Throughout history, many different definitions of art have been posited. Since I intend to discuss art frequently on this blog, I feel it would be prudent to clarify what I mean when I use the term. My definition implies certain presuppositions, so I shall begin by pointing some of them out and explaining why I rely upon them.
Art is not beauty. Art is usually or possibly always beautiful—I intend to address the possibility of non-beautiful art in a later post—but that which is beautiful is not necessarily artistic. To my mind, natural beauty is not art. Perhaps the universe is divinely artistic—i.e., it is God’s work of art—but art as I define it is a phenomenon that occurs through human effort; ergo, that which occurs naturally is not art.
Some non-human animals create, but only humans create art. Spiders weave webs, beavers build dams, and birds construct nests. But as far as I am aware, no bird has ever built a nest solely for the satisfaction of doing so, and no spider has ever woven a web that it might admire its beauty. I once saw a circus elephant pick up a paintbrush with her trunk and apply paints of various colors onto a blank canvas. Was this elephant an artist? No. The elephant did not paint in order to express herself or communicate some deeper truth about the universe; rather, a trainer had conditioned her to associate the act of splattering paint onto a canvas with receiving a reward. The creation of art requires a level of consciousness non-human animals cannot attain.
So, all art is manmade; however, not all manmade objects are works of art, not even all the beautiful ones. For example, there is a beauty evident in a well-made shovel. But an aesthetically pleasing shovel is still a shovel, and its functionality exists independently of its visual qualities. Moreover, a tool’s utility determines its value. A functional but ugly tool is still a valuable tool, but a dysfunctional yet visually compelling tool is not. When designing a tool, a craftsperson must balance form and function; for the artist, this distinction becomes blurred, for form and function are largely the same in the context of art.
Art and craft are not mutually exclusive concepts, but they are not synonymous, nor are artistry and craftsmanship. Craft refers to the skills, knowledge, and techniques required to accomplish something well; the term does not indicate the purpose behind the accomplishment. Art, however, at least as I define it, does imply a purpose. Artistry requires craftsmanship, but not all craftspeople are artists.
What is art, then? Art is the human creation or cultivation of aesthetics for its own sake. Additionally, an art form is a medium or use thereof that exists solely or primarily for aesthetic purposes, and an artwork is a specific application and instance of an art form.
Now, what do I mean when I say aesthetics? And why would aesthetic cultivation for its own sake be a worthwhile enterprise? I shall address these questions in my next post.
