Any trip to a museum of modern art can cause one to wonder what constitutes art. It is certainly not an infrequent thing to hear such remarks as, “That’s just three blue circles on a white canvass. That’s not art.” Or, “That’s just a box of tissues glued to a chair. Anyone could do that.” I am guilty of entertaining these and similar thoughts while wandering through a museum, but rarely are these comments so prevalent in museums of historical art. Large and colorful scenes depicting nature or people, or detailed portraits, or stunning photographs, or delicate and ornate ceramics, or huge marble statues seem to be shielded from the critiques that are pervasive towards so-called modern art.
So what’s the difference? What makes liquid-like clocks draped like wet laundry over desert branches “obviously art,” but a preserved half-eaten BLT encased in a clear plastic box “questionably art?” No doubt the artist would not consider his or her work to be questionable as to whether it constitutes art or not. But the audience may or may not consider the artfulness of a given piece to be disputable.
Some may argue that art is defined by the talent that must have gone into creating it. I don’t think this definition suffices at all because “talent” is far too subjective to be useful in providing any type of standard. Listening to music by Mozart, for example, one might think, “My gosh. What talent!” without considering the fact that Mozart could probably have composed the piece while drunk out of his gourd and pissing on a public street. In other words, what the audience may consider indicative of talent, the creator may consider a mere trifle, not requiring even the slightest effort. Talent is only meaningful in comparison. If most people were able to compose music like Mozart, just as most people are able to do basic addition mentally, his music wouldn’t be anything special, just as it’s nothing special for me to think: 7 + 3 = 10. It’s only the fact that most people can’t compose music like Mozart that makes us say he was talented.
Some may argue that art is defined exclusively and wholly by the artist. In other words, what the artist considers to be art, is art. I don’t think this is a sufficient definition, either. First, I think it grants too much liberty to the artist. Just because an artist spits on a plate and says, “Oui! Art!” I don’t think this automatically makes art out of spit on a plate. Second, who’s to say who’s an artist? Is a person an artist because he or she makes art? Is a person an artist because he or she proclaims him or herself to be one? Let’s say someone creates some painting that everyone irrefutably agrees is art EXCEPT the person who created it. Is it art if the creator insists that it isn’t?
Some may argue that everything is art. This definition is a nice one to avoid all of the problems that are normally inherent in this discussion. But I don’t think it really tells us anything interesting. This definition doesn’t help in determining what goes into art, or whether it is possible for art to be described in degrees, or whether, assuming everything is art, if nothing is NOT art.
In light of these considerations, I would like to propose a tentative definition. Art is defined by the amount of creative energy that is involved in its creation. This means three blue circles arbitrarily painted on a white canvass does not constitute art (or constitutes art to a small degree). But three circles whose exact color is thoughtfully mixed, whose diameter and shape are carefully considered, whose spatial relation to each other is deliberated on, whose application to the canvass is done with assessment and precision, and which reflect the artist’s intentions, certainly constitutes art (or constitutes art to a high degree).
Likewise, a randomly selected box of tissues glued in a wonton fashion to a random chair constitutes art to small degree. But a carefully selected (or better yet, constructed) box of tissues, considering its size, shape, colors, patterns, etc., glued with judiciousness to a particular location on a carefully selected chair, considering the same things, constitutes art to larger degree. This is especially true when the artist intends for the physical objects of the box, the tissues, the chair, and perhaps the glue, to be symbolic of other things, and their relationship to each other in the physical environment created is reflective of conceptual relationships that presumably bear some significance to the artist.
Remember that this only my current opinion and is highly susceptible to change upon new information and further thought. Please, please, please post a comment to this blog if you have any thoughts whatsoever on this matter.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
