Above photograph “Judas and the Corruption of Men” by Daniel W. Coburn.
I’m interested in what people have to say on this subject and how different people define the nature of art. Just about everyone has an opinion. Powerful characters throughout history have challenged the definition of art.
Fountain by Marcel Duchamp 1916
Marcel Duchamp
In 1915 Marcel Duchamp presented a series of objects that he referred to as readymades. His bicycle wheel and urinal are examples of these experiments which represent Duchamps conscious effort to break every rule of artistic tradition. His intention was to create a new kind of art that engages the mind instead of the eye in an effort to make the observer participate and think. Duchamp started by eliminateing arts most fundamental values: beauty and artisanship. He removed the hand of the artist from the process of creation and substituted manufactured, assembled, or “readymade” objects in an effort to create works without the pretense of artifice. Duchamp was not concerned with imitating reality.
Marilyn Monroe by Andy Warhol 1967
Andy Warhol
Andy Warhol began his career as an illustrator and commercial artist. He never abandoned his quest to use mass media to capture significant moments in American history and culture. He raised controversy in the 1960’s when he transformed highly charged political images into art. Warhol began to make paintings of famous products such as Campbell Soup Cans and Coca Cola products. He founded a studio called “The Factory” where he switched to silkscreen prints which he produced in quantity. His philosophy was not to make art of mass produced items, but to mass produce the art itself. Artists like Jeff Koons continue in this tradition. Warhol declared that he wanted to be “a machine” and therefore minimized the role of his own hand in the production of his art. It was because of this fact that his work quickly became popular and controversial. In many ways, Warhols superficiality and commerciality, was a mirror of the times.
John Cage
John Cage
John Cage was a leader in indeterminate music. Indeterminate music is generally defined as partially composed, requiring the performer to make decisions and improvisations while playing. Cage was a student of composers Arnold Schoenberg and Henry Cowell who were both known for their radical innovations in music. Cage’s major influences came from his interest in Zen Buddhism and Asian Philosophy. His work 4′33″ challenged the art of music like never before. A pianist sits in silence for the duration of four minutes and thirty three seconds. The sounds made by the audience and the room become the musical experience. At the end of the duration the performer leaves without ever playing a note.
So do we separate those who make art from those who challenge art? Is there a difference?
My Definition of Art
Part 1
I believe that art must be beautiful. However, I define beauty much differently than most people. My definition of beauty as it pertains to art:
Any artistic work that celebrates, and uniquely portrays, the triumphs and tragedy of the human condition. The work must communicate these feelings with passion and fervor.
I’d love to hear your definition of beauty. Please leave your remarks in the comments section.
Part 2
We all see the world from a unique vantage point. We all express our vision differently. I think a successful work of art expresses an individual point of view. It challenges the viewer to see things differently than they ever have before.
This topic should make for interesting conversation. Please post your thoughts in the comments section.
You are visiting the blog of fine art photographer Daniel W. Coburn. For more information and photographs visit his official website
June 26, 2008 at 4:56 am |
We spent a great deal of my Techniques of Musical Analysis discussing modern composers, including John Cage. There was a heated debate between the students and the professor about what constituted music. If you ever want a soundtrack for something truly controversial, look up Krzysztof Penderecki’s “Threnody to the Victims of Hiroshima.” It is my undisputed least favorite piece of music ever composed.
The semester ended before the class could agree upon anything, but we all were greatly affected by the music we were exposed to (Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, the Penderecki, etc…nothing had a tune you could hum). But in the end, we all appreciated the new and often disturbing sounds of the music.
I think the same idea can apply to nontraditional art. It may be hard to appreciate something like “Fountain” on a personal level, but I think it is the visual counterpart of music from the same time in history. It’s not traditionally pretty, not necessarily easy to absorb, but it is art.
June 26, 2008 at 11:06 pm |
I believe “art” simply to be the manipulation of nature by man (meaning the species not the sex). I told this to someone once, and they replied “That means mowing my lawn is art.” I asked if they were familiar with Stan Herd or Andy Goldsworthy.
To go beyond this simple definition adjectives are needed of which there are many that can be applied. For instance “fine art” is art with without a significant purpose other than to be aesthetically pleasing. The adjective “fine” does not refer to the quality, but rather to the purity of the discipline (of course the concept of purity is an opinion).
I think people often hear the word “art” and think “Art”, which is another beast all together, and has just as much to do with agents, academia, managers, and marketing as it does the artist. Or they think the term always implies quality or value. It doesn’t. “Bad” or “lousy” can be very appropriate and useful adjectives to place in front of the term “art”.
Art (capitalized only because it’s starting the sentence) is a fundamental aspect of the human condition. In my mind the words “human” and “artist” have almost the same meaning. All people are capable of amazing feats of creativity in many different media: photography, painting, sculpture, music, dance, cooking, writing, acting, etc… Notice how almost all children are artists, but few adults would describe themselves as such. We are taught at an early age that “this is Art, and that is not.” I see little significant differences between the creativity of a chef and that of a painter, or between a cabinet maker and a sculptor, or between Andy Warhol and the uneducated guy who lives in a fish shack in Louisiana painting a new scene from the Bible on found planks everyday. We are all artists, and we should celebrate it!
June 29, 2008 at 3:50 am |
Interesting post Dan. It made me think a bit.
Here’s my definition of art: A collection of human endeavors, which produce tangible works, but upon which limits of scope nor definitions of being cannot be placed.
I dunno. No one has settled the question yet after several thousand years of discussion.
Thanks for arranging the Nelson-Atkins trip. It was wonderful.