What makes something a work of art? It's easy to think of examples of great works of art such as the Mona Lisa, or the David, or Beethoven's Fifth Symphony; and it's also easy to point out the artistic elements of everyday life such as advertisements, fashion trends, landscaping, and even office stationary. But what qualifies these things as art?
The subject of art has always been one of the primary conversation-starters of philosophy, and the reason is because art is deeply entwined with culture and morality. It's the most unique and mysterious feature of humanity's ancient heritage, our means of creating beauty. Art often conveys a culture's history and values. Indeed, it might even be suggested that values depend on art to some extent. So the mystery of art seems to be of a different sort than the mystery of beauty. (See the definition of beauty here.) Whereas beauty presents itself in all things to some degree, not all things seem to qualify as art. What then is the standard for defining art?
Art in Terms of Merit
For most people, the word "art" is an honor to be bestowed on something. Invite yourself into a conversation between two movie critics, and almost certainly one critic will deny to a popular movie the honor of calling it "art." (Lovers of cinema sometimes express the difference as a "movie" versus a "film.") But the other critic will insist that even if the popular movie doesn't have the refined craft of an Oscar-winner, it still has a truly artistic entertainment value. And this conversation has occurred for all artforms.
"That's not art; this is art."
The word does have a weight of merit to it. Then again, people also use the term loosely. Undoubtedly, many people have gazed in awe at a particularly magnificent sandwich and declared it to be a work of art. And who would dare deny that a kindergartner's doodles are not art and do not belong displayed on the refrigerator? Please understand, I'm not disqualifying these things as art. We're trying to understand why we use the word in the first place.
But unfortunately, this idea of art as an honorable title only confuses the subject. It's worth taking note that art carries significance, but this fact alone does not explain what art is. At best, it hints at art having a high standard for which it strives. But if art strives to meet a standard, then presumably it can also fail to meet that standard; and surely this is what we would call bad art. But if there is such a thing as bad art and good art, then art is not significant merely because it is art. For this reason, I suggest abandoning the colloquial understanding of art in terms of merit, at least for philosophical purposes. The definition of art must be neutral, while the difference between good art and bad art depends on the purpose of art. (See my upcoming journal about the purpose of art.)
Aristotle's Poetics
So a good place to start is Aristotle.
In his book Poetics, Aristotle defines art simply as "imitation." [1]
By this, Aristotle means that art is that which people create to imitate real objects. This would of course include illustrations, but it also includes writing, as well as music and dramatic performances. He then defines three elements which all works of art possess: medium, object, and mode. The medium is its distinct kind, such as writing, sculpture, music, or performance. The object is that which the artwork imitates. And the mode is the difference between a first-person perspective (a persona, as he calls it), and a third-person perspective. In making this distinction about mode, Aristotle is not actually referring to grammar, but to the difference between what we would now call entertainment versus journalism. Though the ancient Greeks didn't think about entertainment as escapism the way we do today, Aristotle roughly discerned what it meant to present a subject artistically instead of factually.
However, Aristotle likely had no idea just how stark that distinction would become about 2,000 years later. Aristotle mentioned that one goal of a visual artist is to imitate an object as closely as possible to its reality. [2]
For the majority of human history, art was very much critiqued based on its realism. But when photography was invented in the 19th century, the goal of realism quickly faded from artistic ambition. Realism had been achieved; objects could be studied from a distance, without ever having actually seen it. Art was freed from the burden of imitation and changed into a means of commentary. For this reason, Aristotle's simple definition of art as "imitation" is not as helpful as it once was. However, he still left us the proper ingredients.
Defining Art
So I humbly submit the following definition of art in three parts.
Art is:
(1) the intentional expression
(2) of an idea or feeling
(3) through a purposed medium.
You might see how these are very similar to Aristotle's three elements. The purposed medium is basically Aristotle's medium; the idea or feeling is like his object; and the intentional expression is an alteration to his mode. I've added the element of intentionality to emphasize that an artist deliberately decides to express or imitate something with artistic bias. This is not to say they're being unfair, only that they have chosen not to depict their subject with the neutral perspective that's expected of journalism.
An Intentional Expression
So this is the first crucial ingredient of art: it must be intentional. The artist must make a conscious decision to create a work of art. The work of art may begin or draw inspiration from a random event, such as accidentally spilling paint on a canvas; but that spoiled canvas is not art, because it was not created intentionally. But, if the person who spilled the paint then looks at the spoiled canvas and decides to modify it by framing it and/or displaying it, then technically the clumsy artist has created art. In this case, the frame and display isolate the picture and define it as an expression of the artist. You might be tempted to object here that spilled paint on a canvas is not art because it does not represent any effort of the artist. But remember that we cannot use the word "art" in terms of merit or being worthwhile, since bad art is possible. That being said, a framed canvas of spilled paint will in most cases be bad art, but it is art nonetheless.
An Idea or Feeling
The second ingredient of art is that it must represent the expression of an idea or feeling. This is perhaps the most questionable aspect of my definition, because it's often difficult to discern precisely what idea or feeling is being expressed by a work of art. Take any classic novel as an example. It's impossible to summarize the meaning of a classic novel in just one sentence or even several pages. Certain themes can be reiterated in fewer words, but applying that explanation requires more words, arguably as many or more than the book itself. How many volumes have been written to analyze the works of Shakespeare? So in this respect, a work of art has a tendency to multiply words when we seek an explanation of its expression. On the other hand, we can scarcely begin to put words to what artforms such as music or pottery express. At least with music we might be able to assign an emotion to it, but what can we say that pottery expresses? I will address that point in a moment.
A Purposed Medium
The third ingredient of art is that it must involve a purposed medium, which is to say: the artistic craft or vehicle chosen by the artist to express an idea or feeling. This point is not difficult, since we typically already think of art in this way. Common artistic mediums include painting, writing, music, and in today's world film and television. The only question that might perplex someone about this third point is what might qualify as an artistic medium. For example, oration is a legitimate artform, one that is studied by teachers and actors. But what is the difference between oration and simply speaking? If I'm speaking, what more could I do to be an orator? The answer is again intentionality, the purposing of the medium. Orators tend to have a structured plan of what they're going to say and how to say it. That being said, you could potentially use anything as a medium to create a work of art.
The Four Modes of Art
Still, artistic mediums come in four modes. This is not the way Aristotle thought of mode, but these four modes are borrowed from Aristotle and his teacher Plato. In Republic, Plato wrote:
"There are three arts which are concerned with all things: one which uses, another which makes, a third which imitates them . . ." - Plato [3]
My versions of these are slightly adjusted, and to them I add the fourth mode of Story, which is the primary subject of Aristotle's Poetics. So altogether, we can understand the four modes of art as these:
(1) Pure art
(2) Practical art
(3) Representational art
(4) Story
Pure Art
I'll briefly explain these here but deal with them in detail in later journals. The first is pure art, which is specifically for pleasing the senses, so it's restricted to only expressing feelings. This includes decorative art such as wreaths and Christmas lights, and it also includes various forms of abstract art like sculpture or painting. This kind of art can be symbolic in a cultural context, but it differs from practical art and representational art in that it's only decorative and it's not a depiction of another object. However, music without words is the primary occupant of this mode, because music is the purest artform. But that does not mean it's the easiest artform. Music works only in accordance with strict mathematical rules, and once properly learned, certain harmonies carry seemingly universal meanings that easily translate across cultures. I'll save the glory of music for a later journal.
Practical Art
The second mode is practical art, which is exactly what it implies: it's useful. Furniture, architecture, cars, pottery, woven baskets, or any number of pragmatic objects. Also, candles and perfumes, the culinary arts, and clothing also fit this mode. But what does pragmatic art express? The answer is deceptively simple. Practical art is the expression of its function. Pottery is useful for holding and storing things. Artistic pottery glorifies its function. A cool car draws attention to its efficiency. Beautiful furniture reflects suitable ergonomics and moods. Clothing brings artistic glory to the human body.
Representational Art
The third mode is representational art, which aims to portray an actual object or idea. Paintings, photographs, and sculptures fit this mode, as well as writing. Poetry and painting can be abstract, but they usually use images and ideas to communicate. Therefore music with words is also in this mode. Keep in mind, however, that journalism is not a representational art, as Aristotle might have conjectured. Representational art only means that it uses definable objects and ideas as its subjects, but those subjects are still being depicted from an artistic perspective.
Story
And the fourth mode is Story, which is the oldest and most unique mode of art. Story is the only completely metaphysical artform; it's not abstract art, but it exists only in the abstract. Story is both a mode of art and itself an artform. The reason for this unique characteristic is that a story exists apart from the medium that tells it. A story can exist purely in the mind, replaying like a memory. In this sense, it's purposed medium is the mental dramatic presentation of its plot. But once it has been applied to a physical medium, its form changes to match the medium, thus rendering that artwork as a form of storytelling. And once the story has been told to another person, they can separate the story from its physical medium, so that they now possess the story.
There is much more to be said about Story at a later time, but this makes it clear that these four modes of art can overlap and do so very often. For example, pure art may in fact have a pragmatic use, even if it doesn't appear to have utility. I have three paperweights which are made of blown-glass, but if you didn't know they were paperweights, they would just as easily be pure art. Practical art can also be representational art; a cookie jar can be made to look like Santa Claus. Representational art rarely overlaps with pure art since pure art is usually abstract, but some abstract art can elicit feelings that are uniquely associated with certain things. Consider sand art that evokes the beach, or styles of music representing times and places. And of course, the mode of storytelling requires the representational mode in the physical.
Conclusion
Hopefully this summary makes evident that the philosophy of art is a deeply rich subject worthy of thoughtful exploration. If you're not persuaded, look around you. Look at the things that surround you everyday. Consider the three elements of art: the intentional expression of an idea or feeling through a purposed medium. Consider the four modes of art: pure, practical, representational, Story. How many of the things around you fit these definitions and categories? You're likely to find that most of your world is composed of art. And when you start to see the beauty of the art around you, compare it to the beauty of the natural world. Isn't there a strange resemblance between the objects of nature and the things we create? Look in the mirror. Are you creator or creation? Are you artist or art? Perhaps our artistry is what makes us in the image of our Creator.
Aristotle: Poetics, 2. Poetry as a Species of Imitation (Penguin Books, 1996) pg. 3
Ibid, 3.1 Origins, pg. 6
Plato: Republic, Book 10, 601 (Barnes and Noble, 2004) pg. 327
Music by Hannah Parrott
Comments