What is Art?

I’ve never had a strong opinion about art. Sure in the back of my mind was the sneaking suspicion that W.C Fields was thinking about art critics when he said “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit” but I was content in my ignorance until recently, when I came across the work Ambulation by Sandrine Schaefer. I don’t know what she was trying to do, but it certainly wasn’t art. Which led me to think about art. Which in turn led me to this blog post.

The Internet has many definitions:

• The Merriam-Webster Dictionary provides a couple; art is “something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings” or “the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects“.
• Wikipedia defines art as “a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), expressing the author’s imaginative conceptual idea, or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power“.

These definitions aren’t bad and align somewhat with my unconscious definition but they aren’t particularly useful. Firstly they aren’t prescriptive enough; one could argue that any man-made object meets at least one of the above definitions, and that’s ridiculous. What use are definitions that include everything? And secondly, they don’t all exclude Ambulation :-).

To me, this is more than a missing definition; it is an opportunity and so I am going to take a shot at it. As a starting point, I will define anything created by an individual, or a group, to be a personal expression. It may or may not be art as well. For it to be considered art (in my world) it must exceed all three thresholds: creativity, expertise, public appreciation.

Creativity threshold: It must be sufficiently unique and innovative and new. William Safire’s phrase ‘the nattering nabobs of negativity‘ (written for Spiro Agnew) easily exceeds my threshold. So does the Eiffel Tower. Not so the Champlain Bridge in Ottawa.

Expertise threshold: There must be sufficient mastery of a discipline. To me, the expertise needed to create the Voice of Fire (link) doesn’t exceed this threshold. The ability to hold a paintbrush and open a can of paint isn’t enough. On the other hand, the Champlain Bridge in Ottawa does.

Public appreciation threshold: Enough members of the public must like it. A personal expression shouldn’t be considered art just because the artist and the Canada Council for the Arts think so. I chose the word ‘appreciation’ because of its positive connotation. A personal expression that is designed to disgust and offend (e.g. Piss Christ) doesn’t exceed this threshold and is not art.

I like this definition:

• It excludes stuff that I think should be excluded, and includes stuff that I think should be included. For example:
  • The Mona Lisa is a work of art. But posters of the Mona Lisa aren’t.
  • Ambulation is not a work of art, because it doesn’t meet any of the above three thresholds
  • This blog is not art. In my opinion it exceeds the creativity threshold but not the other two. I am tickled by the fact that it is more arty than Ambulation. Heh-heh.
• It can easily be used to compare art. If one piece of art required more creativity, more expertise, and is appreciated by a wider group of people than another then it is clearly better art.
• It is inclusive; it does not separate art from other parts of society. With this definition, art can be created in all fields of human endeavour.
  • • The Evergreen Chess game is a work of art.
    • The Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln is a work of art.
    • Apollo 11 is a work of art.
• It can be tailored by individuals. People can agree on this definition, but still disagree on whether a particular personal expression is art or not because they may have assigned different values to the three thresholds of the definition.
• It allows for an evolution in an individual’s thinking. For example, Jackson Pollock’s output isn’t art; it doesn’t exceed my threshold for expertise or for creativity. But that opinion isn’t set in stone. Someone may convince me that significant expertise was required, and there was more creativity than I thought. In which case I may change my mind.

This has been a useful exercise for me. I feel that I can now participate in conversations about art with a consistent defensible perspective.

Meta-Digression: This would have been my first post without a digression!