I’ve always wanted to find a way to ask a few of my favorite authors over for a nice, leisurely Sunday brunch, and that became the idea for this blog.
Each week I plan to invite a couple friends to this blog so I can ask them a question. My friends will share their answers with me and you, gentle readers, can give your answer to my question in the comment section below. I’ll choose one random person from the comments and reward them with an ebook surprise, it’s that simple! Comments are moderated, so don’t despair if you’re not posted immediately! All commenters will be entered into a drawing, so don’t be SHY!
Last week’s winner is: druuuuuuumroll please: Chris Muldoon! I’ll be sending you an email asking which ebook you fancy pronto! Thanks for playing along.
This week I gave my authors a tough assignment. It’s actually a question you’ll find in theory of knowledge classes, and very few people who signed up for my brunches wanted to take it on! Fortunately, in the three people here I have some very awesome authors who aren’t afraid of a challenge, so without further ado, I’ll ask this weeks guests to:
Define Art.
What is Art?
I saw this on a medallion at the Sawdust Festival in Laguna Beach, CA this summer and loved it so much I just have to quote it. It comes from artist, Jennifer Yane, and considering that I write the Beautiful Boys of Romance, it seems perfect to me:
Art is spirituality in drag.
: ) – Author Tara Lain
Buy FAST Balls here
Amazon
All Romance Ebooks
Kobo
Like obscenity, most people think of art as something they know when they see it. I have vivid memories of my father glancing over my various art class textbooks and commenting on Duchamp’s Fountain, “That’s not art!” The Society of Independent Artists would have agreed with him — back in 1917.Yes, my dad is a little bit of a throwback, but he’s not unique in confusing quality with personal preference. The default position for a lot of us is, “I don’t know anything about art, but I know what I like.” So it’s probably natural that the logical thought progression would be that if you like it, it must be art.
But that’s a dangerous position: the notion that if you like something it must be quality or that if you dislike something, it must be flawed. I personally struggle with the concept that all art is subjective, and yet clearly concepts like Beauty and Good and Obscenity vary from culture to culture — and even within any given culture over a period of time.
I think the essential problem with the idea of art as subjective or personal, is that within that construct, the responsibility for what is or is not art lies with the audience — whereas I believe, by strictest definition, it actually lies with the artist. For me, whether something is, or is not, art is strictly to do with artistic intent.
The moment an act is performed deliberately in order to bring about a reaction from one’s self or another, it becomes art. Well, no. Because by that definition both murder and masturbation would be art. So I suppose I would have to qualify that to: the moment an act is deliberately performed to provoke an aesthetic — positive or negative — reaction from one’s self or another, it becomes art.
The catch is that what would be considered aesthetic at any given time is subjective. But the intent to provoke or stimulate the reaction is not subjective. – Author Josh Lanyon
Now, Gentle Readers: Tell us how you define art HERE on my website for a chance to win an ebook from one of these fabulous authors!
It takes training to see as art something outside personal preference. I was lucky enough to have parents who thought art history was a valid college degree, so I see art most everywhere. (I eventually succumbed to economic necessity and got 2 business degrees.)
The lovely thing about art is that we don’t have to do it for a living in order to appreciate and enjoy it.
I agree with Rick Reed that art is about making an emotional connection. Leo Tolstoy suggested that art should be considered as one of the conditions of human life. Words, images and actions can be considered art. Josh Lanyon’s point about “whether something is, or is not, art is strictly to do with artistic intent” is a great point. Ultimately though, art is a union between artist and audience.
Absolutely. There should be an emotional connection, good or bad.
Oh my! I’d have to say that Josh’s definition is closest to how I’d describe what art is to me (if I’d had the ability to verbalise it).
Of course there would be those who argue that sunlight on a tree leave is art, but I always come back to the idea that art does not necessarily equal beauty.
I also like this definition, from Henry James: “We work in the dark — we do what we can — we give what we have. Our doubt is our passion and our passion is our task. The rest is the madness of art.”
That’s such a great quote, I need to embroider that on a pillow or something.
Oooh. Lovin’ that Rick. Thanks to you and Henry. : )
Clearly one of these three has had a LOT of practice bullshitting their way through college composition courses. 😀
I love Rich and Tara’s answers!
Hi Josh. Actually, while my answer could be embroidered on ZAM’s pillow, i love the quip because i do believe that art is a function of truth and beauty — AKA spirit. And, of course, i love the drag! : )
Art would be something created from a person’s imagination that is either pleasing to a person or shows an important ideas or feelings. For example, my mother made a beautiful double wedding ring quilt, but, other than the colors and choice of fabrics, she followed a pattern. For me, that would be art as she did use her imagination and did not use “traditional” colors–but someone else might disagree.
See, I would agree. It’s about the intent not the results.
Well, for starters, I guess you can say that art is high and low, competent and inexperienced, good and bad. It’s also highly subjective, and yet subject to internal sets of teachable rules that only the best can master, and only the best can break. By way of example, I love John Coltrane, but I call his later work “art” rather than “noise” because I wouldn’t dare disrespect a man as talented as he was, who was clearly experimenting with a genre that I’ll never completely understand (you can’t break the rules until you understand, and my Lord, did he understand them really, really well). Ultimately, I guess if I had to try to give a definition of “art,” I would say that it is a creative product, the best examples of which demonstrate a technical mastery of rules (and a simultaneous ability to make it look like the rules don’t matter), whose overall presentation evokes a reaction, ideally good, but a bad one can be okay, as well (it would depend on the artist’s intent, I suppose — if the intent is to provoke, it might be okay if the response is mostly bad, if, over time, objective viewers can see appreciate the provocative purpose, especially if the message is conveyed in a reasonably clear fashion).
and only the best can break
If only that were true! 😉
Only the best can break them effectively, lol! 😉
Ha! I’ll go with that. ;-D
I get a lot of people asking when they should be “allowed” to define themselves as writers and I think this is a lot like defining art.
I told someone recently, “The minute you sit down and pull into your mind all your earthly and spiritual resources — everything you know about craft, about story, about language, and about empathy — with the object of sharing that with another human being, you are a writer.”
Maybe we’re onto something here. Maybe intent is the key to art as well?
I think you’re a “writer” the minute you write.
“Author” probably has to do with being published. Or at least the perception of author has to do with being published (technically it would just have to do with authoring something, but…)
I do think it is all about intent, yeah.
As an art historian I grapple with this question every day with my students. For me, art is anything that forces a visceral response from both the creator of the work and the viewer. It is anything that a person creates from their imagination to make a statement. However, I don’t believe art has to be a positive creation. I would argue that some forms of murder can be seen as art, at least in the eyes of the person perpetuating the act.
Josh, I love that you mentioned Duchamp’s fountain. I remember having heated debates in class about it. 🙂
I agree, Jaime. I think if the murderer is intending the act of violence to be art, it is, in fact, art. And many a murder mystery has gone with that theme.
Of course most murder is simply about want and greed, and there is no artistic intent.
But aesthetics is confused with beauty, and I think that’s incorrect. Aesthetics can be ugliness as well. Calculated ugliness is certainly art.
Or so I think.
Zam, I like your definition of “writer”. I write every day. But, because I write in academia about the history of ancient cultures I’ve had writers of other genres (mostly fiction) tell me I’m not really a writer. They seem to define a writer as someone who makes their living from the sales of books. Academic authors rarely make money from their books and articles. By extension, I think people define “artist” the same way. If a person doesn’t make money from their art, then they’re not truly an artist.
Non-fiction doesn’t get nearly the respect it should!
Well, that mindset presupposes that money is how we define ourselves, but it’s not how I define myself. That’s probably because I don’t have a history as a big earner…
ZAM