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.