This question was first posed to me my senior year of high school in a class called "Theory of Knowledge". Surely, I'd heard that question before, but it was at that time that I was encouraged to really think about it.
I'm currently majoring in English and theatre and have worked in a number of productions and been an audience member since I was a child. I took a class in art history my spring semester of my freshman year of college as well. My mom has taken me to some of the most prominent art museums in New York and Washington D.C., I danced ballet for 13 years, I also took salsa, swing, hip-hop, and tap. I took piano lessons for 8 years. In short, I fancy myself 'cultured' and 'well-rounded' and a huge supporter of the arts.
It occurred to me today as I was in tech rehearsals for "The Madwoman of Challiot" what art is. Now, please note that this is my personal definition but discussion is welcomed wholeheartedly.
"Art is inspiration seized, molded, and presented in some tangible way."
Everybody has those flashes of ideas. That's inspiration. However, not everyone can recognize the potential of that idea, or they don't know how to express it, they don't have the time to develop it, or they don't have the motivation, etc. Now the person who does recognize the potential of the idea (let's call him/her 'the artist') and knows how to express it in some medium (paint, sculpture, writing, music, dance, theatre etc) has to be able to hold onto this flash and mold it to get at the essence of the idea. Imagine a movie that is trying to portray some theme but gets bogged down because of bad execution in whatever aspect. In much the same way, the artist has to make his art leave out all the unnecessary details, all the fluff that gets in the way of showing the idea. Writers spend countless hours laboring over just the right word.
Art has to be shared. It cannot be locked up and hidden from the world. For me, the wonderful thing about art is that anybody can experience it and have some kind of emotional reaction. It's such a communal and humanistic aspect of our lives. Indeed, I believe the production of art in any way, shape, or form is what separates us from all the other animal species in the world. It was Jules Verne who thought of air travel, submarines, and space travel before the technology had been invented. Artist dream of things for the human race to achieve- be it peace, submarines, equality, or a new perspective. There really is no limit to what the human mind can dream.
Thank you for reading my ramblings. I wish I had a picture to post along with this blog. If I find something, I'll post it. Please comment below and let me know your opinions.
Introducing the new Weaponized Culture
11 years ago
1. A picture of Salvador Dali would work, preferably him holding an ocelot.
ReplyDelete2. To me Art would be something that serves no purpose other than it self.
I wanted something that incorporated all the arts, not just a painting. But I did take a look at the picture and it's pretty funny though.
ReplyDeleteI inquired with someone recently as to what they thought about this definition, and they said "it's too inclusive". They didn't seem to provide any reasoning why. As to my own beliefs, I tend to side with Anonymous - art serves no purpose other than itself. That is what makes it different from a craft. Therefore, for instance, a video game can never be considered art.
ReplyDeleteI wish the person you talked to have elaborated on their point. Now sir, I must ask you, what about (for instance) a book or a play that was clearly trying to get across a message? Would that be considered art or solely propaganda?
ReplyDeleteAs a random thought, if we look at the Bible only as a piece of literature (analyzing the rhetoric, motifs, etc.) can it be considered art?
Propaganda can be art and vice versa. Look at Triumph Of The Will or Der Fuhrer's Face. TotW was a propaganda film in support of the National Socialists produced by an esteemed (at the time) director, and critics admitted that it had some great cinematography and structure in spite of its obvious Nazi message.
ReplyDeleteTo determine whether the Bible is to be considered art, we should look to the intent of the authors. If its purpose was to indoctrinate peoples, I'd say no.
I saw "Der Fuhrer's Face" along with other Disney cartoons that are in the same vein. I don't remember the names right now, but they all starred Donald Duck. The plots of all of these though are thin and the characters are stock characters but the language in Fuhrer is what makes it clever, and above the average propaganda film. The words say "Look how great it is to be German" and then show how much it sucks. It really was a rather brilliant piece of work.
ReplyDeleteNext question- Does a work have to be relevant in its time, after its time or in both to be considered art? There are many works that were created that were relevant in their time but now feel 'dated'. There are also works that were created and were considered garbage in their time but are now hailed as great works of art.
If propaganda can be considered art, and the Bible can be considered propaganda, why can't the Bible be considered art?