Attacking Art

Although it’s completely unnecessary for survival, most consider art to be an essential part of human life. After all, it is one of the five pillars of civilization. Despite the importance we place on it, offering an adequate description of art can be difficult. Most of us have a general understanding of art, pointing to classical paintings and sculptures such as Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel ceiling and statue of David as examples, but what about more contemporary and peculiar pieces like Jackson Pollock’s No. 5 or Ellsworth Kelly’s Cowboy?

One of the ramifications of a poor definition of art is the frivolous labeling of individuals as artists. Classic forms of art include painting, sculpting and pottery, music, dance, acting and literature, but the term has been increasingly used to include modern vocations and hobbies such as photography, graphic design, 3D modeling, architecture, tattooing and rap. In its advertisements, Subway even claims that its employees are sandwich artists, stretching the concept of art so thin as to bankrupt it of meaning.

While it’s true that there is a degree of creativity and skill involved in nearly all aspects of life, that alone doesn’t make it art. If we include every craft, structure, schematic, machine, weapon, tool, toy, sport, code and clothing in the definition of art, then every person on Earth is an artist (as well as most animals). In that case, we would need to create a new term to describe works done for aesthetic and expressive purposes and another to describe those who devote themselves to their creation. However, creating a new word simply because its definition has been corrupted by misuse is no way to build a language.

Debate over the legitimacy of various artists and expressions can be intense, with parties citing arbitrary qualifications to suite their particular understanding of art. However, without a universally-accepted set of criteria to recognize it, how can one claim that something is or isn’t art? Although placing a restrictive definition on something as diverse and interpretive as art may seem impossible, perhaps it’s possible to establish some general guidelines. By looking to history for examples, we can glean at least four crucial criteria:

  1. Originality
  2. Meaning
  3. Skill
  4. Purpose

In order to qualify as art, a piece must be original. If a painter were to merely reproduce a famous painting, such as Picasso’s Guernica, it would not be heralded as a great work but merely an homage. In addition, a mass-produced item, such as a dime, may be beautiful, but it is not unique and therefore can’t be art. It’s also important to note the difference between an artist and a performer, since a performer is not necessarily generating something new. Although a performance may be meaningful and skillful, displaying another’s creation does not make the performer an artist.

The second criteria of art is meaning. The piece must be an expression of an emotion, event or experience, and it must attempt to draw some kind of reaction from its audience. Merely displaying mundane objects like a cotton swab, rock or hammer does not conjure an emotional response. Some may argue that mundane objects can have exceptional meaning, but this meaning is only created by the perception of the object is art, not from the object itself. If placing everyday objects in an art gallery makes them art, then everything on Earth is art, and we run into the same vocabulary issues again. It is possible for mundane objects to be incorporated into art, but this must be done with an intent to convey a greater meaning than that of the object itself.

Another important feature of art is that it requires skill to create. If a piece of art can be easily and quickly produced by most people, then it can’t be art, no matter how unique and meaningful it is. This is why some feel that advanced tools, such as computers and painting machines, erode the legitimacy of art. Consider Microsoft’s Songsmith software, which automatically generates music to accompany a vocal recording. Using this program, a few simple clicks can produce an elaborate, unique song. However, most would agree that music produced so easily is not art, for the artist did not invest time, energy or emotion into its creation. In order for art to be recognized, it must require some level of devotion from its creator. This is part of the reason why traditional forms of art, like paintings and sculptures, are still popular, and it also explains why artists sometimes use strange, rudimentary materials like toothpicks, broken glass and old, discarded sandwiches. The more simple and demanding the instrument, the more legitimate the art.

Finally, the purpose of the piece must be taken into consideration. It must not perform a function that transforms it into a tool or gadget; it must exist for the precise purpose of expression. A creation made with the intent to be used, worn or eaten is an invention or a product, not art. A car may be beautiful, but its beauty is secondary to its function. Sometimes the line between art and invention is blurred. Exotic furniture, fancy cakes and Rube Goldberg machines all have functions, but they are secondary to their beauty.

It’s debatable whether a work must meet all four of these requirements in order to be considered legitimate art, but it’s clear that these are important factors to consider. One criteria not mentioned here is beauty, which is supremely subjective and difficult to define. There are also many legitimate works of art which few would consider beautiful, like William Blake’s Great Red Dragon paintings. It could be argued that there is beauty in the hideous nature of such works, but if the definition of beauty can be expanded to include the ugly, then it’s not a useful classification.

Establishing clear definitions before engaging in any debate is essential, but it is especially important when arguing about something as trivial as art.

 

Human Value: Part I

“Hey, what’s up?”

“I’m not feeling very good.”

“Oh, how come?”

“I just feel ugly.”

“You’re not ugly, you’re beautiful!

“But what if I was ugly?”

Nearly everyone has struggled with low self-esteem, for we cannot help but evaluate our own worth. There are times when each of us will contemplate the purpose and significance of our existence, weigh ourselves and be found wanting. Fortunately, when we sink into the mire of self-loathing, friends, family and television ads are always there to remind us that we are talented, successful and beautiful. But what if it isn’t true? What if we’re actually mundane, pitiful and hideous? And should we really derive value from such properties?

First of all, the idea of assigning value to life forms may seem cruel and unnecessary, but as we’ve already discussed, this is something we do to animals all the time. The difference between how we determine animal value and human value is that animals are judged collectively, as a species, while humans are judged as individuals. When we say that dogs have a high animal value, we are referring to the intrinsic value of all dogs everywhere, regardless of their individual qualities. However, when we console a friend by reminding them of their worth, we are referring to the acquired value of that particular person. It’s true that animals are sometimes valued as individuals, as was the case with Hachiko, the loyal Japanese Akita, but these exceptions are rare, scarce and extraordinary.

Since humans ascribe worth to themselves and others on an individual basis, the criteria for such appraisals pertains to our personal attributes. We derive value from our skills, accomplishments and appearance, but there are inherent dangers in this strategy.

First, the subjectivity of these qualities is obvious, since each culture prioritizes traits differently, defining success and beauty in a unique way. Accomplished chess players are rarely swarmed by fans or idolized by children these days. Wealthy individuals can enjoy admiration in some circles but also incite contempt in others. Beauty is an extremely difficult concept to define, as it is merely an interpretation of shape, proportion and color, having no foundation in reality.

Second, we tend to compare ourselves to those around us, which skews our perception. For example, after a notable achievement, such as completing a work of art or advancing in our profession, we may experience satisfaction, but this quickly evaporates when we encounter someone who is more accomplished. Similarly, we might be feeling quite content with our figure until we take a trip to the beach and see fit, toned figures frolicking in the sand. We are extremely susceptible to feelings of inferiority, which likely explains the reason we tend to associate with those who share a similar level of talent, success and beauty.

Finally, when the potency and blatancy of our shortcomings is so overwhelming that we cannot extract worth from our qualities, the hollow nature of such appraisals becomes undeniable. It’s true that everyone has feelings of inadequacy from time to time, but what about those who have no basis to deny that inadequacy? What about the destitute man sleeping under the overpass? What about the woman whose face is gruesomely disfigured? We cannot tell these people that they are successful or beautiful because the truth is nothing of the sort.

Regardless of its subjective nature, this system of individual valuation fails to offer relief to the the poor and unsightly, and in doing so, exposes the cruelty behind encouraging one another with the fleeting physical. When we console someone by describing properties that others do not have, we covertly devalue those who do not have them, for this implies that our value comes from a source that is not universally possessed. In order to avoid these difficulties, we must change the way that we value ourselves and others.

Earlier we made the distinction between collective (or intrinsic) value and individual (or acquired) value, and it was an important one. Although we are primarily concerned with our acquired value, it is actually our intrinsic value that secures our most basic and important rights and freedoms. In the eyes of the law, we are all given equal weight based solely on our membership in the human race. To endow or retract privileges because of physical criteria such as wealth and beauty would seem unjust, yet we continue to value ourselves in this way. It may be difficult to abandon a focus on our individual qualities, but it’s the only way to ensure that everyone is able to build self-esteem from an equal footing.

There is a problem with this approach as well, a question that has gone unanswered since the dawn of civilization: how do we determine the intrinsic value of humans?

As humans, we assign value to animals based on attributes that we determine to be significant. We do this because we are attempting to determine the value of the animal to humanity. It is from our perspective as the superior creature that we bestow fish, birds and insects with worth. Without the ability to communicate or process complex thought, animals are unable to protest our authority, but humans are a different story. If we are indeed valuable, then by whose authority and to what degree are we endowed with intrinsic value? How can a creature determine its own worth?