Vista Online

Fall/Winter 2001

Could This Be Art?

Investigating Art

Defining art has never been easy. Many philosophers, artists, and laymen have attempted this suicidal feat and only been thwarted. Mostly, I just have a lot of questions on the subject—ones I attempt to work through by being as reasonable as possible.

In my investigation, I have discovered two main ways to answer the question of what art is. One camp, represented best by the philosopher Benedetto Croce, answers that art is whatever you want it to be. Anything can be classified as art if it appeals to your personal sense of what art should be.

Croce begins his Guide to Aesthetics with the following comment: “To the question, ‘What is art?’ one could reply in jest—and it would not be a foolish retort—that art is something everybody knows about.” We all can interpret and understand art for ourselves.

The other camp, represented by philosopher George Dickie, believes that art is an institutional concept. In order for something to be considered art, it has to be given such a title by the artworld.

In Art and the Aesthetic, Dickie says that “a work of art in the classificatory sense is (1) an artifact, (2) a set of the aspects of which has had conferred upon it the status of candidate for appreciation by some person or persons acting on behalf of a certain social institution (the artworld).” We all know people who do not create art but feel free to classify and critique it. Those people require the standards set forth by this view.

Clearly, these two definitions crash head-on and subsequently erupt into flames. The result for most people is something in the middle. Most would agree that there needs to be some standard for deeming something “artistic,” but they would not go so far as to say that it cannot be interpreted subjectively.

There is a relationship between art and artist that remains. The crash and burn results in debris in the form of desultory questions and unsatisfactory answers.
What does art do? Well, art can praise beauty, honor our heroes, express emotion and relay knowledge, among other things. But, does it have a purpose? I have encountered nothing that has even attempted to explain the purpose of art except to explain that it is necessary.

Philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff points out that there are no recorded cultures without art in some form. This not only signifies its universality, but also its seeming necessity. He also says that “the purposes of art are the purposes of life.”

Does art require talent? Sometimes we fall into the trap of believing that art is only realistic representations of reality. Those things do require a lot of talent and artistic vision.

However, much of what I consider artistic comes to me by accident. I am talking about those things that the artist had a spiritual experience making, though unaware that such meaning was taking place at all. These types of pieces, unintentionally, can force the observer to experience much.

Some art certainly does not seem to display any talent. These are the pieces of which we tend to be most critical. I was recently told of such an exhibit formerly at the St. Louis Art Museum. It was several long, slender canvases, each painted a different single color. The canvases were displayed on a wall, side-by-side. Observers of this exhibit shook their heads with disapproval. How could this be art? It required no talent.

One student jokingly suggested that they should run past the panels, looking at the colors out of the corner of their eyes. Soon, a rather large group gathered, making noise, laughing, and interacting with the art. They had experienced art in a uniquely human way. They left knowing that art does not have to require a specific type of talent.

Perhaps the most perplexing and sensitive question is the question of restrictions. Should art have limits? Some people would say there are things that are never appropriate to portray in certain settings. They fool themselves into believing that only distinctly labeled “Christian” art can have spiritual value. Others would argue that, since the origin of art is God, it is always spiritual. And so, if art is restricted, God is restricted.

To say that art cannot be a form of worship would be to deny God’s truth—to say that God lies to us. These people fool themselves into believing that God approves of everything we do and feel. Instead of either view, we can say that art does not always have to be worship for all of us, but even art that was not intended to be worship can be a powerful spiritual force in the lives of individuals.

H. R. Rookmaaker says that art shows our mentality and the way we view the world. It proves that we are using our brains—both in the experience of its creation and in the interpretation. For this reason, restricting art, by denying its inclination to subjectivity, is implying that everyone interprets things the same way. It is possible that one person could have a definite spiritual experience with a work of art while another remains unaffected.

Art is one of the few things available to everyone. Even if everyone cannot afford to buy Monet’s originals, everyone, in some way, has the opportunity to enjoy art. God speaks to all of us in different ways. The graffiti artist feels led to do what others would classify as destruction. Though some may have issues with this, we are not in a position to tell them they are not artists. Even the most deprived eye can discover art in the ordinary. Annie Dillard does an excellent job of seeing things in new ways. In Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, she gives salient examples of how we can see the world with a fresh perspective, like a person who has gained sight after a lifetime of blindness.

“Why didn’t someone hand those newly sighted people paints and brushes from the start, when they still didn’t know what anything was? Then maybe we could all see the color-patches too, the world unraveled from reason, Eden before Adam gave names.” This type of sight is a gift available to everyone willing to seek it out.

Art liberates us. It has the potential to put us in touch with our Creator, our surroundings, and ourselves. Croce says that art is liberating because it allows us to detach ourselves from the object of our contemplation and rise above it. Humans need liberation. We are often crowded and bound up. Art can be an escape from this entrapment. It is where we are allowed to express ourselves as much or as little as we wish.

One of the beauties of art is that the artist can reveal and still harbor mysterious secrets. The artist is someone especially competent at observing and communicating it with others. We can all be artists. We are all souls with different pictures and sounds deep within. Artists hear those sounds, see those pictures, and find unique ways of releasing them.

Art is what is produced when the intangible part of our humanity collides with an instrument of creativity. It is, at times, the expression of something ineffable. The results are subjective and should be handled with care.

Ann Sauber

Last updated: July 9, 2001