Who Defines Art?

[Wikipedia]

I great question proposed in my art history class by my professor. He gave us three choices -- the expert, the artist or the viewer.

Argument for 'the expert':

The expert is the person/groups of persons that researches the work of art, compare it to those like it, the artist, the time period, the context ect. and comes up with a conclusion about what it means. This meaning is then published in books and textbooks for millions to read. This meaning of the art is then influencing the way it is looked at by those who have read the analysis, therefore much power is put into 'the expert' to define art.

For example:

The Jolly Popper/The Prodigal Son/Self-portrait with Saskia
-Rembrandt van Rijn

What is interesting about this is the title changes several times after more discoveries are made about the painting and the artist. At first experts thought this was just a picture of a drunkard and a prostitute and so named it The Jolly Popper, later, debate was raised about the name, many agreed it should be titled The Prodigal Son because Rembrandt made many biblical paintings and they figured this was one of them. More recently, experts have finally agreed on the title of Self-portrait with Saskia because they found several other paintings like this one where Rembrandt painting himself with his wife and obviously it could be concluded that it is Rembrandt and is wife in this painting.

What is interesting is how your view of a piece can change just because of the title. In one case the women is a ***** and in the next she is the wife of the painter.

Argument for 'the artist':

Well, the artist is the one making the piece of art. One interesting comment made by a girl in my class was, "If three people are looking at a painting, an expert, a random viewer and the artist can the expert or the viewer tell the artist what his art?" This argument is a lot easier to make when the artist has a description or note attached to the art. You could say the artist defines the art, but once he dies that definition is sealed with him. How are we suppose to know the meaning of the work of art without the artist present? This, I think, is the hardest of the three to argue.

For example:
Lyre Player
-Artist unknown

This eight inch sculpture was found in a tomb, laid on top of the decease with a note. The artist's intentions were obvious, to have the sculpture accompany the deceased to the afterlife playing his lyre eternally.

Argument for 'the viewer':

In the end, doesn't the viewer decide how the art applies to his or her life thus deciding what it means? This argument is very flexible because it states that a piece of art can have many different meanings. Also, you could say that the expert and the artist are both viewers of the art and they pull their own meanings from it to form a definition for the art. It could also be said that the artist would be wrong in closing the meaning of his art to one definition, the correct thing to do is to leave it up to the viewer to decide what it means.

For example:

Sleeper, Lost in Dreams
-James C. Christensen

We have this painting at my home. My mom loves this painting, the artist, who is still alive, says that this painting is a representation of how we are as useless as a bird with one wing if we do not rely on our friends and family (or something to that extent). But my family is religious and my will say that this painting is a representation of Jesus Christ and that we cannot truly ascend to heaven without Him. Through the atonement, He completes us.

The irony of this is that most of my class made an argument for the artist or the viewer and it was the expert, my professor, that was going to be teaching us about the history and meaning of art.

 

[Delphiki]

This question is moot without first answering "What is meaning?"

 

[Eight Sage]

I didn't knew there is 3 ways of defining an art, but it's obvious a picture could change a lot depending of the point of view you have.

You could say the artist defines the art, but once he dies that definition is sealed with him. How are we suppose to know the meaning of the work of art without the artist present? This, I think, is the hardest of the three to argue.

The hardest to argue, and thus, the more common and popular. A lot of paintings and sculptures are famous for the debate around them questioning what the artist wanted to show? or what it means? For example, the Monna Lisa... it's a sad smile? it's a happy smile? it's an angry smile? some people agree that she's happy others that she's sad, but no one can deliver the true answer because the only one who knows it it's his painter (Leonardo da Vinci).

It will always be like that. The artist can give a definition, but in the end is the viewer who makes a final statement.

 

[Delphiki]

But what finality lies in subjectivity?

Also, this addresses not art but all which is interpretable. Philosophers, poets, writers, orators....all are misunderstood more often than they are understood. But whose way is right? If staying true to the intent of the maker is your goal, you can only begin investigating from the point of view.

If you'd rather make up a bunch of justifications for your a priori beliefs, go right ahead. But what is the point of giving to posterity when any ****ed fool can scramble and pollute a message to fit what he believes? If an artist wants to be understood, he must give his audience clarity.

What the creator intends to give is all the purpose of any work. Works can be aimed like the ultimatum of Western tragedy - a brazen note which cannot be denied by any ophidian or leonic eye, like modern artists - interpretable and with little or no intent, or like the tales of musicians - simple and direct. The artist's intent, and nothing else, is the purpose of the work. How this purpose is applied is up to he who it touches. But it is nothing less than criminal to deliberately or idly misinterpret what has been given to posterity.

 

[Eight Sage]

If you'd rather make up a bunch of justifications for your a priori beliefs, go right ahead. But what is the point of giving to posterity when any ****ed fool can scramble and pollute a message to fit what he believes? If an artist wants to be understood, he must give his audience clarity.

QFT

All begins with the artists words, then your own conscious will tell you what the paint/sculpture means. No one would listen to some random guy, but if he's an expert, maybe you'll listen his opinion. But it will be always what you think, mixed with the own artist's word, what stays in you.

The problem is when the artist didn't say a thing about his art, making a debate around it in which everyone is right, and that means there isn't only one meaning.

 

[Deleted member]

I would propose that it's the viewer who defines art. Perhaps more so than the expert, because sometimes the expert can turn into someone who tries to find meaning into something where there is none.

The expert is still a viewer. They may have some background knowledge that might help you better understand a piece. But in the end, they are essentially one entity. They are both viewers.

[sidebar]

It's strange though. I've noticed that there are very strange biases in the realm of art experts. Like an expert calling E.E. Cummings' poem titled Grasshopper "good." I don't think you need to be learned to enjoy that, but it's generally the experts who do enjoy it. Can anyone explain this?

[/sidebar]

How often do you see an ad for a movie that has a quote from the director saying, "THIS MOVIE IS AMAZING TRUST ME"

You don't. You see the critic's opinion.

I will use the same argument I used in my thread about poetry.

If you argue that the artist defines art because it's the artist's emotions being expressed through a medium, there is a clear problem.

First is the problem of respect. I've heard a lot of people say that even if you don't like it, you need to respect it. I find this hard to swallow, and it's parallel to the main point at hand, which is who defines art. This is a problem because if I respect something, it probably means I acknowledge it as art. But I probably don't.

Someone might say that you need to respect the art because it's someone's work and feeling.

I would say that I don't care if it's your work and feeling, if it's not art to me, then it's not art.

If someone crapped on a piece of paper and presented that as art, I would probably be very inclined to laugh at someone who actually thought this was art. Is a poo still a poo if it has the intention of art? I say no. It's just a poo.

For the slow people out there, poo is an image for bad art. Sub in "bad art" when you see poo, and you'll see my meaning.

Bad art is a lot of things, but it's certainly not good art, which is, I assume, we're debating on who defines it.

 

[AltF4]

I would say the viewer defines art.

The artist's intention is irrelevant if not depicted explicitly enough through the art. Take the last image in the first post. *waits for you to scroll up and refresh your memory* If, say, the artist actually intended that painting to convery a message of the wonders of modern medicine, nobody would know it. That meaning cannot be derived from viewing the art.

The meaning(s) that can be derived from the art are made by the viewer. You must, presumably, view the piece of art in order to assign a meaning to it. So the meaning that the artist meant for the piece to have is irrelevant. If it doesn't coincide with what the viewer can see, then the "intended" meaning will be lost, unknown, and replaced by more obvious meanings.

I don't really have a good argument against experts... Ha! Maybe later or something... engineering is so much simpler than art.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Ultimately, the artist defines what his or her art means, however the Artist's actual intentions are not truly what defines the art. Instead it is the nature of the artist himself or herself that defines the meaning of the art.

In almost all cases the artist does things within the art that convey things about himself or herself without even realizing it. These unintentional dimensions of the art (often referred to by the layman as "something from nothing) are in reality part of the meaning of the art because they are indistinguishable from the rest of the art. In essence, the meaning of the art is what is actually there, no matter what the intention was.

Criticism over time will tell what the art actually means, the dimensions that the individual attempted to convey, and this will come over time, so the expert is most authoritative in what it actually means then even the artist himself or herself (because almost always the artist places things in the art that he or she doesn't realize). That does not mean that the artist can ignore the viewer however, because even though they are not the most authoritative group, they are important in deciding whether the art is successful or not.

By successful, I do not mean commercially successful, I mean successful in terms of the objective of art, getting a message across. All art is ultimately intended to convey some meaning, be it the story of a mad serial killer (a la Texas Chainsaw Massacre), a self-portrait (Self-portrait with Saskia), a complex story of political intrigue which has embedded in it truths of the human condition (such as Dune), a mood (certain musical variants), or that the artist likes fuzzy purple rabbits (do I really need to provide an example?). Certainly there may be more then just those few messages, but if a meaning cannot be distinguished, then the artist has failed in regards to that group.

Certainly, the artist can attempt to edify the group by placing the meaning just beyond what they can understand, thus giving them an impetus to edify themselves, however if it cannot be grasped except by the highest level academics, it has failed for the vast majority of individuals, and only conveys it's meaning to a highly select group.

Of course, if it is too simplistic, it fails to give any real understanding and doesn't give the viewer a new understanding, it simply is dismissed by the mind as irrelevant since no effort was required to understand it.

Thus, time is the only way to discern whether a piece is a success or failure.


So, while the artist ultimately defines what it means, he or she really has the least control once the art is released. The viewer and the expert are the pivotal roles once the art has been released with the former deciding it's success or failure, and the latter figuring out the official version of what the piece means by picking up the nuances both intended and unintended by the artist.



This applies to all things where authorial control is exercised, including books, movies, music, visual arts, video games (an illusion of control is given to the "viewer", since every decision that the "viewer" can make is predetermined by the "author" in it's effects), plays, Operas, and more.

 

[McCloud]

Is this art?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
what if I told you it was done with colored pencil? Tom Friedman's Untitled, 2004. Color pencil on paper.

I had this debate my first week of art class; that was one of the examples. I probably won't have much time to debate this as a huge art project is actually due tomorrow, but just thought I'd put that out there to get your mind thinking.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Is this art?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
what if I told you it was done with colored pencil? Tom Friedman's Untitled, 2004. Color pencil on paper.

I had this debate my first week of art class; that was one of the examples. I probably won't have much time to debate this as a huge art project is actually due tomorrow, but just thought I'd put that out there to get your mind thinking.

Even initially it is art, the actual message is irrelevant as to whether it qualifies as art, just the authorial control inherent in the piece, and almost all advertising has that.

The only reason people default to "no, it's not art" is because the quality of the piece is too often confused with it's status, hence the assumption that bad art is not art, when truthfully, this is not the case since authorial control defines it's status, not quality.

That said, almost all advertising falls under bad art for a similar reason that art that's too easy is bad, it's too trite, so really it's not worth your time to decipher, generally, you actually feel robbed of the time you used.

As for the piece, I need some context, the setting that it was made and presented specifically to judge, divorced from that it doesn't convey any meaning, yet within a proper context the piece might be successful, I have seen many such pieces which require the viewer to be set in any appropriate mindset to convey the meaning.

 

[McCloud]

Good, good. The post is meant to get people thinking about what signifies a piece as artwork. The common belief is that something commonplace (such as a photo of a wrapper) cannot be artwork, unless the artist had intentionality in photographing the wrapper to convey some sort of message.

What setting that art takes place in shouldn't matter; a successful piece will convey what the artist wishes to convey without outside help. This is what we are taught to extract from art. The default setting should be a blank white wall in a museum showcasing the artwork, unless the artist deems otherwise.

 

[adumbrodeus]

What setting that art takes place in shouldn't matter; a successful piece will convey what the artist wishes to convey without outside help. This is what we are taught to extract from art. The default setting should be a blank white wall in a museum showcasing the artwork, unless the artist deems otherwise.*

*Bolding added

Which is what I am talking about, the artist deeming the setting otherwise.

For instance, what does a jar of dirt with a pink inside as well, covered by the dirt but partially exposed mean to you?


Now, imagine that the artist intended the setting to be a gallery dedicated to the serial murder of women in a particular country, and gave specific information about it, makes a lot more sense now, doesn't it?

Furthermore, the artist can create so it would be understood by a particular audience, who could then explain the context to others, for instance, referring to a particular event, for instance Pablo Picasso's Guernica.

Giving enough information to hint at the meaning and draw people to it is enough.