My conception of art

                                       The persistence of Memory. Dalí.

Since classical times, humanity has been discussing what beauty and art are, and even today, there is no consensus at all. For such a reason, there are countless books on what art is, and most of them don't coincide with each other.

Researching about it, you can find that art is:

• Beautiful or pleasant things. 
• An ideological instrument.
• A mystery only understandable from the emotions. 
• A set of rules and structures.
• A way to break social standards.
• Everything. 

And the list goes on almost to infinity. And the lack of agreement is so extreme that all the definitions and meanings found in dictionaries and encyclopedias are very vague, which doesn't help. Not even through history is it possible to find accord about this matter, as every era and society see art differently. That alone should give a clue to people who act sectarian and point their finger, as if they are omniscient scholars, and say, "this is not art.", but whatever.

Personally, I find the discussion very interesting. Unfortunately, something as pure as art is full of fights, attacks, and criticism. Discussions about what art is are abundant of animadversion against others' work, intentional or not. That is because no matter how narrow or broad a definition is, it will eventually be exclusive. Definitions involve setting limits, and by giving one, you could be saying someone's work is not art, and that is offensive, for sure.

Just see how some say fanfictions are not literature, the current rock is not music, or that modern art is not art at all. That's, of course, very insulting. And in my opinion, these people have a narrow vision of what art is.

What art is

As I told you, there are many ways of conceiving art, and I have come across some of them. Before sharing with you my conception of art, it seems fitting to talk about it first. 

Art as something beautiful

Let's first look at the one that specifies that art is only beautiful or pleasant. At first, it sounds pretty logical, but then we can find some problems. Saying that only beautiful things are art is not correct because it is not entirely conclusive. After all, what is beauty, what is gorgeous, is another discussion with no end. And even if there were an agreement about it, there is ugly art; we can't negate it.

Some pieces, stories, poems, movies, songs exist with the sole intention of awakening negative emotions in us: anger, sadness, or just mere aversion or fear, and they are art not despite it, but because of it. For example, no one would say Saturn devouring his son by Goya is not art because it depicts such terrible acts as filicide, cannibalism, and gore. It's not precisely attractive, but the opposite. However, it's artistic, and to say the contrary would be nonsense, for sure.

.

Saturn devouring his son. Goya.

Art as a set of rules

This is one of the visions of art that convinces me the least since it imposes a considerable limitation for the development of art in general. Believing that art is a series of unshakable principles implies that art is a rigid monolith that doesn't change, or shouldn't change, over time, and that's wrong, in my opinion. Just see how much art has changed throughout human history, and you'll notice that there are no permanent rules regarding art.

Art is about freedom, not about restrictions, or that is what I believe, so saying art is about rules is untrue. Every era, society, group, and individual has its own distinct style or way to do art, and their pieces don't cease to be art just because they don't coincide with the prevailing customs of the moment. 

And think about it. During countless generations, art has changed massively; in other words, the rules have changed, but the art has endured until today despite it. So the rules? They are not the key.

Simultaneous Visions. Boccioni

Art as rebellion

I have come across claims such as that art is a tool to break models and molds, that its practice is the supreme demonstration of freedom. Therefore, from this point of view, the goal of art is to be an act of rebellion. 

According to this position, art is and must be dissociated from prevailing conventions. Likewise, it affirms that artists are always searching for new methods of expression wholly disconnected from the existing ones. Such things imply a break with social standards, and there is where the rebellion resides. 

Supporters of this view also base their claims that art itself is an unconventional form of communication, and its very practice is thus rebellious.

In my opinion, art is indeed an unconventional form of communication. It doesn't use words in most cases, and when it does (as is the case in literature), it is a use dislocated from everyday utilization of language. Also, it is fully interpretable, and the message is not entirely direct. Among many other things that differentiate the artistic communicative act of, let's say, regular communication. However, is that rebellious? Under some circumstances, it can be. But is the artist's intention to be revolutionary when making art? Not necessarily. 

Art can be an act of rebellion, but it is not per se. Therefore, I wouldn't say that rebellion is what makes a piece artistic because not all art is defiant against standards. For example, millions of artists use traditional methods to make their pieces; others only draw landscapes and "common" things. And you know what? Their works don't cease to be art because of that.

Classical Landscape. Lambert.

Art as something good

Others impose that quality is the determining characteristic of art. Thereby, only the good pieces are art. 

Such a statement is entirely inaccurate because then we would be basing our criteria to determine what is art on things as arbitrary as tastes and preferences. It would be something like: if you like it, it's art; if you don't like it, it's not art. That's not accurate enough at all.

Furthermore, this vision implies that beginning artists or artists with "little" skills are not artists and don't make art. That is not only wrong, but it is also offensive. In addition, it raises specific questions with no correct answer, such as how good must a piece be to be considered art? How skilled does a person have to be to become an artist?

In conclusion, quality is not decisive when we want to tell if something is art or not. It's a criterion too arbitrary for that.

The Dream. Picasso.

Art as an ideological instrument

Of all the existing definitions of art, this one pretty accurate. However, it is also tricky. Let's see why. 

Understanding ideology as "a set of fundamental ideas that characterize the thinking of a person, group or time, of a cultural, religious or political movement, etc.," of course, art is involved with ideology. Even if it's not your primary intention, your art will always reflect your ideology and political views.

Art can be used to instill an ideology in people, and it has also been used with that purpose only. There are countless essays on how the United States ideologically conquered the entire West through movies, television shows, music, books, and any art. And there is evidence that the CIA and other governmental departments did this on purpose.

And although everything said above is true, art is not intrinsically an ideological instrument. It can be one, though. But that's different. And I say that it's not an ideological instrument because, for example, I am sure that when my sister-in-law drew a landscape full of cats, her main goal was not to change the public's perspective about cats. She just wanted to express how much she loves cats.

My point is that art is undoubtedly ideological but as much as anything else. In my opinion, its ideological content is not distinctive and that is why it is not what defines art.

In peaceful fields. Mylnikov

Art as something with no purpose

I once read that art was something made without purpose, and that was its main characteristic. As long as a piece was made for no other purpose than making the piece itself, it was art. Something like the reason for art is the art itself and nothing more. Consequently, art has no practical purpose.

This definition is one of the strangest that I have come across, mainly because it can be understood as if art were something useless.

Besides, some people work making art. So their work isn't art because it also has an economic purpose? Others make art to entertain themselves, feel better, etc. In those cases, aren't their pieces art? And most of what we call art today had a vital religious purpose in ancient times. And no, statues, poems, songs, paintings, and monuments from hundreds or thousands of years ago don't cease to be artistic because of that.

Finally, architecture and gastronomy are also considered art. And we can't negate they have practical purposes, for sure.

In my opinion, the purpose of any art is not related to the artistic quality of the piece.

Abstractions. O'Keeffe

My conception of art

Saying what art is not easy. As a literature student, one of the first things I learned in the first semesters is understanding what literature, and art, by extension, are. I discovered that no definition is satisfactory. However, I developed my own conception of art, which I outlined after taking the Aesthetics class, a class about art and beauty. And I want to share it with you. 

But first, I want to clarify something. I didn't come with my "own" definition of art because I'm too clever or something like that. The idea came directly from my professors, who encouraged me to find my conception of art. It was an assignment, in fact. This entry is nothing more than a college essay turned blog post. And I must be honest and tell you that the conclusions I reached here are not original, but a combination of the ideas of philosophers and intellectuals, historical and modern.

I define art as:

A communicative activity with which the real is interpreted or the imagined is reflected with plastic, linguistic or sound resources whose primary goal is to cause a particular emotional impact on the receiver.

Art is communication. It expresses a message sent with unconventional means by the artist and aims to provoke something in the receiver, that is, the audience. And that "something" is just any kind of feedback, pleasant or not. In that sense, art works like any communicative act because the art itself is one. 

So I believe art is actually an act of two, of the sender and the receiver. As it happens with any communication, art is incomplete if no one receives it and replies to it. If it doesn't cause any feedback.

Delving in the matter, something that doesn't generate any feedback or doesn't communicate anything is not artistic. If you see, let's say, a picture, and it provokes on you nothing but pure indifference, then it's not art. It's as easy as that, in my opinion.

However, this vision of art brings with it some apparent problems. What about some piece that doesn't communicate anything to me but it communicate something to other people? Is it art or not? Well, in that case, I would say it is art, yes. As long as a piece communicates something to someone and generates feedback, even if just from one person from the billions of the whole world, then that work is a work of art.

And that's my view on art; that's what I think art is. Tell me, what is art for you? 

The Great Wave off Kanagawa. Hokusai.