#2 - What Art Is Today

In this series of posts I attempt to express my views on art as they have been influenced by the philosophers I have studied. Although many of the ideas are directly connected to the ideas of these philosophers, it is often the case that my use of their concept is not quite in harmony with what they were originally claiming. One post each day will continue the discussion.

I think the best description of the way art is viewed in contemporary culture is described by Noel Carroll, but the concepts were first fleshed out by Danto and Dickie. Danto and Dickie both arrived at definitions of art that include the important role that an art world plays. They both note that for the largest chronological portion of art history men were operating under the imitation theory of art. Basically art was seen to be an imitation of something else and better imitations made for better art. According to Danto the sub-theories that make up imitation theory gave way to a reality theory under which artworks are viewed as new realities themselves rather than being copies of something else. This makes sense to my mind and I consider each work of art I make to be a new creation that often references other things that exist, but does so in a new way and is certainly not simply copying. It seems to me that even photography includes a selective process, a framing, and a recontextualization that makes its subjects into a two dimensional new reality. The subsequent popular idea (cited by Carroll and Dickie as coming from Weitz) that art has no specific conditions and cannot be defined is completely unacceptable to my mind. Surely the lack of some defining characteristics to a word limits its linguistic value. The concept effectively turns art into a meaningless joke.


Carroll and Dickie were able to give a definition that allows for new art forms to be added to the idea of art and thus does not limit the creativity and innovation that must necessarily be a part of art’s description. Carroll successfully described art as a cultural practice. I especially like his description of the way the theater has evolved as a cultural practice in which the actors and the audience both understand their roles and their relationship to the stage. I agree that art is a cultural practice. It then makes sense that those who are familiar with the practice would have the ability to determine what can or cannot be a part of the practice. This group is simply called “the art world.” It is made up of the many individuals that involve themselves with art. This would include artists, art collectors, critics, and museum curators among others. Because art is a cultural practice it is not surprising to see that some people are more influential than others at discussing and defining or introducing new concepts and that there are necessarily divisions among the various arts and styles.


Carroll’s description of the way new arts are introduced into the art world is logical. New art forms are compared against art forms that are already accepted in the canon of art through history. New forms can amplify, repeat, or repudiate ideas or forms that already exist. A member of the art world then would need to know something of the history of art to be able to make the comparison and accept or reject the new form. A narrative of the history of the cultural practice helps to describe why and how new art forms are indeed art. There is then an unlimited potential for innovation in a discipline that demands it. This idea makes so much sense to me because I have always found myself turning to the narrative of art history to describe surprising art concepts to those who scoff at them. It is important to note that this definition of art allows an artist to use any form that art has taken in known history. A painter could potentially paint representationally, abstractly, or make conceptual social references with a few words. There is a huge variety of art forms available to today’s artist under this theory. I agree with Carroll’s description of what art is today in our society. But although this definition helps me understand the view of art today, it doesn’t do much to help me form judgments of artworks, nor does it tell me why art should be important as anything more than a history lesson. To do that it is important to understand how art works or what art does.

"What Art Is" #1- Clarifying the Scope

In this series of posts I attempt to express my views on art as they have been influenced by the philosophers I have studied. Although many of the ideas are directly connected to the ideas of these philosophers, it is often the case that my use of their concept is not quite in harmony with what they were originally claiming. One post each day will continue the discussion.

Part 1: What is Art?


Arthur Danto said that coming up with a definition for a concept is really just trying to find words to express what we already know. We are already masters of the language and know what the word means. But Danto points out that it has become different with art. People don't fully understand the word and all that it implies. To describe my position on the definition of art I first need to make a distinction between the various uses of the word. George Dickie explained three different “senses” of a work of art. When we use the word in an evaluative sense we are doing so because there is an excellence in construction, craft, or beauty that begs the title “art.” Thus the turkey at Thanksgiving is “a work of art.” Next is the derivative sense. This is when an object exhibits some quality or other that we expect to find in artworks. In this way a beautiful landscape or sunset might be labeled “art.” According to Dickie, the last sense in which we evaluate a work of art is the classificatory sense. In this case we label something as actually being “art”. It is this classificatory sense of art that I am concerned with defining.


There is a second distinction that is important for our definition, namely the difference between fine and applied arts or crafts. At the time of Plato and Aristotle there was no distinction between the two, but in the present day they have become separate ideas. The difference will become obvious as I state my position, but here at the outset let me just say that generally an applied art or craft is created primarily for its utilitarian use. This could serve purposes ranging from house construction to the illustration of medical textbooks. A work of fine art is created with some other discovery in mind. This could be a search for beauty, truth, self expression, or something else. Generally, money would not be the primary motivation for creating fine art (though surely my definition will include cases where that has occurred). There is probably a large gray-area in between the fine and applied arts that is frequently crossed by artists or even artworks.


Now that I have limited my search for a definition to fine art in the classificatory sense I will describe two different definitions that have been suggested for art with which I am sympathetic. The first definition is useful in describing the way art is viewed in our contemporary world. The second definition is useful for describing art in terms of what it does. I find both definitions to be important.


Continued in the next post.

Outliers: The Matthew Effect

In our society we tend to believe that successful people earned the success through hard work. Malcolm Gladwell makes the argument that there are many other factors that are often significant. One place this can be easily seen is in sports. In Canada there is an uneven distribution of birth months among professional hockey players. When it comes to the best of the best, most hockey players are born in the first half of the year and the last quarter of the year is very poorly represented. The conclusion has been drawn that the phenomenon is connected to the age cutoff date for junior hockey players (Jan. 1st). Gladwell says that kids born early in the year are often significantly more physically mature than those born later. The eleven month difference between January and December is a big deal when your ten. The mature kids get recognition. They are invited to play in advanced leagues where they have more access to hockey rinks and better coaching. Then they really do improve until they are the best.

This same pattern repeats in other sports in other places. It repeats in education. Students are more likely to get into college if they were older in their school year. I am one of the many people who just sort of thought that the difference evens out over time. I see now that people are being influenced to a great degree by the structures we impose on them. Is it possible that some of the greatest artistic talents of our schools are lost because they haven't had the opportunities that others enjoy? How does the hierarchical organization of art classes affect who ends up excelling? What opportunities and attention do I give to students that further entrench perceived differences in skill level?

Wasteland

Photo by Vik Muniz

Katy and I just watched the documentary Wasteland. It's about a contemporary artist named Vik Muniz who is famous for recreating famous paintings out of unusual materials. He might use green army men or chocolate syrup to get his values and then photograph the installation from above.

The documentary follows Muniz as he engages in a new series of work. He travels back to Brazil and goes to the largest landfill in the world. At this landfill people called "pickers" search through piles of refuse for recyclable materials which they collect in barrels that they drag behind them. These are the honorable poor- those with no better employment who are unwilling to enter into a life of prostitution or drug trafficking.

The artist gets to know a few of these pickers. It was eye opening to see their lives and the pride they take in work many would consider lowly. Eventually he orchestrates the creation of huge portraits of the pickers themselves (see above). The pickers place their recyclable materials in patterns on the floor of a warehouse to create the images. Muniz photographs them with a large format camera from above.

In the end he is able to sell the work around the world and give some $250,000 back to the pickers. Contemporary art is often about much more than pigments smeared on canvas. Art addresses social issues, confronts problems, educates viewers and changes individual's worlds.

Bonuses Make You Worse

I'm currently reading Drive by Daniel Pink. Citing many studies, Pink makes the argument that rewarding achievement doesn't always improve achievement. He says it only works when tasks are simple and straightforward. If a task is creative or requires a high level of problem solving then performance can be reduced. Paying a bonus for quickly digging a hole will help. Paying a bonus for quickly painting a painting will hinder.

This interests me as an art teacher. What am I supposed to do with grades? Surely I can grade mechanical skill and technical merit (You colored in the lines!). But the creative side of art that is its true value may be something that shouldn't be assessed. That's not surprising to me since my grading rubrics never include "creativity" as a category. The problem is that students focus too much on shading in the lines since that's what will get them an 'A' and that's why they came to school this morning anyway. Huh.

Installation Views

My wife Katy helped me with the installation which took one long day. The strings are held away from the wall by 1/8th inch bar stock. At a couple of points it projects 4 feet away from the wall. The sound piece is being played continuously. Overall I feel it is a successful piece.

Gift Economy at Gallery East

It's up! The show runs through December 10th.
The artist reception will be December 4th from 6:30-8:00.

Gallery East
College of Eastern Utah
451 East 400 North
Price, UT 84501