In order to pursue our discussion on whether the developmental history of art has ended, it is important to have a look at art definitions. When talking about art, however, there are two different questions that play a key role. The first one lies on how someone can know whether an artwork is art and the second refers more to the artwork in itself – what makes it, generally speaking, a piece of art?
What is art then? The early Greek term ‘ars’ does not mean art as we understand it nowadays; the term was attributed with activities involving skill in making things by hand (Kristeller 1978: 4). During the Middle Ages and before, art was seen more as a craft and artists as either craftsmen or students of liberal arts (Kristeller 1978: 8). In 1563, influenced by Vasari, painting, sculpture and architecture were ‘for the first time separated from crafts’ (Kristeller 1978: 9).
But one may come with a recent definition and may say that art can be any artwork that expresses a feeling or idea in relation to the art world. But then, is the heater which keeps my room warm an artwork? It is only if it is meant or if another person gives it such a meaning. It means that everything can be categorized as art as long as it is publicly seen as artistic expression. This would not be an issue but firstly we need to differentiate artworks and see which one deserves to be exposed in big museums or exhibitions and which one does not. When it comes to this it is the duty of art critics and curators.
Plato defines art as imitating the appearances of the real world (Pappas 2016). Thus, he defines art as mimesis (‘imitation’ in Greek, according to OED Online). In the beginning, art was seen as mimesis – imitating and representing reality; in order for a work to be considered art, it has to represent the real world, a way through which specific objects appear to us (Carroll 1998: 18). Realistic paintings try to re-construct reality as it is. If the imitation is meant to be taken literally or figuratively it is debatable.
In contrast, let us have a look at a formalistic theory of art. Clive Bell (Dowling, n.d.) defines art as being more about the aesthetic sense of the eye and our perceptual experience. By ‘aesthetic emotions’ Bell means the feeling a work of art arises in us and this feeling caused by formal aesthetic appearances is what gives the art status to a work. At first sight, one issue here is that it seems a subjective approach to define art, since aesthetic emotions may differ from person to person. But such an ‘issue’ may be beneficial for the continuously growing and demanding artistic scene in which works of art are waiting to be considered artworks.
‘For instance, versions of the resemblance theory according to which pictures in different styles resemble their subjects in different respects do not privilege pictures in any one style as better resemblances or more realistic than pictures in other styles’
Lopes 1995
If we look at some installation arts, such as ‘Cold Dark Matter: An Exploded View’ by Cornelia Parker (1991) or ‘Raumzeichnung’ by Monika Grzymala (2012) [the picture above], it does not seem to represent anything from our physical world. Thus, it seems that art is a representation of both the seen and unseen facts of our world.
Written by Sebastian Clej
You must be logged in to post a comment.