Spoon this

WHAT IS ART?

“It’s hard enough to focus on a 19th. century art history class without your distracting and disgusting sounds.” (I Hate You)

“art, n. skill, esp human skill as opposed to nature; skilful execution as an object in itself; skill applied to imitation and design, as in painting, etc.” (The Concise Oxford Dictionary)

What is the issue here? It seems that it is not so much the distracting and disgusting sounds of “I Hate You’s” fellow art history student – although as we shall see they will come to play a central role in the issue – but rather what she was focusing on. She was focusing on art, 19th. century art as it happens, but art nonetheless. Clearly the issue relates to the content of the concept “art.” What is it?

Art, to be art, according to the COD is necessarily a human skill and not a natural object. A sunset, for example, while perhaps beautiful, is not art. Further, to be art the human skill involved must, once again according to the COD, consist of those attributes which involve “having or showing skill, as in being expert, adroit or ingenious.” But how does one determine how a human skill is to be assessed as being expert, adroit or ingenious? Is there any objective or empirical answer to this question?

No, there is not. However, while there may not be precise objective or empirical criteria determinative of what constitutes art, this does not mean that the concept is wholly relative, subject to the whim of the observer. One cannot legitimately say, for example, “I don’t know much about art but I know what I like.” One’s uninformed subjective liking, in other words, does not establish art as being art. Moreover, the concept of art is not reducible to rational analysis. Like aesthetic concepts such as beauty, symmetry, harmony and so on, its criteria are internal to its execution. It cannot, in other words, be assessed by procedures external to its enactment. So, what does establish art as being art?

If the artistic community or even the individual artist claims that a work of art is art, then it is art. The content of the work of art is irrelevant. In 1912 an autographed urinal was displayed as art at a Parisian exhibition. More recently, Tracy Emin the English artist, recently displayed an unmade bed as art at a London exhibition of modern art and claimed, without contradiction, it was art. Yet one still wonders. How can these objects be called art?

To be art the object or skilled performance must be “framed” in the sense that it is taken out of the quotidian, elevated above the day-by-day objects or performances one encounters in the normal course of events. It is only by such elevation that the object rises to the status of art. It is in that sense that “I Hate You’s” fellow student’s distracting and disgusting sounds could be called art if he intended his performance to be “framed,” that his distracting and disgusting sounds were intended to rise above the day-by-day distracting and disgusting sounds one ordinarily encounters. If that was his intent, then they were art.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

WHAT IS ART? (II): DO MONTREALMAN’S ESSAYS QUALIFY?

“To be art the object or skilled performance must be ‘framed’ in the sense that it is taken out of the quotidian, elevated above the day-by-day objects or performances one encounters in the normal course of events.” Montrealman – “What is Art? (04/03, 4:08PM)

As an example of “framing” one immediately thinks of Andy Warhol’s painting of the Campbell Soup can. The can itself, clearly, is an object one finds in the quotidian, an everyday object one encounters in the normal course of events. However, by painting and, quite literally, “framing” it, the soup can acquired the status of art. It has escaped its quotidian existence. Can the same be said of Montrealman’s essays on Bitch? Several factors can be seen to have application.

In addition to the fact that if the artist claims that a work of art is art by virtue of that very claim as well as the fact that a work of art cannot be assessed by procedures external to its enactment (see “What is Art?” above) – claims with which Montrealman is in compete accord in respect to his essays – a central point is that the act of “framing” itself necessarily entails embedded necessary conditions. Just framing anything won’t do. Certain qualitative factors apply. Nonetheless, in terms of “framing” there can be little doubt that Montrealman has succeeded in raising the level of the ordinary comments on Bitch out of the quotidian, elevating the standard of the usual performances one encounters on this site in the normal course of events. His success in such “framing” is clearly uncontroversial. However, that is not all.

Other elements in addition to, or entailed in, the act of “framing” are necessary. For example, there are those of “showing skill, as in being an expert, adroit or ingenious” (viz. “What is Art?” above) – are required. The question then devolves in demonstrating that Montrealman’s essays fulfill these additional criteria.

In respect to the criterion of “showing skill” there can be little doubt that Montrealman’s essays exemplify this virtue at a high order. In addition to clear developmental structure – he always argues from clearly specified premises to logically unavoidable conclusions – his sentence structure is pleasingly harmonious and his vocabulary elevated at times even to the point of being academic. His skilful performance is underwritten by what is clearly a masterful expertise in matters philosophical which bestows upon his skilful performance both its intellectual rigour and depth. Finally, in his adroit and ingenious handling of his subject matter whatever it might be, Montrealman displays technical mastery given to few, particularly on this board.

So, to our original question: “Do then Montrealman’s essays qualify as art?” There can be only one answer. That answer is a resounding “YES!”

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!