Last night, my husband 
and I were at one of our favorite local hangouts, Milwaukee Burger, trying to warm up over a glass of imperial IPA and a stout, respectively, and a plate of deep fried cheese curds. As is the way of two people drinking beer, many deep thoughts were exchanged, and many thought-provoking topics were explored.
Then I asked this question:
“What is art?”
A long debate between us ensued. Music, sculpture, painting, writing, when does something become art, and how do you measure that?
As a pianist and singer myself, I struggle with defining when something that is created becomes art.
I know this has been asked and answered to varying degrees of success by artists and philosophers over the centuries, but to me it seems much more relevant to ask this question today when art, in my opinion, seems to be much more elusive. The answer, it seems, requires answering quite a few more questions, like:
- If you assume that something like a blank canvas is not art, and pieces like Botticelli’s painting, The Birth of Venus, is art, then at what point does something become art?
- If a person makes a quilt or crochets a pillow that shows a mastery of that craft, is that art or simply a “craft”?
- Is there a difference between something that is “art” and something that is “artistic”?
- Does art by definition have to contain beauty, and what is beauty anyway?
- Should art invoke a feeling or transform the audience in some way?
- What does the phrase, “Art for art’s sake?” mean, and is it true of the purpose of art?
Let’s look at a few examples
For instance, this sculpture is on display at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art:
Levitated Mass by Michael Heizer, 2012. Photo by Ron's Log - Source
Then, compare it to a sculpture that has stood the test of time - not physically, but as being appreciated as art:
Nike of Samothrace Anonymous. Source
Or in another medium, listen to these examples of music:
Symphony No. 7, Allegretto by Ludwig van Beethoven. Source
4'33" by John Cage. Source
If you’re not hearing anything in the second video, it’s because that’s how the piece is actually “performed”.
I don’t think there’d be any disagreement in my saying that the sculptures are very different from each other, and the music couldn’t possibly be any more different.
Aesthetics, Shmaesthetics
One can simply excuse this as having a different aesthetic, but the issue goes deeper than that. Certainly there were different aesthetics in various eras in art. Compare the Classical Period in music, which dates from around 1730-1820, that was formed in reaction to the music of the previous era, the Baroque Period (1600-1750). Composers like Johann Sebastian Bach epitomized the Baroque sensibilities, and yet his music was looked at with disdain by many Classical musicians and critics.
Now, the works of J.S. Bach are idolized by serious classical musicians today (Note: I will use the lower case C to refer to music of traditional acoustic instruments, which is generally historical music taught at conservatories and universities. I reserve the term “Classical” with a capital C to indicate the musical period). In today’s classical music scene, however, you will rarely find composers who are writing in a Baroque aesthetic except as an exercise or as a direct imitation.
Aesthetics change over time, and that is certainly an acceptable idea. But what truly distinguishes a great piece of work? The above examples show not only a changing of aesthetics, but a complete change in fundamental principles of art that have existed for centuries until around the 20th century.
What’s Next?
In this What is Art? series, I will use known famous artworks of past and present to discover what these historic fundamental principles are, and explain why modern art is violating these principles and what possible effects that has on society.
If you enjoyed this post, please follow, upvote, and resteem. I write posts on singing, playing piano, teaching music, and short stories about anything.
