The Philosophy of Art

Philosophers have tried for centuries to define art. What has occurred as of late is the constant disagreement of art experts as to what is art. Contemporary art has especially been scrutinized by audiences. The variety of pieces in different mediums has caused art theorists to dismiss many pieces as not being art at all. Many art critics claim pop art to be nothing more than media propaganda. This claim will be looked into further into this essay. With the variety of art classifications it is understandable why critiques feel the need to define art. Many philosophers are interested in what audiences are viewing, and if the piece should qualify as art. This essay does not seek to prove or dismiss any one theory. It does however challenge known art philosophies by asking why should one find it necessary to define art at all? Why should art be broken down from its elements in order to deem it worthy of a work of art status? This essays purpose is to support the theory that to define and thus qualify art as art is to destroy its very purpose.

What is Art?

The only definitions suitable for art are those pertaining to the origin of the word and its relation to history. An artist is a person of great skill. Recent definitions, and I use the word lightly, of art include the engagement of an audiences aesthetic sensibilities' to a piece of art; or creativity used by an artist as means of expression (Wikipedia, 2006). These textbook definitions should be as far as art should be defined.

Philosophers have voiced their opinions of art through the ages. Tolstoy believed art to be a form of communication whereas R.G. Collingwood felt the work in question was given form solely by the artist's emotions. One of the most vocal art philosophers, Clive Bell explained the placement and relationship of lines and color gives art significant form; the quality in which a piece can be distinguished from others (Wartenberg, 2001). The aesthetic emotion felt when viewing a work of art is the reason art philosophers continuously try to define art. Much like Freud's theory of art as a symptom, this psychoanalytical approach to art causes a craving for knowledge of the unknown for many philosophers. Humans by nature must know the "why" of many of life's pleasures. Just as Freud sought to answer why audiences were moved by art, many philosophers, though perhaps with more complex theories, seek to answer the same question. By answering why we are moved by art, philosophers feel they can use this as a quality that all works of art must have in order to be acknowledged as such. Morris Weitz and Berys Gaut believed that is a mistake to try to define art or beauty. They felt that art and beauty have no essence and thus no definition (Wikipedia, 2006). These philosophers have a very good point which needs to be elaborated on.

Works of art have different meanings to every individual. Just as people have unique thoughts and feelings, people see what they want or can. Art stimulates the senses regardless of the type of work. Popular art which many critics do not give credit to as art, stimulates the senses just as modern and primitive art has. Today's art could be in the form of digital, commercial or any other modern form. It took an individual's hands, mind and creativity to create a piece of popular art, just as it did for creators of modern art. It is true that the motive behind today's art is at times different then in the past, usually a monetary motive, however, what does the motive matter when the result is the same? The artist will still produce work from their individualistic creativity. The starving artist's life no longer needs to be so. Artists can now look forward to being compensated for their work, usually quite soon after completion given today's fast paced society.

Artwork of postmodernism has come under much scrutiny because of its seemingly unoriginal characteristics. As stated in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, Artist Allison Hetter, when asked what postmodernism was, replied with the simple phrase: "Everything's been done already." Many observers feel that we are in the stage of po-po-mo art where: "Everything's been re-done already". Artwork should be appreciated for the talent of the artist not how many times it's been done.
Too many philosophers and critics spend too much energy on representing a small classification of art as true art, leaving them blind to the many positive aspects of unappreciated art. Art is a matter of taste, what one viewer can comprehend is different from another. Because one can't see what the other does, is that grounds for dismissing a piece? I think not.
Art is about emotion; on the part of the creator and the viewer. In modern times the viewer may laugh at a well crafted video or cry at a well worded poem. They may not respond with unrecognized emotion such as Clive Bell believes is necessary for qualifying a piece as a work of art, but is that really necessary in order for one to appreciate the work? Today's culture is alive with creativity. What was one a gift to a select few has expanded to the masses because of technology. New mediums are available to work with, broadening the scope of creative talent. Regardless of how a piece is made, what is important is the creativity behind the work. Much like John Dewey believed as a proceduralist, the process by which art is created or viewed defines art. If the artist made a piece for the purpose of art, than it is so. Although this is not the one and only theory expressed here, viewers should recognize work as art because this is what the piece was created for.

The varieties of art as well as the people creating them don't deserve to be dismissed as unqualified for a work of art status. "…Aristotle, who proposed four causes or explanations of a thing. The Final Cause of a thing is the purpose for its existence… If the Final Cause of an artwork is simply the artwork itself, 'art for art's sake', and not a means to another end, then artwork could appropriately be called 'fine'"? (Wikipedia, 2006). Art is art, as simple as it may sound, if one creates it from their imagination than who can say it is wrong?

It is my opinion that the only true art philosophy could be that one should not define art. As proven in the above paragraphs, time and again critics concern themselves with what art is or isn't. In reality art can be many things, what is important is that the artist is happy with the work produced and the audience can appreciate it as they feel appropriate. Qualifying art is taking away its beauty and uniqueness. Art is what the artist makes it. My philosophy is simple; leave a work of art to be what it is. Don't dissect it, criticize if you must but don't qualify it. Art has no definition; it is a statement in itself.

Conclusion

Modern times have caused confusion among the art world. With the new technology giving more opportunities and creative mediums, many are quick to dismiss the outcomes of personal creativity as worthless. Though many pieces today are not original concepts, they are done with the creativity of a unique mind. Many philosophers try to establish ground rules as a way of qualifying art, such as if a piece causes unique emotions or enlightenment. Morris Weitz and Berys Gaut said it best when they advised against defining art. No one person has the ability to take the results of a persons' creativity away and dismiss it as worthless. As long as a piece was made with individual creativity, there should be no defining or qualifying; just appreciation.

Notes

The full quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic states: The ultimate derivation of 'fine art' comes from the ancient Greek philosophy of Aristotle, who purposed four causes or explanations of a thing. The Final Cause of a thing is the purpose for its existence, and the term 'fine art' is derived from this notion. If the Final Cause of an artwork is simply the artwork itself, "art for art's sake", and not a means to another end, then that artwork could appropriately be called 'fine'.