Greetings,
On Monday, Philosophia Religioque met and discussed the philosophy of music. One relevant topic that came up was the definition of "art", and what demarcates it from other content. While I am not yet 100% convinced that my definition is necessarily right, I proposed that "art", properly understood, is intentional indirect communication. I'll start by explaining what is meant by those terms, and then get into some of the issues that can be derived from this definition.
At its core level, art is a kind of communication; in fact, I would consider art to fall under the genus of communication. Merriam Webster states that communication is "an act or instance of transmitting". If a painting could only communicate through its visual imagery, and there existed an invisible painting (which I do believe can be understood in concept, even if it's unlikely that one will ever exist), that painting would not be art, because it would be incapable of communication. However, I believe that many things in life qualify as "communications"; thus, this is a broad element, on which I will not say too much more at the moment.
If art is a kind of communication, what kind it? Well, I argue that art is necessarily intentional communication. What is intentional is the communication itself. Say, for example, that I look at the computer monitor in front of me and note its subtly sloping angles, well-rounded curves, and bi-colored palette. While it is true that the monitor might communicate to me a poignant message about the nature of the human condition/experience, such a communication would not have been the intention of the monitor manufacturer, and thus that communication would have been insufficient for the monitor to be considered "art" (although I am not necessarily excluding the possibility of other communications, of course). Even bad art-- whether angsty teenage poetry or annoying pop songs-- serves as intentional communication.
However, while a communication must be intentional to be art, intention is insufficient. For example, if I tell you in a monotone voice, "go outside", that is an intentional communication, and yet is not art (I would argue, and would believe to be non-controversial). This is because that which is communicated through art is necessarily indirect; while direct communication can exist in art, that which transforms an intentional communication into art is its indirectness. In film, for example, certain movies are clearly direct intentional communication, and are thus not understood to be art, while certain movies are very intentional communications-- and yet the communication is entirely indirect, such as in Maya Deren's Meshes of the Afternoon (which you really should watch). As this example hopefully illustrates, direct communication is necessarily not art, whereas indirect communication can be art if it is intentional.
Some interesting things result from this. First, a painting itself would not be art; rather, the communication-- the experience, perhaps, or maybe the performance-- would be the art. This would be in coherence with my understanding of nominalist theory. Additionally, I think that early cave paintings would not be considered art, unless they were doing more than sheer direct illustration. Lastly, good analytic philosophy would necessarily not be art (if I understand correctly), because I think that it attempts to be as direct as possible, whereas continental philosophy-- such as the works of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche-- has the potential for actually being art and philosophy at the same time, as some of their philosophical contributions are intentional, yet indirect.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
An Attempt at Defining "Art"
Posted by Zach Sherwin at 11:29 AM
Labels: art, beauty, club meeting, communication, direct, explicit, implicit, indirect, intentional
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
I really liked this definition of art. As an "artsy" person, I have often wondered about what exactly art is and what things fall into that category. I think that your definition is fairly accurate.
Part One
Let me begin by commending Mr. Sherwin for at least attempting to proportion the tenacity with which he holds to a belief to the reasons for believing it. He admits that he is "not yet 100% convinced that my [his] definition [of art] is necessarily right." Charitably, we should assume that one or, better yet, two of his 0’s are typos. Why? Well, even if one were to think Sherwin's definition of art adequate--and no one with any familiarity with 20th century philosophy of art (in the Anglo-American tradition) will think it IS adequate--why would anyone think it NECESSARILY right or correct or adequate? We can easily imagine any number of possible worlds in which the definition does not hold for art (including the world that actually obtains).
But on to his definition. What better evidence could we have that Sherwin’s definition is a non-starter than his own admission that painting is not art? He, himself, provides almost the best possible counter-example. What must he think the point of a definition of art is if it turns out that none of the things we normally think of as art are art?
Consider:
(1) Mr. Sherwin thinks it important to qualify the kind of communication that art is with the descriptor “intentional.” But could there really be any such thing as unintentional communication? Or is it tautological to say that all communication is intentional? Can you have transmission without a transmitter? And isn’t the act of transmission necessarily an intentional act? You may draw inferences from the knife in my back about my health, but that knife is not transmitting anything—knives lack agency. Nor am I, even if I am walking around for people to see me, if I am unaware of said knife in my back. And the same goes for Sherwin’s computer; it communicates nothing to him (unless, perhaps, it is a Mac rather than a pc, and even then I would have my doubts).
Part Two
(2) Mr. Sherwin maintains that the definition of art is “indirect communication,” though he never tells us what indirect communication is and how to tell the difference between indirect and direct communication. What does he mean? To illuminate, he writes, “if I tell you in a monotone voice, ‘go outside’, that is an intentional communication, and yet is not art” because it is direct communication. (Or is the problem here with the monotone voice? What if Sherwin sang to you “GooooOOOO Outsiiide”? Would that be direct? Or would that be indirect since we don’t normally sing imperatives?) We may presume, I guess, that if I want to use some piece of communication in order to move you from inside to outside then anything other than “Go outside” or its equivalents will be indirect. So if I know you are afraid of snakes and I want you to go outside so I say to you, “By the way, there is a snake under your chair,” that is indirect communication and, voila!, art. Rubbish.
(3) Sherwin says, “that which is communicated through art is necessarily indirect; while direct communication can exist in art, that which transforms an intentional communication into art is its indirectness.” Suffice it to say that I find this rather puzzling indeed. Mr. Sherwin seems to be saying here not that the act of communication is indirect in art, but that the thing communicated—What, a thought? An emotion?—is indirect. What does that even mean? And then he admits that “direct communication can exist in art,” but apparently it isn’t art until something, somehow transforms the direct communication into an indirect communication. I can make no sense of this.
But I am but a simple man, a dunce. I understand neither Mr. Sherwin’s proposed definition of art nor why he thinks he must carry the huge burden of providing the world with a definition of art. Late twentieth century philosophy of art was consumed by the question of the definition of art. Would it not be wise for us, humble philosophers that we are, to honor their hard work and worthy efforts by starting with them rather than with ourselves? Might we not think better if we start by standing upon their shoulders and seeing what the land looks like from there?
DunceScotus,
As one simple person to another, thanks for the comments-- they gave me quite a bit to think about. I'll do my best to respond.
First, while the word "art" might differ across possible words, I am referring to the reference of the word. I may be mistaken, but my understanding is that, just as there does not exist a possible words where blondes are redheads (although there might be a possible word where blondes are called redheads), it is possibly the case that art necessarily has a definition.
Second, in terms of the counterexample. I do not hold that all painting is not art. Rather, I contend that there exists painting such that the painting is not art. For example, my father has repainted furniture before. Such paintings (the painting occurred on wood, but the medium was the same) are not art-- they are purely functional in nature, and no communication is inherent in the painting. I believe that my definition accounts for this, and that this correlates with the commonly-accepted real-world notion that not all "paintings" are art. If you disagree, I'm afraid that statistics would be the only place to go from here.
On to your next point, yes, I do believe unintentional communication is possible. For example, I have played poker with a group, and have not intended to communicate my hand. Unfortunately, I have on occasion failed to cover this up, and thus have unintentionally communicated. I believe this serves as a sufficient example to justify the possibility of unintentional communication.
With regard to your next argument, that indirect communication was insufficiently defined and argue for, I'm willing to consent the point, to a degree. Unfortunately, the context of these posts place certain limitations upon the structure and length of arguments, and things were already getting a bit long. However, I shall do my best to provide further clarification, and might write a post directly on the issue, if necessary.
Your snake counterpoint is a good example. I am at work right now, and just told one of my coworkers that there is a snake under his chair. He did not believe me, and thus did not take the communication to mean, "get out of the chair!". I then told another coworker the same thing; she responded that she knew I was lying. Thus, I was not indirectly communicating that message. Even though there was a message indirectly communicated-- that Zach probably can't be trusted when discussing snakes at work-- such a communication was not intentional, and thus not art.
On to your (3) point, the nature of the indirect. At this point, I would cautiously respond that I might have not posted clearly enough. Allow me to rephrased: "that which is communicated through art is necessarily communicated indirectly; while direct communication can exist as a method for communicating a message in art, that which transforms an intentional communication into art is the indirectness of the communication.”
Hopefully that resolves the issues you raised.
Lastly, you are right; it would absolutely be wise "for us, humble philosophers that we are, to honor their hard work and worthy efforts by starting with them rather than with ourselves". However, that is not to say that it is the only method for wisely approaching the issue. I believe that careful contemplation and analytic consideration can be, at least, moderately beneficial-- plus, it might be a good deal more approachable for non-technical readers. Or maybe not.
Alas, confusion is not yet dispelled.
1."I am not yet convinced that my definition [of art] is necessarily right." The property of being necessarily true is being attributed to your definition of art by you. I suspect God should think of his definitions as being necessarily true. I suspect you shouldn't.
2.In addition to your equivocation with "painting", you are back-peddalng [and rightly so!]In your conclusion you deny that a painting is art, asserting instead that the communication of the painting is art. Who of us think of the painting of a chair or a house as a "painting" when we are talking philosophy of art?
3.My point is that typically we think of communication as an action requiring agency. Are you the agent who performs a sneeze? Rarely. Most frequently you are the agent to whom a sneeze happens. Likewise with the showing of your cards.
4. You seem not to understand the point of the snake.
In short, I don't think you've made much progress on the issues raised. But so it goes.
I like your take on the idea of art. Because art is communication. I would say that 90% of the time an author, a painter, or a musician (an artist in general really) has created their product in order to evoke certain thoughts or feelings to the ones looking at or listening to their art. Music is what I really relate to; I have always had an interest in it and played an instrument for eight years. No one can say that music is not art, or that is not created to complete your indirect communication that you speak of. The perfect examples are movie scores. The composers create a slow, melodic, melancholy piece to bring to mind the feeling of sadness for a character according to how the movie progresses. The reverse is the same-the upbeat songs for feelings of happiness or sometimes terror. I challenge people to try to watch a film without the score; it just is not the same.
April Kinsey
april.kinsey@vikings.berry.edu
Post a Comment