Trash or treasure...who decides?

Looking to pieces that have been deemed as “art,” why is it that we all see pieces such as the Mona Lisa as definite works of art? Simply because we have been told so by the so called “professional critics” and because they hang in world-renowned (what does that word even really mean…another societal acceptance perhaps?) museums like the Louvre?

When looking upon a pile of trash we typically would just see it as trash; but when an artist such as Frank Galuszka comes along and paints a picture of this pile of trash, giving it some sort of meaning—the decay of society—then it is suddenly deemed art? If this is the case, then nearly anything in the universe—tangible or imagined—could be seen as art…as long as you can get the “professional critics” to accept it as such. Is art just a play on acceptance and/or approval? And if so, is this acceptance/approval really only in the hands of a few select people?

It seems to me that art should be universal, allowed to be accepted/approved by whomever creates it and/or whoever views it. As the popular saying goes, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” So who has given these “professional critics” the ability to determine what I see as beautiful or, for that matter not? Isn't it the point of art to allow for separate interpretations, especially when it comes to such an abstract piece like that of Galuszka's Out of this planet. Shouldn't art be in the eye of the beholder--whether beholder is viewer or creator--and not left to be determined by the 'learned' graduates of art schools.

In response to Kim...

In Kim’s blog, she discusses Weitz’s mention that “mostly, when we describe something as a work of art, we do so under the conditions of there being present some sort of artifact, made by human skill, ingenuity, and imagination, which embodies in a sensuous, public medium –stone, wood, sounds, words, etc,- certain distinguishable elements and relations.” 

On one hand, I agree with the argument which Kim makes—this eliminates too many instances of art.  Like the oral storytelling that Kim mentions, dance, for instance, doesn’t present an ‘artifact’ per say, but a performance. With this in mind, the definition above would seemingly eliminate any sort of performance art; I think it is necessary to find a more satisfactory word than ‘artifact’ to include art that uses the body as a means of expression rather than an ‘artifact’ presented.

On the other hand, however, I am still dissatisfied with the addition to the definition which Kim adds.  First, not all instances of art are ‘eternal’ in my opinion. If something is made at some point in time then destroyed or lost from society, for example, does that mean that it was never art while it was in existence? I think not. Second, I have a problem with the addition of the creation of “something for more than practical use.” Take, for instance, dinnerware. People use it in everyday life for the practical use of aiding in the process of eating; yet whoever it was that created the dinnerware—the plates with all different kinds of colors and designs, the silverware with its etchings and varying designs—likely had intent or at least imagination behind the designs and colors they chose. I assume this is why for many people choosing the dinnerware that will be used for decades at family dinners is such an important aspect of settling down—they are works of art in everyday, practical use.

I accept these additions to the definition as valiant efforts to the flaws of the original definition, but still look to find a more satisfactory definition—or to decide if definition is even possible in the vast realm of art.

Today's in-class discussion

In class, Alex attempted to come up with a solid definition of art as seen through the eyes of Weitz. He laid out that art and aesthetic are two separate, yet typically intersecting parts of the whole and that there is 1. a genre: the physical thing pertaining to the aesthetic and this brings about 2. the personal satisfaction one gets from creating a work of art which is then 3. satisfactory to at least one other person and 4. art requires some sort of medium.

I came up with two problems I had with this definition. First, there is nothing in this definition regarding to time and the like. All things, art included, change over time. There are always new forms of art being added into society, yet the traditional forms of art--painting, sculpture, music, dance--consistently hold a place in our minds as “art.” What makes these forms so eternal? Why is it that these specific things have been seen as art for centuries?

Second, what is meant by “satisfactory”? Perhaps the artist didn’t want anyone to be satisfied by the piece—maybe (s)he wanted to bring up in the viewer confusion or disgust and leave them unsettled after viewing the work. And oftentimes, art pieces are never even discovered or shared until after the artist’s death—so when this is the case, if the artist never had the chance to know someone was satisfied by their work, then was it not art? Or maybe the artist didn’t even intend for anyone else to see the piece. As is the case with much expressionist art, or even outsider art, many works are intended for the creator alone to see the work and they create it not to satisfy themselves or another but to figure out a feeling/dilemma they have or to make tangible an emotion/thought they’re having.

And lastly, although I couldn’t think of one example on my own, I’m sure there is something out there that doesn’t require a medium that could be considered art by at least one person…Can anyone think of such a thing and help prove this point?

To conclude, this definition we attempted to create is still, pardon the pun here, not satisfying enough to me. Will a concrete definition of art ever be satisfying enough for me...I have yet to find out; but hopefully this semester I'll come to hold a better understanding of where I stand in regards to my stance on the topic.

Personally, I enjoy this "definition."  Thanks, Warhol.

Is a "definition" of art ever possible?

 As Wartenberg explains it, “Weitz argues that the very nature of art as a practice makes definition impossible.” Upon reading this and from our in-class discussions, I was lead to question the very definition of the word "definition" itself. According to Merriam-Webster "definition" is, "an act of determining"

(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/definition)

(along with many other varying definitions of seemingly the similar meaning)

When it comes to art, certainly it is possible to determine if something is art; but, this can become a complicated, hazy area. As stated in class for example, some may consider cooking an art, but when it comes to frying up onion rings, is it considered art if even one fry cook the world over sees this as an art form? Who and how many people must see/determine something as art before it is actually accepted as such?

Since art is so open--it can range between anything from traditional painting and sculpture to one of the more modern forms of art like graphic design or contemporary dance--it is difficult, or to be more realistic, completely impossible to come up with a single concrete definition of art--at least, that is, without breaking it down into sub genres. As Weitz states, “art, as the logic of the concept shows, has no set of necessary and sufficient properties”—sure making drawings of many kinds requires a pencil or a paint brush, but creating a dance simply requires one’s own body and maybe musical accompaniment; certain types of art have sets of similarities in common, but never will there be even a single thing common across all forms of art. 

How are we to expect to ever define something that is seemingly indefinable due to the fact that it is such a vast realm and is always being altered and added to? Will a single definition of art ever be possible?