The Nature of Art
Kevin Cornell of bearskinrug.co.uk fame has a very interesting article dealing with the definitions of art and design that reach all the way back to week one’s conversation on the matter. Some initial snippets:
I eventually came to the conclusion, after many Art History classes, Graphic Design classes, discussions, and observations, that the basic difference between Fine Art and Illustration was their goal. I came to feel that Illustration sought to answer questions; whereas Fine Art intended to ask them.
This rang true to me, and what’s more, it fell in line with my sensibilities as a designer. Design and Illustration walk hand-in-hand because both look to solve a problem.
As he has developed and matured in his field, however, Kevin’s own definitions have evolved:
The subjective use of the title “Art” also led me to believe my philosophy was errant. My neighbors would call something Art that I would not. My dentist definitely has a different definition of Art than I. There are eminent scholars who have devoted their life to the study of Art, who I’m sure would roll their eyes derisively at the work I’d clutch lovingly to my breast. Would I be doomed to never call something Art until I had reached a similar echelon of study? Of course not. What I thought was Art, was at least Art to me.
So, after much mulling, I’ve arrived at a definition of Art that seems to resolve these inconsistencies.
Oh, the suspense, right? Go ahead and give the whole article a read. I’d be interested in your interpretations of his definitions. Do you agree? Disagree? What definitions are you willing to work with (at least for the rest of the semester)?
Consider your comments to this post (on this site) your answer to the quiz; as such, I’ll drop some points in your bucket. We’ll consider this quiz closed before the beginning of class on 3/7/07.
Posted in people to watch, advanced design, general design |
February 27th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
I love this philosophical stuff. I agree that anything can be art, and sometimes I find that the most random things seem to me like art. But, I am no artist and I am not sure yet when and why something strikes me as art. I do agree that art does not have to be unconscious (in fact, I prefer the more complex, planned art pieces).
February 28th, 2007 at 9:16 am
I really liked this artical, I agree with almost everything he presents in it. I love the idea of a the fire hydrant being art. Things that are meaningful to someone personally are definatly beautiful to that person. To me art is both asking a question and giving an answer and to add to those bringing back memories or sparking new ones.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
I really liked the line “Because Art is not created; rather something created becomes Art. Something becomes Art when it is cherished; when we become attached to something for its uniqueness, for its faults and for its successes.”
A pieces of art cannot be duplicated. Like he says, art becomes art when it has gone through it’s “growing” stage. I’m sure davinci didn’t get all his masterpieces perfect on the first try. There are many things that I design that I am proud of but they wouldn’t be considered art, except to me maybe. Art is a mental conclusion.
February 28th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
“…Artists, are merely craftsmen, like a carpenter, or a plumber, or a journalist. We can choose to answer questions, or ask them; but neither direction is a guaranteed path to Art. Instead, if we’re lucky, once in a while we do our job in such a way that it becomes unique, and it becomes loved for its uniqueness.”
I’m not even sure how I’d define art, but this quote makes sense to me. Lately I’ve been viewing art as anything noteworthy–whether it’s a life of hard work, a massive cathedral, or as Cornell suggests, a familiar fire hydrant. A lot of work and planning can go into both Design and art, but I agree with Cornell, art becomes art when we attach some sentimentality to it.
March 1st, 2007 at 2:16 pm
I agree with what he’s saying. Beauty (or art) is in the eye of the beholder. I can create a piece of art or a design that I love dearly while my best friend can think it stinks, and that’s fine.
However, a splotch of paint on a canvas is not art or design, it’s a cry for attention that should not be answered. But that’s just my opinion…
March 5th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
I’ve been putting a little thought into the difference a’twixt the two su’jects…
so far I decided I like his explanation cause its ..explainier…
all I’ve come up with is that art is more on the “do it for fun” side of life and design has more of a professional nature.
his statements are more convincing…
however I also liked the comments of art is what you like!
I find it very easy to think of design as art. If you pour out everything you’ve got, trying to make something “just so” precisely how you like it, then you have a connection to it.
I feel like anything you can feel attached to could be art.
but I spend my time watching TV. my brains are all melty…
so its a good thing there are smart people to say stuff or nobody’d be able to fig’r stuff out!
March 5th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Artists are not merely craftsmen. They are craftsmen that transcend thier craft and thier medium. Artists can affect those who do not wish to be affected, and communicate with viewers. Sentimentality is not the measure of art, but meaningfulness is. If the fire hydrant becomes a symbol to an individual it is still not art until the artist can convey a meaning to others with the same symbol. This requires explaination and communication and treatment of a subject. An artist who sees meaning in a fire hydrant can then show others why the object has meaning or at least that it does have some meaning and is worth looking at. It is the showing of meaning to others that is the craft of an artist.
Measuring art by its uniqueness in communicating, its success or failure to generate meaning is a better measure than whether or not we like it. I can hate something and still call it art because it effectively communicates a message. Also, I can like something, but it doesn’t become art simply because I like it.
March 5th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
In the end of the article it appears the direction of thought has moved from anaalysis/defintions to personal feeling. This causes a muddle of thought. However, the original point of Art asked questions (of philosophical importance) and Illustration answered questions of or in the mundane seems to give an adequate answer for the general public.
Personally I agree more with the idea that we all have the potential to create Art.
In relation to this an Art teacher brought up his own debate and answered it once using the (he says illustration, I say Art) work of Warner Sallman’s “Head of Christ” (and other works by Sallman) as proof that Fine Art is better than illustrative art as he “tore to shreds” the “quality” of Sallman’s work.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
I agree with Cornell and his views on Art/Illustration. I really liked “My neighbors would call something Art that I would not. My dentist definitely has a different definition of Art than I” I totally agree…sometimes things that I see as art my friends would just role their eyes at and disagree. I also find it interesting how art creates questions where illustration solves them. Certain pieces of art do tend to ask more questions than others leaving the viewer in kind of a stupor….but isnt that mabye why some people like it so much? It leaves a sense of mystery….Thats just my opinion
March 7th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Art is what I am pointing to when I say “Look! Art!”
:)Fair enough?
I agree with the article.