Part I: Does art have an objective quality to it? If so, what is it and how do we know it? (Similarly, does art have intrinsic value, or is its value extrinsic only?
If Art does have any objective quality (and I think it does), I am inclined to think that it is rooted in a particular work's relation to reality, which it can either imitate or distort. The latter verb is not to be taken in a necessarily negative sense. Creation is Art. Natural Creation, that is the Created world, is the most perfect example of Creation; therefore, it is the most perfect example of Art. For instance, it has always been held in Western music that the human voice is the most perfect instrument, and this is believed for many excellent reasons (not least among them its timbre).
We are Creative beings made in the image of a Creator, who I am inclined to believe is the only ultimate source of objectivity in reality. So it follows that our Art should take its cue from His Art. Not only that, though, as precise imitation of nature is not Art at all, or at least highly uninteresting Art. I make a tree. So what? I make a topiary. Now we have something intentionally creative, a distortion of reality. Say I carve it into the shape of a dragon. Now I have distorted reality in another way and provided representation of reality in yet another. Let me turn now to music again. If I record a birdsong, certainly I have not made Art. If I mimic birdsong in an orchestral score, in the way of either Messiaen or Scriabin, then we have something, especially if the music carries some further representative value into which the birdsong is incorporated. This is also good basis for rejecting the starvation of a dog and people's reactions thereto as being at all Artistic.
So far I have relegated myself to Art dealing with the natural world, which is my own preference, admittedly. As a civilized person, I am allowed to admire nature without being afraid it will kill me, at the risk of sounding Freudian. What, though, of Artistic representations of humanity? Not of human form, mind you, as that fits in with the previous category. What of human reality? Consider Raskolnikov of Crime and Punishment. To simplify the whole novel very briefly for my purposes, his crime and his guilt are all our crimes and all our guilt represented. So too are his confession and redemption our confession and redemption, or alternatively is Svidrigailov's continued debauchery up to his suicide our own choice to continue with sin, even unto (carnal and spiritual) death (which is a chosen death, a suicide). Contrast this with a psychologist's notes on the behavior of a patient. What is the difference? Crime and Punishment is meant to distort reality into its representative narrative, and the psychologist's notes are meant to convey reality as it actually is. Art is therefore also a matter of intent, but as I have demonstrated in the examples of the tree and the birdsong (and the starving dog), intent is not a sufficient condition for Art. Art must be representative of reality by distortion.
Consider lastly the photograph. There is Artistic photography and there are asinine snapshots that appear all over the MyFace (always a funny phrasing, even if it is far from original). What is the difference? A camera could by some unintended activation photograph a scene of profound Artistic merit, but it would not be Art. Furthermore, that same scene could be captured by an intentional photographer, and it would certainly be Art. There is intentionality. What of representation and distortion? (On a side note, I think that black and white photographs seem more artistic because they inherently distort reality more than colored photographs do.) A photograph, for one is a static image of dynamic world. That gives a degree of Artistry to any intentional photograph, for that is very much a distortion. Representation is the tricky part, and usually this should have to involve some scene-making or something like that to create a meaningful photograph, such as some good album covers. Remember, though, I am no photographer; rather, I am one who has chosen to ramble about photography. Regardless, I think the point holds.
Art is objective, and it is such by being an intentional, representative distortion of reality, which is itself Creation. As you probably guessed, I have thought a good deal about this before, so I am largely reiterating old thoughts.
Part II (Not to be taken seriously.): What is "good" art as opposed to "bad" art, and does "bad" art even exist? Is this an entirely subjective question?
Good Art is geometric in philosophy, adhering to the Golden Ratio in all its dimensions (even unto the thousand and first dimension), representative of reality by distortion, and it solves a problem which it proposes at the start. I believe that the goodness of a work of Art can be measured on a Cartesian plane, wherein the worth of the Art's purpose is quantified on the y-axis and the extent to which the purpose is achieved is quantified on the x-axis. This response consists of a couple of serious points hidden in a fog of giggles.
Part III (to be taken just as superficially as I treated it): What is beauty?
Beauty is complexity made understandable and apparently simple by order. I may revise this opinion if I look into it more, but that is my line of thinking right now. There is the issue of wonder, after all. Beauty, I suppose, is also the realization of unfathomable complexity, but still clearly ordered. Ordered complexity, understood or not (for enlightenment or wonder respectively), I suppose is my answer, already revised before posting!
Part IV (to be better discussed in Part V): Do pieces of art exist, at least in some sense, before they’re “created”?
The twelve tones of our Western musical system exist. Colors and shapes exist. I do not think that is much of a sense, though. Ideas are another matter. Marcel Duchamp seemed to think that the ideas involved in a chess match were Art. I think he was wrong.
Part V: Parts II, III, and IV treated with more dignity.
There is also the important matter of craft, which I did not mention before. Craft is the means by which Art is made; it is the means by which ideas or concepts are expressed. Concept and craft together constitute Art, and the two are in tension with one another. This is essentially a variation on the proposition that form and content are opposites, a proposition with which I am inclined to agree. The quality of a work of Art is dependent upon the proper balance or imbalance of concept and craft, but both must be present. Pure concepts, like Duchamp's chess, are devoid of craft, and thus they are not themselves Artistic. In this sense, then, neither the conceptual existence nor the existence of the components of a work of Art constitute the work's existence at all before the work is created in the synthesis of concept and craft. Here craft might also be rendered as "medium." Of course, the existence of pure craft is not Art, either. The excellent plumber knows his craft very well, but excellent plumbing is not Artistic plumbing. I fear to think what might happen if a plumber thought it Artful to apply conceptual development to his work. Thus neither concepts nor crafts alone are Artistic.
Taken as an equation, where i represents the idea or concept, c represents craft, and A is Artfulness, c/i=A. The perfect value for A is 1, for then the execution of craft is perfectly matched to the concept, and this allows for maximal values in both areas. Project this onto a Cartesian plane, as y/x=m, so as to visualize this measure better. The numbers themselves do not matter, rather, the point rests purely on the ratio and the premise that somehow Art is axiologically quantifiable. Consider, though, for the matter at hand what happens in the absence of either craft or concept. Without craft, Artfulness is 0, and this is what we get in Duchamp's chess, to mention it again. In the absence of concept, Artfulness becomes undefined, and the question arises what is to be done with this, and this is the next question worth answering.
Craft without concept (or at least no concept beyond the craft itself) can be either functional or functionless. The craft of the plumber is functional, and it makes no claim to be Artful. Functionless craft, under which I place the common "arts and crafts," is another matter. How shall we deal with this? I call it kitsch, the Art of happiness. Generally speaking, it is not representative of anything beyond itself, its own craft, though it does successfully and inevitably distort reality. Being that I refer to it as "the Art of happiness," clearly I am granting it some degree of Artfulness, which I leave (according to the equation) undefined (and this is why i must be the denominator). Kitsch does not know what to do with itself because it is lacking in purpose (or function). Representation, I suspect, is the function of serious Art, but kitsch forgoes depth, being light Art. Thus I believe that a distinction must be made between serious Artistic pursuits and light Art. Perhaps serious Art leans more toward concept and light Art is dominated by craft. And perhaps it is bad Art that by the failure of the serious Artist becomes more craft than concept. Please note that kitsch is not itself bad; indeed, I find it good if not overwhelming (or stupid, such as involving cats).
To illustrate this point, first recall Beethoven's fifth symphony. It takes a concept (the problem to be solved, to reiterate an important point I mentioned briefly before), namely the short-short-short-long rhythm, and by way of ingenious craft works out the problem over the next half hour or so. On this basis alone, the symphony is a work of awe-inspiring genius, never mind its striking originality and distinction. In pure music the highest concepts tend to be the simplest ones, for they synthesize best with perfect craft (which is itself is most Artful when it faces deviation). On the other hand, though call to mind Beethoven's first symphony. No, I cannot remember how it goes, either. It is of fine classical craft; one might think it to have come from Mozart, but it is lacking in any deep concept. It has its themes, yes, and it follows the usual form, but nothing much is to be said beyond that. Beethoven's early work is hardly Artful at all compared to his later style.
I cannot think of anything else to say, so I will end with a comment about the starving dog. The starving dog is not Artful for another reason: that it is devoid of craft.
1 comment:
I intended all of my questions to be serious.
Post a Comment