Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Baraka_Guru · 05-13-2010, 05:41 AM

Occasionally, the running question of what is art crops up here in various threads. More recently, a thread about a website containing "artful erotica" raised it once again. It raises the question: Is it art, or is it simply porn?

It's a question as subjective as any, the question of art. It's been asked and answered for centuries, and so you'll find a long history of aesthetics. Of course, the format of the forum isn't necessarily the best place to go into that in great detail. However, I'm interested to hear your own personal take on the question.

What is art?
What factors lead you to designate something the status of "art"?
What factors lead you to deny it?
What are some examples of each?

I find that the subjectivity will vary genre to genre, form to form, medium to medium, and so that would be an interesting way to focus on the question.

I'll start by stating some of the early formative concepts and ideas that have led me to formulate my own ideas of art.

First, I believe that, essentially, art is the philosophy of art. That is to say, art is a self-conscious exploration of the meanings, values, and cultural influences that are at play within art as it takes form. It is about itself and its aesthetic status within that context. The manifestation is the message, which can be found at its core. Its purpose is to differentiate itself from reality in that it carries a message about one or more aspects of reality. [This idea is not my own. But, alas, I have forgotten its source. I'm sure it has an undercurrent in many ideas of aesthetics.]

Next, I would like to draw attention to the artist by pointing to the book Art Lessons: meditations on the creative life by Deborah J. Haynes, a Professor of Art and Art History at the University of Colorado. In her book, she states that art is about more than making forms and such (i.e. the manifestation side of art). The artist him or herself must be "a citizen of the world, knowledgeable about the past, analytical about the present, and reflective about the future." More poignantly, she states that the artist must realize that "the future is at risk." This unavoidable reality, Haynes suggests, gives importance to the work of the artist.

Finally, one of my foundational teachers of poetry and criticism was a classically educated Oxford scholar. He taught what I think to be the best, most cogent definition of poetry: "Poetry is the longest distance between point A and point B."

I would later be taught by another great influence of mine that there is a reason why the poet simply doesn't just come out and say what he means. Why does he take six stanzas of blank verse wrought with metaphor to tell the reader his dog died? It's because such a poem isn't about communicating this fact; it's about poetry. It's about art. It's art.

When you read a masterful love poem, realize this: the poet likely has a greater love for language than he does the subject of the poem. There are far better ways to express and reciprocate love than to spend god knows how many hours writing a poem about it. Despite what you might think, poets don't necessarily make great lovers. Language is an alluring mistress.

So there you have it. To me, art is about art; it is created within the context of the future being at risk; and it is a playful displacement from reality and direct communication of meaning. This, of course, is speaking in a general sense. I will reserve further thoughts until the thread unfolds.

So, tell me: what is art?

05-13-2010, 05:41 AM	#1 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	What is "art"? Occasionally, the running question of what is art crops up here in various threads. More recently, a thread about a website containing "artful erotica" raised it once again. It raises the question: Is it art, or is it simply porn? It's a question as subjective as any, the question of art. It's been asked and answered for centuries, and so you'll find a long history of aesthetics. Of course, the format of the forum isn't necessarily the best place to go into that in great detail. However, I'm interested to hear your own personal take on the question. What is art? What factors lead you to designate something the status of "art"? What factors lead you to deny it? What are some examples of each? I find that the subjectivity will vary genre to genre, form to form, medium to medium, and so that would be an interesting way to focus on the question. I'll start by stating some of the early formative concepts and ideas that have led me to formulate my own ideas of art. First, I believe that, essentially, art is the philosophy of art. That is to say, art is a self-conscious exploration of the meanings, values, and cultural influences that are at play within art as it takes form. It is about itself and its aesthetic status within that context. The manifestation is the message, which can be found at its core. Its purpose is to differentiate itself from reality in that it carries a message about one or more aspects of reality. [This idea is not my own. But, alas, I have forgotten its source. I'm sure it has an undercurrent in many ideas of aesthetics.] Next, I would like to draw attention to the artist by pointing to the book Art Lessons: meditations on the creative life by Deborah J. Haynes, a Professor of Art and Art History at the University of Colorado. In her book, she states that art is about more than making forms and such (i.e. the manifestation side of art). The artist him or herself must be "a citizen of the world, knowledgeable about the past, analytical about the present, and reflective about the future." More poignantly, she states that the artist must realize that "the future is at risk." This unavoidable reality, Haynes suggests, gives importance to the work of the artist. Finally, one of my foundational teachers of poetry and criticism was a classically educated Oxford scholar. He taught what I think to be the best, most cogent definition of poetry: "Poetry is the longest distance between point A and point B." I would later be taught by another great influence of mine that there is a reason why the poet simply doesn't just come out and say what he means. Why does he take six stanzas of blank verse wrought with metaphor to tell the reader his dog died? It's because such a poem isn't about communicating this fact; it's about poetry. It's about art. It's art. When you read a masterful love poem, realize this: the poet likely has a greater love for language than he does the subject of the poem. There are far better ways to express and reciprocate love than to spend god knows how many hours writing a poem about it. Despite what you might think, poets don't necessarily make great lovers. Language is an alluring mistress. So there you have it. To me, art is about art; it is created within the context of the future being at risk; and it is a playful displacement from reality and direct communication of meaning. This, of course, is speaking in a general sense. I will reserve further thoughts until the thread unfolds. So, tell me: what is art? __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 05-13-2010 at 05:56 AM..