitav Ghosh, sorry. I got the run-down of his lecture and Hemon’s about Bosnia. here is his op-ed: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/opinion/03ghosh.html?_r=1&hp
I’m assuming that this assignment is to be done in a comment, like our first, since no one made a new category.
I initially believed that I would answer this question in much the same way I answered the question “What is art?” in our first assignment. To my shock, this is all I wrote at the beginning of our semester:
“Art, to me, is a form of communication between people that transcends language. The artist is the person who wishes to express himself in ways that defy syntax. Art is a way of packaging emotions and ideas in a way that is accessible to others, and one which, thanks to its form, is open to some subjective interpretation. Art, rather than translating ideas into universal structures like an English sentence, encodes them in such a way as to require personal interaction with the message. It is therefore the closest attempt by man to truly convey the feeling of being “me” to someone else.”
Wow. I mean, I know I learned something over the past few months, but damn, I had no idea how much I’d gained until reading my own words back to myself.
I still agree with my central thesis. Art is a mode of expression which transcends language. Some, like literature, even employs language to transcend it, and so prose and poetry convey far more than “Pass the butter”.
But there is something more than that, that I had missed. What I have said so far describes art, but fails to define it or its unique role in culture. Because many beautiful things transcend language! A sunrise is not art. And yet, a painting thereof can be. A sculpture of Amon-Ra or an Ode to Aurora can be beautiful, and may inspire anyone, artist or not, who has ever seen a sunrise, if the artist does her job well enough.
I quoted myself, so I may as well say what other people in the class have said on the topic that contributed to my understanding. ” Art is human expression made material. Dance, music, sculpture, and painting are all forms of art because of the effort made by a human to convert thought and emotion into reality. I think that the natural world can appear artful in that it can symbolize human emotions and ideas, but it is not art.” That was Joel, also in the first assignment. Once again, we have the theme of creation: the artist makes something new, that wasn’t there before (including a dance or song. Those less concrete, performance-based art forms involve composing “software”, plans for execution of art, as opposed to the more hardware-dependent visual arts like painting and sculpture). We have the theme of expression: the artist tries to convey the subjective feeling of what it is like to be him, by packaging his emotions or ideas in his creation. And in my formulation, we have the participation of the viewer, because what isn’t art for him, will not be so, no matter how many critics with Ph.D’s tell him he’s wrong (and indeed he may be, for perhaps the artfulness of a creation depends on popular consensus. But try to convince him of that).
And now we come to literature. Amitav Ghosh’s poppies could exist, but don’t. And yet, they are somehow more “true” than real life poppies that don’t merit a second glance. Emanuel Levinas’ commentary to “Yosl Rakover Talks to God”, a pseudepigraphic Warsaw Ghetto memoir, called it “true as only fiction can be”. By constructing a reality outside our universe, an author can employ ideals to make points that resonate with readers, and draw our attention to details which portray reality somehow more accurately than, well, reality. Achilles could never exist in real life– not just because of his superlative skill, or unparalleled fleetness of foot, or immortal blood, but because of his supernatural courage. And yet, the ideal of courage has allowed Greek heroes to excite the passions of man for centuries. More modern literature includes nuanced characters and situations, less idealistic and therefore more realistic– but still, the Platonic ideals of love, friendship, courage, hope, fear, suffering, wonder and so on still give any literature its emotional backbone. And why? Because I, the reader, recognize the truth, the reality, of love, courage etc. in my world, and as these ideals are invoked by literature, I experience them.
Art, then, by refining our conception of ideals, by deepening our experience of emotions and ideas, gives us a lens through which to experience the world, during the experience of art (the artistic genius of Howard Shore and Peter Jackson made Lord of the Rings an epic trilogy fit for a king of serial fantasy nerds), and during the experience of real life. As such, it is an integral part of culture, because it refines the character of all who taste its fruit. The true irony of it all, is how (as V informs us in V for Vendetta) it uses “lies” (creations that rely on our imaginations to exist) to tell the truth. Where Plato considered all art an imitation of an imitation, and therefore less true than the real world, we recognize that all reality can only be appreciated (and perceived to the fullest) through the lens built out of artistic creations.
So I took a glimpse at Alex’s post and it made me curious to see what my first response was, pertaining to what art is. I answered, “Art is a creative form of expression, it doesn’t necessarily have to be visual, it just has to appeal to the senses in some way.” I must agree that I feel as though I have learned a lot in this course and could really expand this answer, however, I’m not sure how to.
After hearing Hemon and Ghosh discuss their life in literature it has become evident that writing is also an art form, something I had honestly never really thought about. The excerpts that were read to us were very descriptive, thus appealing to our senses and leaving a lot to the imagination. As to writing being a form of expression, I think it can be. From experience, and from what I have heard and read about authors, many pieces of literature are based on some sort of life experience. Although the writer may not be expressing exactly what happened or what they personally felt, something more than just fiction is being told. I remember Hemon mentioned how one day he saw a bee flying around a woman and thought of a whole plot based on this small thing. This is an example of art being used to express something, to take something minimal and expand it for creative purposes.
As I previously mentioned, I’m not sure how to expand my definition of art. I think that art is paradoxical in that it is so simple yet so complex. I still agree with my first definition of what art is but I don’t think it’s enough. Through being exposed to various forms of art I have learned a lot but I can’t compose a definition of art to make others understand it. I guess this is due to the fact that art is open to interpretation, thus individuals can form unique ideas depending on their own perspective.
As a result of peer pressure, I went back and found my initial response to “What does Art mean?” It actually wasn’t as bad as I expected it to be. For the most part, I agree that “ ’Art’ is simply a way of using our visual and auditory senses to portray what we feel or imagine.” However, I have one significant issue with this statement – it completely dismisses literature. Even though I included the word “visual” in my definition, I wasn’t intending it to include words on paper. I was simply thinking of art in the conventional form – on a canvas, sitting as a sculpture, etc. However, sitting through the discussion and readings with Hemon and Ghosh, I have to include literature in my definition. Sitting in the auditorium and listening to Hemon’s reading, in particular, evoked intense excitement and emotions. It evoked images in our heads and we could think about what the characters are doing, what they could possibly do next or how they felt. This huge stir of emotions is far greater, in my opinion, than a painting or a sculpture. According to my definition of Art simply being a way of portraying our feelings, literature must be an extraordinary example of this.
But, in general, what exactly is Art? This is the thing that really frustrates me and has always steered me away from the Arts: the fact that you can’t sit down and explain to someone in a brief sentence or two what Art REALLY is. That’s where my initial definition becomes pretty useless. I tried to hard to make it simple and as Diana said, Art is paradoxical in that it can be so simple, yet so very complex at the same time. Of course, there are those who are actually excited by this. But, it’s not really for me. Though I have to say I’ve come to appreciate Art more as the semester has progressed. In fact, I remember the first day of class, I admitted that I, under normal circumstances, would not have taken this class. But, I seriously can say I’m glad that I had this opportunity to explore the Arts – no matter how frustrating the journey was.
But, seriously though, Art is just going to be one of those “things” we will always be debating over. Our kids and grandkids won’t have a real working definition. And although I hate to admit it, it all boils down to what each person thinks. There is no way of synthesizing all our definitions and there’s no way of saying it in one way which includes all Art forms. Otherwise, why would we all be here trying to answer the same question in an infinite number of ways?
I think it’s a really good idea to see what I wrote in the beginning of the semester and compare it to what I think now, so I am going to do that as well. I wrote: “Art is any expression of one’s feelings, emotions, thoughts, or ideas. It is a portrayal of how one perceives the world and everything included in it. Art is a way of communicating things which can be difficult to put into words or even things which transcend words.” While I still hold firmly to my initial interpretation of what art is, I think it falls short in that it doesn’t convey how much work actually goes into producing art. Art requires creativity, skill, and precision. After hearing Hemon and Ghosh discuss their literature and the process of the creation of it, it really drove home to me how much patience and effort art entails. They both detailed how some days things would just flow, but on others, they would have writer’s block for days or even months. Art takes time.
Art ranges from capturing “the moment” on a photograph to spilling one’s heart out with a pen and paper. Throughout the semester, I have learned to view things as “art” that I never would have seen as such. We explored so many different types, such as dance ,opera, sculpture, and even calligraphy. The world is full of art. I, however, now realize that an amazing work of art requires sweat and toil, but the outcome is beautiful and worth the time.
I also think it is worth noting that the actual definition of art cannot really exist. It depends on the individual and what they classify as art. Art varies from person to person and truly is in the “eye of the beholder.”
What is art?
Going to see Hemon and Ghosh discuss their lives in literature was a very interesting outing. They both were so passionate about what they do, and I recall hearing both saying, at one point, that they had “No idea” what they would do if prevented from practicing their art. More of that later.
My original definition of what art is was the following:
“Art is anything crafted or displayed which both results from the emotion of the creator and arouses emotion in the viewer. In short, art is the medium through which the emotion or thoughts of the creator, (which doesn’t necessarily have to be a human being – the creator could be an animal, act of nature, etc.) are transmitted to the one viewing the art. As long as a medium captures either the emotions of the artist or evokes some sort of emotion – even the wrong emotion – in the viewer, that medium can be considered art.”
I still stick by my assertion that art is a medium, and that it “captures either the emotions of the artist or evokes some sort of emotion…in the viewer.” But let me add this…Art is an essential part of the human experience. It is true that the human imagination “is able to construct a reality out of words, a feeling out of music, and color of pigment and water or oil.” But what are words, feelings, and colors? They are us. Without words, without feelings, and without color, human beings are nothing more than machines, going on existing and performing tasks. Humans, or the human imagination, are art. Our thoughts, sensations, musings, and fictions…they are all art. But in order to share this art with others, to expose the art within us, humans require a medium, in the form of the written word, the painted image, or the musical score.
Hearing Ghosh and Hemon talk about how they were defined by their art, how they would be lost without it, was a very valuable thing to hear. It affirmed that there is something beautiful about human beings, that we are infinitely deep vessels of imagination and creativity searching for a medium to express ourselves. So, in short, art is us, and we are art.
I think that what I learned most throughout this course, from our classes, visits to museums, lectures, and performances, is that art most importantly serves as a means of communication.
This communication through art can exist for many different purposes and in many different formats but what’s most important is that it causes society to talk amongst each other and question the world around them, using the artist’s message as a starting point.
For example, the writings of Ghosh and Hemon stimulate conversation among their readers, connecting them to the characters in their stories, the people who these characters represent, as well as to the authors themselves. Hemon spoke about how he lives through his writing, and that he wouldn’t be able to express himself without it. This is because writing is his way of connecting to the physical world and the rest of society.
Other artists do this through painting, performing, or even through appreciating other art work. I think that a lot of people don’t find themselves creative enough to create new forms of artwork, but decide to express themselves through the work of someone else. This is why people love listening to music, watching performances, and hanging up pieces of artwork that represent who they are.
I think that anyone can be considered an artist when one decides to express him or herself in an original manner. One can choose to use this artwork as a means of reflecting anything from a small idea, a societal norm, or even the values of an entire culture.
The greatest part of art is that it is so vague and so diverse that it leaves a lot of room for interpretation. This way it can cause people to think if they agree or disagree with its message, if it pleases their eye, if it relates to their own life, or it can even teach them something about the past.
Regardless of its format or meaning, art will always stimulate our minds as the question will always remain to be discussed, “What is Art?”
AHHHH! What is art? Then again, what is what!? Perhaps I’m often too perplexed at the seeming senselessness of the world sometimes, but even now I have a hard time accepting a simple scribbled line as art…
What Amitav Gosh said about literature expressing his passions and true soul, that is art! Something I can enjoy and get fulfillment out of! When we went to the Whitney Museum and saw Calder’s amazing works using wires, I loved it! Pure genius! But his other stuff…like those conceptual blocks and wires hanging around…I mean what is that?! *sigh*…too many exclamation marks…
My fellow classmates all seem to agree art is the way of expressing itself, a way of communication, and a medium…but I think this definition no longer applies to our postmodern world; it’s just too exclusive. I don’t see how such a definition can allow simple scribble and upside down urinals to be art!!! Art is simply this: something (and by that I mean ANYTHING) that man (and I am including women by saying man…jeez…oh, and any transgenders too) creates. Aha! This definition is inclusive enough to fit all art and is good enough for my postmodern mind! Well…for now anyways…
Oh man…I think my definition failed! Because according to it, even babies, why even human beings, would be considered works of art! Then again…maybe we are…
My original answer still rings quite true to me. Art is about expression, which encompasses both classical forms of sculpture and painting, to today’s modern installations and technological feats. Expression is the key within writing, dance and theatre as well. Art is the bridge between the artist’s creative concept and the viewer’s experience of that concept.
And I guess here is where my original definition falls apart. True, art is an attempt at expression, but it is nothing more than that- an attempt. The complaints abounded in my high school English class about dubious symbols and potential misinterpretations. At the beginning of this class, several people expressed a disgust and personal hatred for abstract art due to its vague meanings and seeming lack of necessary skill. We don’t always “get” art. Sure, I enjoy museum visits, but that doesn’t guarantee that I actually understand the paintings beyond their aesthetic value.
But what I propose is that “getting” art simply doesn’t matter. The possibility of truly comprehending another human being’s work is preposterous. I will never see the piece from their unique view, with all their cultural influences and emotional issues. And, conversely, the artist can’t see their work from the audience point of view. There is no unbiased mind when it comes to viewing art. In the act of moving from the mind to the outer world, the piece takes on a new place in this world. It is not a real object, because in the act of creation it takes on a thousand new levels of significance.
Art, as stated above, creates a reality, separate from our real world. We can all look at a tree and know we are looking at a tree. But a painting of a tree is interpretive. The artist has created a world surrounding this tree in which thought and discussion can create a thousand definitions for this tree.
So, maybe I’ve rambled on and made no sense. Bur after a semester of viewing art, I’ve seen the mundane become extraordinary through the creative process. As I said before, art is about expression- that is, the expression of the human mind. Art is taking the complexity of the human soul and its abilities to think and feel and creating a reality in which those qualities can thrive. Art is the expression of all those things which our true reality has little time for- emotion and interpretation and symbolism and meaning.
Art is part of the creation of meaning and order for humanity in the universe. As Alex noted above, art transcends the ‘objective’ world to offer a conception of reality that is in some ways superior to reality itself. Eric Bentley, in his introduction to Bertolt Brecht’s Galileo wrote, “Whatever Brecht thought he was doing, what good playwrights always do was perceived by Aristotle and confirmed by Lessing. When Aristotle observed that tragedy was more philosophical than history, he was noting that drama has a different logic from that of fact. History can be (or appear to be) chaotic and meaningless; drama cannot.” Galileo ignores historical fact in pursuit of a more important truth about man and the world.
I think artists look at the world in much the same way that scientists do, searching for patterns in chaotic reality and creating a perception or structure that increases the general variety of human understanding. Perhaps this occurs among an artists oeuvre, with each painting or piece of music collectively sharing one person’s unique truths, or in a single work of art, such as a novel, which can within itself comprehensively elaborate a specific artistic vision. I think that the novel is the most powerful medium for communicating from one individual to another, because while we might not think only with words, we attempt to articulate our feelings with them so that they can be understood. Although the emotional content of a painting, sculpture, or other example of visual art can be communicated wordlessly, visual artists, dancers, and musicians all rely on language, whether it is their own, or the capabilities of the viewer, to understand the message or meaning, if the piece has one.
Maybe a distinction has to be made between the intellectual message and the emotional message of a work of art. I don’t think that the purpose of all art is to transcend language. Language is our fundamental tool for expression and allows us to understand art in many ways. The function of the artist as social critic would be impossible unless we were able to understand an artwork as almost as an alternative form of linguistic expression. In the great debate between iconophiles and iconoclasts in the Byzantine empire, those who promoted images in religion, the iconophiles, argued that the didactic power of the biblical story told in a sermon would be lost without the enduring physical image of Christ imprinted in a worshippers mind. While a sculpture of Christ transcends language, its basis for existence is in the text of the Bible.
Another distinction should probably be made regarding the experience of the viewer and the community, because while art on an individual level can be nonverbal, once we interpret a message and wish to communicate it we must articulate the intangibles. When I approach a work of art in an exhibit, I can choose to engage with it intellectually, by perhaps reading an accompanying label, searching for some context in my knowledge of history, or maybe admiring the craftsmanship and difficulty of creation. I can also choose to test the soles of my shoes by vacillating and staring, but that isn’t as productive and worthwhile as analysis and structured thought.
So, groping for a universal statement about art, while productive during the process, is doomed to failure.
Well, initially when I started to write on this blog apparently I wrote:
“To me art is a very general term; it kind of like the word “transportation” in that there is a vast range of varying degrees that it covers. Just as roller blades and airplanes are both considered “transportation” not all art is equal (or serves the same purpose for that matter). But, for the sake of fine art, it seems to be that it’s the subtleties that make it “art”, artists therefore are conveying an emotion, opinion, or observation through the medium in an original manner.”
Now, whether this was done by me, or by an imposter still remains to be determined, but one thing I know is that I feel I definitely have a greater grasp on the meaning and importance of art than the fellow who penned this blog back in September.
In my observation of the modern art that we have seen as a class, and that which I have seen on my own, I would say that there is more of a movement towards conceptual art in the art world (as one can see if they happened to catch the Paul McCarthy Exhibit at the Whitney which consisted of spinning rooms with chairs in them and rotating cameras and projectors). Additionally, on a visit to the New Museum I got a chance to see the exhibit called “After Nature” which was based around the idea of nature and humanity coming apart. I remember that my favorite piece was a piece that was simply a replica of Ted Kazinsky’s hut. Without the description card I wouldn’t have even know what it was, but the nature of the idea that it was the hut of a serial killer made the piece much more attractive (even though it was literally an old mossy10×16 ft. hut).
My point being that art seems to be moving towards a new direction in that the concept is playing a larger role than the aesthetics, I even asked my friend who is a painting major at RISD what he thought he had a similar reply in that the concept is becoming more important in art. While of course conceptual art has been around for almost 50 years. I feel that now it is breaking into the mainstream more than ever and is taking the lead in the art world. Personally I find it beautiful, but it seems that there are many who argue that its not art, well what is it? Art is a wide topic (comparable to the word “transportation apparently) and I can tell you that none of the pieces that I saw at the Whitney or the New Museum were meant to be used by humans.
True, they may require less artistic skill (but rather more artistic imagination) and maybe it is fair to say that it is not fine art since I personally cannot see how one can draw a comparison between a picture of a naked guy near some holes in the ground and “Starry Night”. But the fact of the matter is it is still art but maybe there needs to be room for a new category of art to emerge from this new trend.