What Is It, That Thing We Call Art?

I was listening to a podcast recently (probably a good sixth of my life is spent listening to those things) and they were discussing art.  Most of the times I really enjoy listening to podcasts and can find at least some good to extract from them - even the one's that aren't very good - but this one was especially bad because their discussion was aimless.  One guy would ask, "Do you think this is art?" and everyone had to throw out an opinion.  Then the next guy asked if something else was art and everyone again gave their opinion.  They had exactly no set standard for what art is or isn't.  They didn't set a bare minimum or even try to define what art is.

I want to give the bare minimum of what I believe art is.  This standard does not judge whether a piece of art is good or not, it can only be used to judge if something is a piece of art or not.  There are three basic elements that any work needs to be considered art.

First, for something to be considered art it must be a human creation.  (I covered this idea in a previous post).  I know there is a lot of people out there that would love to claim that an ocean is a work of art or a mountain or a forest or a newborn baby or the stars.  However, they are not because they are not human inventions.  They are a product of nature, God, evolution, space aliens or whatever you believe they came from.  They may be astoundingly beautiful, breathtaking, life changing, awe inspiring, intellectually stimulating.  They may have elements of what you believe good art should have, they may be detailed, they may look as if they were painted by the perfect hand using the perfect brush.  But they are not created by humans and therefore cannot be considered works of art.  They are entirely another category.

Secondly, for something to be considered a work of art, it has to be made with the intent of it becoming a work of art.  I know, this one's a bit murky and sometimes we may not always have the details of the artist's - or non-artist's - intentions.  But let's explore this a little more.  So if I went to my backyard and began mowing the lawn only to discover that after I was done, the way that I mowed my lawn produced an image even more wonderful than the Mona Lisa, could I consider that a work of art?  No.  We can say that this picture in my lawn may tell us something about chance or coincidence or randomness, or that it tells us something about the subconscious and its abilities, but we cannot consider it a piece of art because it wasn't intended to be so at the time I was creating it.

But there are other interesting applications to this implication.

I am a big fan of film.  However, Hollywood pumps out millions of dollars worth of shitty movies each year, and probably many of those movies have directors, producers, actors, set designers, etc. that don't consider what they are doing to be in anyway artful.  Many, I would guess, are producing these movies to make money, to entertain or to move their careers forward.  But these films cannot, no matter how arty they may appear, be considered works of art if they do not have that intention in mind.

Here's another interesting thing (and this is where things get a little murky).  Consider a painter who, as she is painting a picture, intends what she is painting to be a work of art, but at the same time has no idea about the elements of art or has never thought about art in depth in anyway.  Is that painting a work of art?  I really want to say no but I would have to say yes.  By the barest minimum of standards, what she is creating is a work of art (provided it follows the other two steps as well).  Why I would hesitate to say no is because I believe that a sufficient lack of understanding of art is akin to not even using the word correctly, or even knowing what it means, and therefore she, the painter, would have the intent but not a true intent of creating real art.  But then this begs the question that there are very real and in depth standards of what art is (fine art) and is not (kitsch) and that my understanding of art is superior than hers.  However, since I am only setting up a bare minimum, I will grant it that, at the lowest setting, the painter, having an glimmer of an idea about what art is, is producing a piece of art when she intends to do so.

The third criteria for what can be considered art, is that the artist must make a real attempt at finding an audience for that work.  A poem sitting in a drawer at home, no matter how beautiful, cannot be a work of art if it doesn't have a larger audience.  This is because there is no difference between something invisible and something unseen; there is no difference between silence and something unheard.  I could tell you that I have written the greatest novel but that I burnt it in a fire and you would never know whether it was or not, nor would you really care.  These unseen, unheard, not experienced works are uninteresting because they do not exist outside of the person who created them and therefore cannot be considered works of art.  But I believe that just the real attempt of someone trying to share their creation with other humans can make that creation a piece of art.

This also brings up another interesting thing..  If some intended work of art is too cryptic to be decoded by even the most dedicated audience, and therefore that audience really can't experience that piece of art, is it then a work of art?  Is there any difference between the unseen creation and the one that cannot be decoded?  I'll leave these questions, for now, unanswered.  (I also want to give credit to Joyce for supplying some of these ideas).

Just My Objective Opinion

Sorry I haven't posted anything on a couple weeks. I've been reading and listening to a lot about Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism lately. I really have tried to keep an open mind but the stuff is pretty laughable. They claim to have an objective morality, however, without a God (and Objectivists are nearly all atheists), it becomes impossible to have an objective morality.  In fact, just grouping the words "atheistic," "objective," "morality," makes me scratch my head.  Morality has to be completely subjective because it has to be conceived in a mind.  It cannot exist independent of a mind.  There is no rule book floating out there in space that says how we should live our lives (and if you say the Bible I'm going to slap you).  If Objectivists spent anytime looking at the word objective they would realize that their philosophy doesn't actually make any sense.

You might say, well Dedalus, you are writing about objectivity and how to find it.  What you are saying isn't that much different from their claims.  I would entirely disagree.  My claim is that there exists, out of the hundreds of millions of ways to live, one best way to live and we can consider that way of living an objective truth - because it is the best way and because that way might produce something eternal.  But it cannot simply be just thought up, because that would be subjective.  We would have to discover it.  And how do we discover it? Using the scientific method.  If we look at the past two hundred plus years and all the advancements that have been made in our world we can attribute it wholly to science.  And my claim is that if we can concentrate on science and if we can focus our time and resources to becoming a more scientific people we will surely see even greater and more rapid advancements in the human race which would eventually uncover a best way of living.  Objectivity, for me, is more of an end than a means - or more correctly it is an end that makes the means meaningful.

The ridiculous thing about Objectivists are that they are much more interested in philosophy in trying to understand the universe than science.  But philosophy is never adequate, it is never going to push humanity forward in any significant way because many things about our existence cannot be figured out using logic or reason.  I've noticed this trend lately that Christians and other cults (yes, most fundamentalist religions are cultish in behavior) have put a lot more emphasis on philosophy.  It is because they lost the science debate.  Science has shown that the earth is more than six thousand years old, science has shown that we have evolved and are evolving, science has shown - quantum mechanics more specifically - that the reality we are experiencing might be subjective, science has shown that homosexuals and any other types of persons are born the way they are, science has shown hundreds of other things that completely fly in the face of archaic religious claims that people continue to cling on to.  So what else do religions and cults do:  they rely heavily on philosophy.  Because anyone can have a philosophy.  All it takes is having a somewhat reasonable and a somewhat defensible opinion.

I've been listening to a couple of Objectivist podcasts lately.  There was one particularly egregiousness one in which they were discussing, in depth, their problems with Postmodernism.  Now, I'll grant it, as much as I love a lot of Postmodern art there is a lot of problems with it.  There is also a lot of problems with Postmodernism as a philosophy.  However, this podcast - and Objectivism in general - seems to love to paint this caricature of Postmodernism only to try and tear it down.  One particular argument I heard on this podcast (and I hear variations of this argument very often) is that Postmodernists love to profess how subjective our existence, reality and morality is but at the same time love to believe so strongly in things like feminism, collectivism and environmentalism, almost in an objective-like way.  This might be one of the more ridiculous statements made by folks on the far right.  So what they are saying essentially is that if people believe that our reality/morality is subjective then they have to forfeit their opinions.  That is absurd.  They have to know that opinions are completely subjective because opinions are pure formations of the mind.  (That reminds me, I've got to post something soon about environmentalism).

There's one last thing I wanted to share about Objectivism, a kind of summing up of what I think they are all about, a thesis statement if you will:  Objectivism is apologetics defending the wealthy against intellectuals.  Objectivists don't really care about the undeducated because uneducated people generally share their opinion that wealth is a virtue and that wealth is a reflection of hard work and ingenuity because they have been indoctrinated to believe this.  It is the educated people that have a problem with the wealthy because they can break away from their indoctrination to find the problems asscoiated with wealth (especially the disparity between the rich and poor) and Objectivism tries to deal with that problem.

But if there is one word I'd like to use to describe Objectivists that would shock people into seeing what they really are, that word would be "cult."  The uniformity of their opinion is astoundingly disgusting and their claims of absolute truth rival that of even the most fundamental religions.  Check it out if you don't believe me.

A Quick Aesthetic Quip

I just had a though.  Is art a manifestation of human's general detest for exposition?

I don't know if everyone hates long drawn out explanations - people who love and only read non-fiction are a good example.  However, I believe that most people hate having points made directly at them.  ("Don't lecture me," or "You think you know everything")  Humans love figuring things out for themselves and art gives people an opportunity to do that.  Especially, Modern and Postmodern art, which is why I feel that these tend to be the better artistic movements in history.

Yet there is definitely a fine line between too much exposition and too little exposition and I believe that the true artist can walk this line and everyone else is either making schlock or being pretentious.

Arty Pants

A few days ago I bought The Critical Writings of James Joyce at a local bookstore.  I wanted it specifically for the short chapter on aesthetics and Joyce's comments on the philosophy of art.  While most of what he says is spot on and very thought provoking, I had one big question with his definition of art.

Joyce writes that "art is the human disposition of sensible or intelligible matter for an aesthetic end."  (Of course he makes a similar - if not exact - claim like this in A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man).  This definition is very interesting and can take a while to dissect but I would like to hone in on the word "human" and what it means to the definition of art.

It makes only sense to say that "human" involvement in a creation is essential to the definition of what art is.  A tree in the woods is not art because it sprang up from the ground and was  formed due to its inhuman surroundings (air, sun, soil, nutrients, etc.).  It may be beautiful and sensible but it did not come about from "human disposition."   So it can not be considered art.  But that begs the question:  what about a tree planted in a garden?

A gardener who plants a tree in a garden has control over the spot it is planted in and therefore has a modest control over how much sun it receives;  the gardener has control over how much nutrients it gets due to the soil in which the tree is planted; the gardener can prune the tree or bind its branches to determine its general shape; the gardener can spray pesticides on it to help determine its lifespan, and many, many more things.  So is a tree in a garden a work of art if it has been raised by a human being for an aesthetic purpose?

I think Joyce would say, "no."  Joyce's implications for what he consider's "human" is strange and I think his definition of "human disposition" is somewhat vague.  Here is what I mean.  Joyce posed to himself the question, "Can photography be a work of art?"  He answered it saying, "A photograph is a disposition of sensible matter and may be so disposed for an aesthetic end but it is not a human disposition of sensible matter.  Therefore it is not a work of art."

I actually hear this same thing being talked about all the time, that photography or filmmaking is not a work of art.  Somehow these critics have it in their heads that because people use cameras they are taking too much of the human element out of their craft and therefore it is not art.  But there is no real difference between a camera and a paintbrush/paint.  Both have their limitations and both are instruments used by humans in their aesthetic endeavors - just as a gardener uses instruments to form a tree for aesthetic purposes.  So because of this argument, a photograph or a film or tree grown in a garden can be works of art.

But I don't think it is entirely that simple, nor do I think that Joyce was completely wrong when he stated that photography isn't an art form.  And this is where the really interesting question begins:  Are there different degrees of art (high or low) depending on certain elements employed in that art form - including just how involved humans are in the art's creation?  Certainly there is.

A painter has more control over his or her craft than a photographer and therefore a painting is a more "human disposition" than a photograph.  Let me show that this is true.  If  a photographer wanted to shoot a building he would be limited in many more ways than an painter would be in painting the building.  The painter could, in his painting, change the shape of the building, its color, texture, the shadows falling on it, what is surrounding the building and many other elements of the building.  The photographer is limited because he or she cannot do many of these things.  (You might be tempted to say something about Photoshop, but I want to work with the more traditional definition of photography that Joyce used).  Therefore, a painting is a higher form of art because of the greater control the artist has over his or her craft - or in other words it is more of a "human disposition." The same applies to the gardener.  Photography is a higher art form than gardening because the gardener has even less control over what the tree in his or her garden will become than a photographer has over his or her photographs.

But what would be the highest form of art?  That is simple, it would be the oral or written verse and prose.  There is no more human artistic endeavor than verse or prose for it is really only humans that can use language and understand language (especially in its written form).  Also humans have more control over this form because the instruments used in the creation of prose and verse (namely a pencil and paper or sound emanating from vocal cords) have the least amount of limitations.  In fact there almost is no limitation in the art form of verse and prose except for the inability for one to express oneself or a concept.  But that is not the limitation of the instrument but a limitation of the human.  And this itself is beautiful because it reveals human nature with all its flaws to its fullest degree.

As always, let me know what you think.

Conservatives, Gosh!

Being conservative in America means one of two things:

1.  You are a white, wealthy, male actively seeking out your own self-interest.

2.  You are not a white, wealthy, male actively going against your own self-interest.

It's incredible to think that the majority falls under the second definition.

I know many of you probably know this already.  It just feels good to type it out.

Thanks.

Game On 

I was thinking today of how maddening it is that nearly everything important we do – job, politics, religion, etc. - seems to be a part of some game and how wonderful it would be if we had a complete choice in what games we want to involved ourselves – board games, sports, video games etc.

Let me break it down a little.

I just put out a post/rant about capitalism but let me continue the discussion in the context of it being a game.  Capitalism is an elaborate game where the people with the proper skill-set get to win – namely the skill-set of ambition.  If I set up an economy where a person’s monetary value was based on looks then the gorgeous people of that society would be the wealthy.  You might say to me:  “Well, Dedalus, being ambitious is not the same as being gorgeous because a person is born with looks, it is a genetic attribute, while ambition is something that one has to acquire.”  I would completely disagree.  I believe that it is just as difficult for me to become ambitious for money – because I am not at all - as it is for someone hideous looking to become beautiful.  Ambition seems to be just as much a genetic and cultural part of someone as looks are.  But I’m going off track. 

What I wanted to point out is that capitalism is a game and that nearly anyone born in the West is thrown into the game with really no other options but to play it or starve.  If I don’t like its rules I can’t change it.  If I don’t like how the “winners” are playing it, too bad, I can’t do much of anything about that either.

But let’s move on to something else:  academics.

Largely, academics are a game.  I am  a career student because I enjoy going to school and learning new things.  However, every one of my close and extended family members, my neighbors and friends ask me when I will be finished with school (earn another degree) instead of asking me what I learned in school.  Honestly, I could care less about the degree I have because I only really go to learn more.  When I graduated I still felt the same amount of intelligent than just before graduating.  But we have largely turned university into a game with the goal of, not acquiring knowledge, but a degree.

Also, schooling, especially testing and writing papers, is very much a game.  I’ve written many “A” papers about books or subjects that I never read or knew very little about.  Getting an “A” on a paper or a test is more about understanding your professors, their quirks and expectations and then writing to those, rather than researching and using critical thinking.

Religion and the idea of a God and an afterlife is a huge game.  Anyone who is familiar with religion knows that appearing to be a good person is so much more important than actually being.  (I believe Plato wrote a little bit about this – the better a person actually is the more ostracized that person will be in his social group).  Religion is a game because you have to pretend to be something you are not, or care about things that you don’t really care about.  Being successful in religion means being good with rhetoric and appearance than following the doctrine of that religion.

Now many of you might say:  “Dedalus, you are wrong again.  God will know what is really in your heart.  He will judge you by your actions and thoughts and so it is, in an eternal perspective, better for your soul to be a good person rather than to just appear to be good.”  I would agree, but only to add that God is actually the biggest game-maker of all.  The earth is his board and we are his pawns.  The rules were set out by him and so were the obstacles.  He controls who is good at the game and who is not.  He sets the times that we are allowed to play and the number of years we can play - sometimes only days or hours.  And he can be as unfair as he wants.  God controls every aspect of the game, and some people would say that he is the game himself. 

I guess my point is that every important aspect of our lives seems to be a large game, which, for the most part, seems to be governed by some pretty arbitrary rules.  Wouldn’t it be nice to be a part of something that doesn’t make you feel like you are just a pawn bowing down to the pressure of game-makers like God, professors, politicians and religious leaders?  Wouldn’t it be a much better existence to live and enjoy life for living and enjoying life’s sake?

I think we can come up with a better way of living.

A Cool Million

I've just finished reading Nathanael West's novella, A Cool Million. The book is a mixture of Voltaire's Candide, in which the main character for which the title is named is systematically brutalized throughout his journeys, and a satire of any number of Horatio Alger novels depicting characters successfully living out the American dream of achieving wealth and power by the means of their industry.  I've read Candide but never any of Alger's novels but I doubt that it matters since most of us, from even the earliest of our schooling, know the basic tenets of achieving the American dream:  work really hard, be somewhat inventive and after some patience you will earn your fortune. As A Cool Million's hyper-capitalist character, Shagpoke Whipple puts it to the young, poor but aspiring capitalist Lemuel Pitkin, "the world is an oyster that but waits for hands to open it."

What I was most impressed with in this book is West's understanding of just how people acquire great deals of money in a capitalist society.  Surely, because this is a satire, West doesn't agree that the world is an oyster and that anyone can make a fortune just by trying hard enough.  This is a boring myth that most of us can dismiss just by looking around ourselves.  We all know people who hold down two or three jobs hoping to make a lot of money; we know people who talk about how they will make it big with their creativity or by being noticed by their superiors for their superb work ethic; we know people who have started their own businesses hoping to catch a lucky break or people who spend thousand going to school, convincing themselves that they will stand out from the pack.  Some of these people make the money they hoped for and some of them don't.  But hard work is just not enough to become rich.  I work hard - going to school, raising a child, married, job, writing, etc. - and you probably work hard.  In fact, I would guess most of us work very hard.  But most of us are not rich.

Working hard does not mean becoming rich.

No, no, there are really only two ways to make a "cool million" in a capitalist society and West's novella deals with both.  First is through luck - being born into money, winning the lottery, striking rich off a trend, hitting it right on the stock market, etc.  Secondly, is by desiring money so completely that one would use nearly any means necessary to obtain it.

People don't seem to be impressed with the first way - through luck.  There doesn't have to be any hard work when luck is involved.  It's more by accident than anything.  West shows this in Million but in the opposite way by first informing Lemuel Pitkin  that he can obtain a great fortune by traveling to New York - of course, what other city? - and by working hard.  However, through very unlucky circumstance Pitkin runs out of hope of ever obtaining his fortune.  The message is:  some of us are lucky and some aren't.

Doesn't that sound exactly like real life?

The second way of obtaining money is the "respectable" way of doing it:  wanting it.  But why is this supposed to be respectable.  "The love of money" is supposed to be "the root of all evil."  This is one of the most quoted phrases that Christians have.  Does no one actually believe this?  No, nearly every Christian I know has huge amounts of respect for people with a lot of money.  But what they don't realize is that people who don't get lucky, earn their money through the dubious way of stomping on the rest of humanity in order to obtain their fortune. West shows this as well through the character of Shagpoke Whipple.  Whipple spends the entire novella promising to help young Pitkin only to take advantage of his friendship by rising to power and fortune largely through Pitkin's martyrdom.

This is how "respectable" people make money:  off the backs of those "beneath" them.

Let's stop giving respect to the rich.  They were either lucky or selfish assholes that don't mind exploiting everyone else.