“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.

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.

How would we know that Warhol’s artword is a commentary on the mechanization of society and a critique of modern commercialism unless we are acquainted with contemporary American culture? It seems to me any art form can only be aesthetically understood if not placed in a cultural context. Culture is need to define and explain art.

So what Mike Elka said is right, but I would add more to it; saying art is not only the expression of culture, but also can only be understood properly within the culture.

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…

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?”

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.

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?