Science Forums 2

[ChunTzu]

I admit to having not fully read each post in this thread but, as somebody who identifies myself as an artist (a term I'm still not comfortable with, mostly because of the culturally defined view of what an "artist" does), I feel like I should at least put in a few thoughts...

First of all, I've never met an artist who will define art. And in conversations where we attempt to identify "distinctions" (as I will call them), there is, inevitably, a 3 hour conversation that hovers somewhere between academically accepted counter examples, counter examples or opinions to the counter examples, and thoughts on the pointlessness of the raging debate. Either way, no conclusions are made. To that I say, good. There should be something in this world that is not seen through tunnel vision and has the ability to adjust itself as necessary or maybe just desired.

If forced (ugh), I would give a very vague notion along the lines of "art" as a frame through which to see an object or experience in another context that could yield different conclusions, for better or for worse, or you're maybe unchanged. Consider also "art" as Humberto's Maturana's "languaging" about "communicating." An example given in Capra's The Web of Life to understand the difference: A cat meows every morning to wake me up so that I'll follow it to the refrigerator and pour some milk into a bowl. This is "communicating". Suppose one day I didn't have milk. The cat comes into my room, meows, and begins walking to the kitchen. Noticing that I haven't followed, he returns to my room and says/meows "Hey! Where's my milk?" This is "languaging"- kind of like a 2nd level/order of discourse which allows us to analyze the 1st level/order of discourse which can take many different forms through non-traditional media. So, if you see a piece in a gallery that you don't believe to be art, probably one of the questions the artist is asking is "Do you believe this to be art?" Most likely, there are also some other things going on...Damien Hirst, for example, in his pieces where the lambs are literally chopped in half reference sacrificial rituals, etc. I could go on but I think you get the picture (eh? eh?).

This is, of course, not meant to exclude the fact that sometimes art is really just the pursuit of "beauty" (which is another term that leads to a whole other debate) and a landscpape, still life, whatever has something to say that's worthwhile. It's just that the art market, which is really the driving force in mainstream development, isn't interested in landscapes right now. I believe Bill Viola, a video artist, said it best:

"...but I mean in general that artists are basically out of touch with what people are feeling and thinking as participants in a specialized dialogue. There are a lot of different aspects to art, and I think it's arrogant of the art world to believe, or unconsciously promote the assumption, that that it has some kind of monopoly on creativity...The common human trait of creativity is something that's going to link people from all different walks of life to art. I think it's important for people who are involved as professional artists to begin to come out of their little cubbyholes and begin to acknowledge the rest of the society. At the same time we need in art an area of specialization in the same way scientists need to have conferences of physicists where they talk in equations that you and I could not possibly comprehend. That's absolutely necessary. I tend to look at this...as the research arm of the field of art where people are going to be at the edge pushing things, doing something that no on else is doing, putting two ideas together that haven't been put together before.
- Bill Viola

Allan Kaprow in Essays on the Blurring of Art and Life (edited by Jeff Kelley) has an interesting debate on the differences between "art", "un-art", and "anti-art" in the chapter titled "Education of the Un-Artist."

It's also worth it to note that when I feel like I'm creating "art", my work is usually very bad. When I'm just making something meaningful to me, or researching, or whatever, the "art" label is something that's simply applied when I'm done and the work is in a gallery or some site for critique/consideration.

But to answer your question, "When is art not art?" it doesn't matter. What do you gain from the distinction other than the personal satisfaction of saying "This is very bad art. If at all." Well congratulations, I say that all the time, too. But in the end, it doesn't really change much, my friend, because somewhere, somebody disagrees with us which is why the art in question is "art."

P.S. The link to the Kaprow book is to Google Reader so you can actually read the chapter I'm referring to.

edit: Another large factor in determining "art" vs. "non-art" is intention.