Art and the "Murder Case Photographs" Series
The prevailing definition of art is based on the artist's intent. If (s)he intended it to be art then it's art. Marcel Duchamp's display of a men's urinal was the first example of this definition. He was an artist, he intended the urinal to be a work of art, so that's what it was.
Same with Andy Warhol's Brillo Boxes. Arthur Danto persuasively calls that (1964?) creation one of the most important in the entire history of western art.
So, what of an object which was not intended to be a work of art but which is widely considered to be by viewers? For example, the pre-historic cave paintings of bulls and horses in Europe? Marcel de Cro Magnon did not intend those to be art but we call them art unhesitatingly.
Or the murder case photographs that we have begun to publish here. Number 2 in the series below, the beautiful, stark, night-time photograph of the white car against an inky black sky on adeserted unpaved road is art in the minds of most people who view it, I'm confident. However it's creator was not an artist nor did he intend the photograph as a work of art. He was a crime scene technician, and his intent was to document the scene of a murder.
What of our publishing it here? We viewed it as a work of art, we intended it to be art when we published it. Under the prevailing definition of art we are artistes.
Art is abstract non-linguistic creation or expression of emotion.* Duchamp's Fountain and Warhol's Brillo Boxes are art because they made (some) people contemplative of the question "what is art?" So are the pre-historic cave paintings and these murder case photographs even though the creator of each was not an artist.
-Benjamin Harris
*Damn it, I had a definition of art all worked out (to MY satisfaction) and encapsulated in a short statement like the above but I don't think what's above is exactly what I wrote previously. So now this long explanation.
Arthur Danto and Hans Belting have written that "Art" began after painting ceased to be picture-writing as it was in the Church prior to about 1400. With widespread illiteracy the most efficacious method of teaching was with painting. Danto wrote that art ended with Brillo Boxes because Warhol had turned art into philosophy.
This idea of Art excludes pre-historic cave paintings and the magnificent medieval church paintings and stained glass. Those are considered by most people unquestionably to be art so the view here is that Belting's and Danto's definition is unsuitable. Those works of art are included in the definition offered above because of their effect on today's viewer even though their creators did not intend them to be art.
Fountain and Brillo Boxes meet the definition because they were expressions (rather than communications) by their creators and intended to produce an emotion, or better here, a feeling, of contemplation
The qualifier "abstract" in the definition is meant to exclude real creation of emotion, like if you actually see someone really kill another person (There the "creator" is called a "murderer" not an artist.)
"Non-linguistic," is meant to exclude literature but not poetry. This is an attempt to account for this vexatious issue in art theory. Most art theorists consider literature to be in a different (not inferior) category from art. Obviously, it is completely linguistic. Poetry is considered by most to be a sub-category of art because although it uses words it creates its emotional effect by the abstract structure of the words and sentences.
"Creation or expression" is meant to account for the creator's intent (expression), and sometimes in the alternative, the effect (creation) of the work on the viewer, regardless of the creator's intent. Thus cave paintings and murder photographs can be considered art because of their effect on the viewer, not the creator's intent.
In the view here, the essential component of any definition of art is emotion. A work cannot be art if neither its intent or effect is unemotional, if it is for example intellectual or communicative. A work of philosophy, e.g. Hobbes Leviathan, no matter how influential or important is not art for several reasons: (1) it is communication rather than expression. (2) it is written, i.e. linguistic (3) it is aimed at the intellect not the emotions or the "soul." Our definition is influenced greatly by Arthur Schopenhauer's writings on art. To Schopenhauer the purest art form was music because it bypassed the intellect entirely and went straight to the soul. In our view, Schopenhauer was right.
In the same way the definition offered here can be used to make normative distinctions among works of art. Duchamp's urinal and Warhol's Brillo Boxes are barely art by our definition because they are so intellectual. I guess "contemplativeness" is an emotion, but barely so. It's more an act of the mind. The intent and effect of Fountain and Brillo Boxes were communicative and intellectual. In intent they are like the medieval church paintings but to most viewers, including me, they also do not produce emotion, as do the church paintings. Therefore, if Fountain and Brillo Boxes meet the definition of art, they do so barely and may be (and are considered by me) to be inferior art.
-BH
The prevailing definition of art is based on the artist's intent. If (s)he intended it to be art then it's art. Marcel Duchamp's display of a men's urinal was the first example of this definition. He was an artist, he intended the urinal to be a work of art, so that's what it was.
Same with Andy Warhol's Brillo Boxes. Arthur Danto persuasively calls that (1964?) creation one of the most important in the entire history of western art.
So, what of an object which was not intended to be a work of art but which is widely considered to be by viewers? For example, the pre-historic cave paintings of bulls and horses in Europe? Marcel de Cro Magnon did not intend those to be art but we call them art unhesitatingly.
Or the murder case photographs that we have begun to publish here. Number 2 in the series below, the beautiful, stark, night-time photograph of the white car against an inky black sky on adeserted unpaved road is art in the minds of most people who view it, I'm confident. However it's creator was not an artist nor did he intend the photograph as a work of art. He was a crime scene technician, and his intent was to document the scene of a murder.
What of our publishing it here? We viewed it as a work of art, we intended it to be art when we published it. Under the prevailing definition of art we are artistes.
Art is abstract non-linguistic creation or expression of emotion.* Duchamp's Fountain and Warhol's Brillo Boxes are art because they made (some) people contemplative of the question "what is art?" So are the pre-historic cave paintings and these murder case photographs even though the creator of each was not an artist.
-Benjamin Harris
*Damn it, I had a definition of art all worked out (to MY satisfaction) and encapsulated in a short statement like the above but I don't think what's above is exactly what I wrote previously. So now this long explanation.
Arthur Danto and Hans Belting have written that "Art" began after painting ceased to be picture-writing as it was in the Church prior to about 1400. With widespread illiteracy the most efficacious method of teaching was with painting. Danto wrote that art ended with Brillo Boxes because Warhol had turned art into philosophy.
This idea of Art excludes pre-historic cave paintings and the magnificent medieval church paintings and stained glass. Those are considered by most people unquestionably to be art so the view here is that Belting's and Danto's definition is unsuitable. Those works of art are included in the definition offered above because of their effect on today's viewer even though their creators did not intend them to be art.
Fountain and Brillo Boxes meet the definition because they were expressions (rather than communications) by their creators and intended to produce an emotion, or better here, a feeling, of contemplation
The qualifier "abstract" in the definition is meant to exclude real creation of emotion, like if you actually see someone really kill another person (There the "creator" is called a "murderer" not an artist.)
"Non-linguistic," is meant to exclude literature but not poetry. This is an attempt to account for this vexatious issue in art theory. Most art theorists consider literature to be in a different (not inferior) category from art. Obviously, it is completely linguistic. Poetry is considered by most to be a sub-category of art because although it uses words it creates its emotional effect by the abstract structure of the words and sentences.
"Creation or expression" is meant to account for the creator's intent (expression), and sometimes in the alternative, the effect (creation) of the work on the viewer, regardless of the creator's intent. Thus cave paintings and murder photographs can be considered art because of their effect on the viewer, not the creator's intent.
In the view here, the essential component of any definition of art is emotion. A work cannot be art if neither its intent or effect is unemotional, if it is for example intellectual or communicative. A work of philosophy, e.g. Hobbes Leviathan, no matter how influential or important is not art for several reasons: (1) it is communication rather than expression. (2) it is written, i.e. linguistic (3) it is aimed at the intellect not the emotions or the "soul." Our definition is influenced greatly by Arthur Schopenhauer's writings on art. To Schopenhauer the purest art form was music because it bypassed the intellect entirely and went straight to the soul. In our view, Schopenhauer was right.
In the same way the definition offered here can be used to make normative distinctions among works of art. Duchamp's urinal and Warhol's Brillo Boxes are barely art by our definition because they are so intellectual. I guess "contemplativeness" is an emotion, but barely so. It's more an act of the mind. The intent and effect of Fountain and Brillo Boxes were communicative and intellectual. In intent they are like the medieval church paintings but to most viewers, including me, they also do not produce emotion, as do the church paintings. Therefore, if Fountain and Brillo Boxes meet the definition of art, they do so barely and may be (and are considered by me) to be inferior art.
-BH
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.