On the Nature of Art
I have in the past been annoyed at the way that the definition of 'art' seems to have been stretched to the point that literally anything is admissible, subject only to the requirement that it must be declared art by someone whom others accept, for whatever reason, as an artist.
However, the idea came to me a few minutes ago (and I haven't thought it through very thoroughly so it may be a poor one) that art is just communication, in a very general form. This stems from the fact that the art itself is essentially arbitrary, but two key elements are always present: an artist and an audience. The art is created1 with the purpose of being perceived by the audience, and since the artist knows this and does so deliberately it must be with the intent of making the audience think something2. The art is then just the manifestation and vehicle of the artist's intent, whatever exactly that may be. Off of the top of my head it seems that the only way to prove this definition wrong (or overly restrictive) would be to create something which one can convincingly argue is art which either has no artist or has no audience3.
Perhaps all this is actually a common idea, but I feel much better now that I can think of art as being whatever byproducts4 result from an artist's efforts to influence an audience, and not worry about artists insisting that piles of rocks, knocked over garbage cans, and solid colored canvases are art. These things are, or can be, and it is exactly because an artist says that they are, with artist being such exactly because of creating something which he wishes to use as art5.
I would like to conclude with the most seemingly outrageous work of art I have been able to devise: My artwork is the moon. I do not claim to have created the moon, and I am not presenting any specific image, model, or description of the moon. Instead, in much the same way that a photographer may use a camera to bring the image of a sunset to a viewer without creating the sunset or taking the viewer to se the sunset at the time of its occurrence, I simply wish to make the moon, in concept, momentarily foremost in the mind of the audience6.
-
Or selected, as in the case of simple photography where the artist simply makes a record of something which may exist entirely without influence from the artist. ↩
-
The induced thought need not be specific. In fact, all that the artist can do with certainty is to bring the art to the viewer's attention; after that what the viewer thinks can't be directly controlled. It can, of course potentially be guessed with some accuracy, so that an artist can induce particular thoughts with high probability, such as causing pity and anger by showing a person an image of another person kicking a puppy. ↩
-
It seems that it would be insufficient for this latter to simply have no audience notice or pay attention, but rather that there must be no possible audience. That is, it must be known with certainty that no one will ever perceive the art and in so perceiving be affected. ↩
-
Perhaps intermediaries would be a better word than byproducts, since the objects or actions called the art are a necessary step in the process of influencing. ↩
-
THis may have gotten a bit tautological by this point. If so, all the more reason that I shouldn't be concerned about it being true. ↩
-
This is communication, in the sense that I have transmitted information to an audience, but my goal or meaning in doing so is quite broad or indistinct. I intend the audience to think whatever thoughts arise from being reminded, in the most general way, of the moon. ↩