I became especially interested in this question after reading Leo Tolstoy’s What is Art? He put aside the notion that art was related to beauty, instead insisting that true art must be infectious – that art is in the connection between feeling(s) the artist experienced and that feeling being transmitted to the receiver of the art.
Every work of art causes the receiver to enter into a certain kind of relationship both with him who produced, or is producing, the art, and with all those who, simultaneously, previously or subsequently, receive the same artistic impression.
The activity of art is based on the fact that a man, receiving through his sense of hearing or sight another man’s expression of feeling, is capable of experiencing the emotion which moved the man who expressed it.
If only the spectators or auditors are infected by the feelings which the author has felt, it is art.
To evoke in oneself a feeling one has once experienced, and having evoked it in oneself then, by means of movements, lines, colours, sounds, or forms expressed in words, so to transmit that feeling that others may experience the same feeling—this is the activity of art.
Art is a human activity, consisting in this, that one man consciously, by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that other people are infected by these feelings, and also experience them.
Art is not, as the metaphysicians say, the manifestation of some mysterious Idea of beauty, or God; it is not, as the æsthetical physiologists say, a game in which man lets off his excess of stored-up energy; it is not the expression of man’s emotions by external signs; it is not the production of pleasing objects; and, above all, it is not pleasure; but it is a means of union among men, joining them together in the same feelings, and indispensable for the life and progress towards well-being of individuals and of humanity.
The idea that art is in the connection (whether expressed in visual art, or literature, or music composed) between the artist and the receiver of the art settled well in me.
The feelings don’t necessarily have to be positive – they may be negative. Consider the following – Saturn Devouring His Son, by Goya – does it arise any feeling in you?
I don’t have a whole lot to say about definitions at the moment, but I’d like to respond to this:
I find it disturbing in a very particular way. Goya’s Saturn isn’t a remote godlike figure but is more uncomfortably human, or rather, human on the verge of monstrosity. I think it’s this proximity between the human and the monstrous that unsettles me. The painting strikes me as being about senility, madness, and degradation, not divine power. Thus it touches directly on my own anxieties about ageing and on memories of what I have seen happen within my family (NOTE: my grandfather didn’t devour his son but he did suffer from dementia).
Incidentally, the experience of seeing the original, alongside his other late works, all in a fairly small room, is not easily forgotten.
As to the question:
It’s very common, even paradigmatic, that art moves us, but I don’t think this can work as a definition. Is every piece of kitsch or propaganda a work of art because it provokes sentimental or, e.g., xenophobic feelings? I’m not sure.
On the other side of the coin, it makes sense to say that a work of art doesn’t move me. I would never conclude that it is therefore not a work of art at all.
Otherwise, the slip from What is art? to What counts as art to me? troubles me. The first is asking for a shared criterion (even if it’s contestable), and the second tends to reduce the matter to a report about one’s own responses, i.e., a psychological matter.
Thanks for sharing your reaction to it, which seems to back up Tolstoy’s definition of art - and thus make the painting art to you.
Good questions. Possibly - the “truthfulness” of the piece of art should be taken into consideration? I’m thinking of your reference to propaganda here. Did Goebbels really believe there was a Jewish conspiracy to prolong the war, as the poster below states - was there any truth to that at all? Perhaps if the purpose of the poster was to manipulate and deceive it can not be considered art?
I doubt there can be a definition of ‘art’ per se. That’s probably why much of hte art world relies on a Danto type definition - it’s what the art world says it is. At least that has clear boundaries, in some sense.
Otherwise, I thikn Jamal is covering much of what goes wrong with trying to define something which is, essentially, subjective. The only condition I personally think is necessary is intention. Not intention in terms of detail, but even Pollack intentionally splattered paints, yknow.
I see this point, too. So, maybe we can only say a piece of art fits Tolstoy’s definition of art by considering one piece of art at time and the connection it forms between the artist and the receiver of the art.
Is the intention of the artist always to express something they feel?
I thikn that’s reasonable. Could it be that other definitions fit in alternate cases? Could be. I think that’s likely.
I would presume that “intention” requires feeling to be expressed, but slightly interpolating what you’re asking, no i don’t think so. Just intention to create (within the bounds of sensual media i guess - but then, what isn’t sensual media lol. Things get murky)
So murky! But if I have to decide upon one thing that really makes a work of art actual art - It’s the emotional connection it makes between the artist and the receiver of the art.
No sooner is a definition of art proffered than they produce a piece that is intentionally contrary to the mooted definition.
Art does not follow definitions, it creates them. The definition always chases the practice - the definition is for the critic, not for the artist. Attempts at definition fail because the practice is open-ended, with no necessary and sufficient conditions, no essence.
Mm-hmm
Yeah, mm-hmm, it’s true
big birds make
big doo! I got fire inside
my “huppa”-chimpTM
gonna be agreessive, greasy aw yeah god
wanna DOOT! DOOT!
Pffffffffffffffffffffffffft! hey!
oooh yeah baby gonna shake & bake then take
AWWWWWL your monee, honee (tee hee)
uggah duggah buggah biggah buggah muggah
hey! hey! you stoopid Mick! get
off the paddy field and git
me some chocolate Quik
put a Q-tip in it and stir it up sick
pocka-mocka-chocka-locka-DING DONG
fuck! shit! piss! oh it’s so sad that
syndrome what’s it called tourette’s
make me HAI-EE! shout out loud
Cuz I love thee. Thank you God, for listening!
This is Collingwood‘s definition of art and it’s one that I find convincing, or at least interesting. Whether or not it can be accomplished easily is not really the question. How can we know that any communication from one person to another is effective?
