Art is very difficult to define. Dictionary.com defines it as being "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance". Wikipedia says it's "the process or product of arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions". Webster's Online Dictionary says art is simply "the product of human creativity". I've tried to define art before, and it's very hard to do. All of the above definitions are right in a way, but all say something a little different.
I think it's safe to say that in today's society, people would generally agree that whatever art is, it must be something very high and lofty. We use phrases like: "He's raised such-and-such to an art form!" meaning he's achieved a certain status above the other people who do the same thing. On the other hand, some would call a canvas splattered with paint a masterpiece of art. (Frankly, however, I often think I could splatter my paint better than some of those guys.) So what is it then? Is art something beautiful? Is it something emotional? Something intellectual?
Before I get into my answer, let me say that I'm not sure one could stick an all-encompassing definition on art. I think we can describe art, but I don't know that one definition could ever cover all that it is. So this is my description of art. And looking it over, it does cover a lot of what art is. So I think it's a good description.
Anyway, in answer to my above questions, my description of art says: all three. I think of art like the above picture. There are three intersecting circles each representing a different aspect of art. They intersect, because pieces of art seldom contain just one of these aspects.
The first section is that of intellect. Art is something intellectual. Good art is often thought-provoking. A great mystery novel is artistic in its ability to baffle you and then surprise you with how simple the conclusion was all along; a great painting or photograph makes you wonder about the subjects of the painting; A great speaker can motivate you to make a choice, or a piece of music can stimulate you to study it and find out how all its pieces move and fit together, like one of Bach's fugues. But like I said, few works of art, especially music, would be for the intellectual stimulation alone. Which brings us to circle two: emotions.
Art's emotional purpose is the one most people think of when defining art. And it does cover a great deal of the art we have today. A painting or sculpture can take us to a spot and ask us about the emotions we feel there, or an artist will even splatter paint all over a canvas in order to say what an emotion would actually look like. A speaker's ability to intellectually stimulate his audience comes from his ability to move them emotionally to one side of an argument. And there's no denying that emotions are very often the driving force behind a piece of music. Composers thrive in finding what sounds excite which emotions in people. Just think of all the movie music that aids in heightening the emotion of a film.
Circle three is senses. This is probably the second most common answer people have when defining art. They say art is beautiful. And again, they'd be right. I'll never understand just why the human senses are naturally attracted to certain things. Certain intervals, for example, in music, are to me some of the most beautiful things to listen to. Certain colors are simply attractive to the human eye. However, I would like to put here that art is not necessarily always beautiful. I think it's safer to say that art just plays on the senses. Something artistic can be either beautiful ... or ugly. Generally ugly art would be used to motivate us intellectually to a decision about something. But it is art nonetheless.
These three circles, as I said, are intersecting because very few pieces of art can fit into only one of these circles. Some could. Hotel room paintings could probably be stuck right in the "senses" circle. They're just pretty to look at. It's more difficult to find a work of art that is only in one of the two remaining circles. Maybe a funny limerick could be fit into the "emotions" circle. I'd place most fugues in the crossing section of senses and intellect probably. Although the Toccata and Fugue in D Minor could certainly be played with a lot of emotion, which I say puts it right in the middle of the diagram.
And this is where all the really great art is found: in the middle. The Mona Lisa for example; a beautiful painting that is attractive to the senses, plays on the emotions, and makes you think. You could sit there and think about her smile for as long as you want and she'll never tell you what she's so happy about. Same thing with Edward Hopper's lonely, lovely painting: Nighthawks. (Who are those people and what is the woman thinking about?)
As you can see, any piece of art can pretty much be fit anywhere on my diagram, so I use this when I think of art. And it's all subjective like I said. I might fit a piece where you do not. That's why art is cool. Where would you put your favorite piece of art? :)
No comments:
Post a Comment