What is art?

August 22, 2008

Lately I’ve been wondering.

What is art?

I don’t mean, what qualifies as art. No, that’s a little too subjective. Instead I’m asking, what is art objectively?

So, I started thinking of different kinds of art throughout different periods of human history. I thought of cave paintings. Egyptian hieroglyphics. The drawings in the catacombs. The paintings of the renaissance. Sculptures. Poetry. The plays of Shakespeare. Modern movies…I couldn’t stop coming up with examples. But I started to notice a trend. Something, I thought, which could help me give an objective explanation of what I believe art is.

The trend I saw was storytelling. I saw communication.

Sometimes the story being told is quite obvious and quite intentional. As is the case when one of our ancient ancestors depicts a great hunt on the inside of a cave wall.

Sometimes the message being communicated is still very intentional, but more esoteric in meaning. I would suggest that maybe a book such as The Man Who Was Thursday would fall into this category.

Sometimes the message isn’t even clear to the artist. Often art is one’s own attempt at communicating a story or emotion that exists just outside of his or her conscious grasp. I know for me, for example, when I’m writing a poem, I’m trying to say something, or communicate something I can’t quite get my head around. I know what I’m trying to say. I feel what I’m trying to say. But the only way I can communicate what’s inside is through poetry.

Sometimes art is created for others.

Sometimes art is realized as a way for the artist to communicate with his or her self.

So, my current definition for art is: Art is the result of an attempt at communication.

Does this explanation hold up for all forms of art?

I think so.

Even in the case of cooking, which I consider an art, there is a message being conveyed. The message may be the chef’s attempt at communicating the rustic beauty of a small village outside of Lucca, Italy. Or it may be the home cooks attempt at conveying a childhood memory. Or maybe it’s just a mother expressing her love for her children.

I think this explanation also helps me critique, judge, and/or admire art. On the basis that art is communication, I can judge a piece of art on the quality of the message being communicated as well as the ability of the artist to communicate the message. Some people judge an artists technique. To me, as admirable as technique is, it’s only important in so far as it furthers the communication.

As of this moment, I’m pretty happy with this definition. But I would love to hear your thoughts.

9 Responses to “What is art?”


  1. The end of art is not a message, but Beauty. That is, in part, its own unified being. I highly recommend Art and Scholasticism by Jacques Maritain for some great insights on this particular questions (complete text online here: http://www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/art.htm ). The What is Art? question is, I think, largely a result of the expressionistic attitude of the past century. It is no wonder we ask this question when for the past 100 years the answer has been “well, what do YOU think it is?” When I started thinking hard about questions like these, I soon came to the realization that I didn’t have to start from scratch, but that there was a wealth of thought (a great deal of it from the great minds in the Church) about the matter.


  2. One other thought: when we say that Art is an attempt at communication, it seems to subjugate the form to the attempt at message. Unless ‘communicate’ takes on a very loose meaning, I don’t know if Language and Art can be equated, no matter how often they share the same space…

  3. professio Says:

    David,
    Thank you for your response. I’ve been looking for a book recently that would aid me in my quest to broaden my understanding of art. It looks like Art and Scholasticism is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you for that.

    I guess I was trying to give an objective definition of art. Because though I believe in an objective Truth, I believe beauty is subjective. Plus, I have seen things that are very ugly that I would still consider art—not necessarily art I like, but art just the same.

    I did intend for my use of “communication” to be loose, but I also intended to imply that art was the attempt at communication. Or more specifically, the result of the attempt. I don’t mean to imply that the attempt is always deliberate however. I know that sounds a little esoteric, but I think expressionistic art is an attempt at communication though it may not be deliberate. Does that make sense?

    With that said though, I think I see your points. I think what you are saying is that art is at its essence, beauty. Objectively or subjectively. Though it may communicate a message at times, it does not need to.

    I can’t say I agree…yet, but as I’ve stated before, I don’t have any education in art. I only have an appreciation. So, I know I have a lot to learn. And I welcome the discussions. I know they will help educate me. No doubt you’ve already got me looking at things a little differently.


  4. Hmmm. Subjective beauty. I guess the question should be “What is Beauty?” Posit: “Beauty is the attraction to perfection.” (I think this is St. Thomas.) I like to therefore think of it as the attractive power of God. Can such a thing be subjective? Hmm. I suspect not, but it’s something to think about.

  5. Richard Froggatt Says:

    I’m glad I waited until today to comment on this. Yesterday when I read it I was trying to think of a way to describe what I thought. Picking up on the theme of communication it would seem that art would be more than just a language but the pouring of ones’ self into a work to bring their self to those who are outside of their self because either they are unable to communicate in other ways or the reciever is unable to understand due to inability.

    In this way it seems that all of creation is God’s work of art (which is probably exactly what you just said above).

    I also just ran across a post which made me think of this post.

    http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/206168?eng=y

    In Christ,

    Richard

  6. professio Says:

    Well, I can’t disagree with that. :) God is indeed perfection.

    But in as much as we fall short in representing His beauty, our art too falls short. Also, our own ability to recognize such beauty will also vary. So, while it can be said that true beauty is an attraction to perfection, which is fulfilled only in God, our ability to reproduce such beauty is limited and our ability to recognize it in lesser degrees is subjective.

    So, I guess I don’t necessarily disagree. Perfect beauty is not subjective. But our ability to recognize lesser forms of beauty is subjective. And all man made forms of art are less than perfect.

  7. professio Says:

    Hey Richard,
    Thanks for your insight. After reading yours and David’s comments, I think I need to find a different word to use other than communication. I think I mean it in a way that is less exacting. Because even when I am pouring my self out into my work, I believe I am still “communicating” in the sense that I am telling the admirer something about myself whether they know it or not. But in the strictest sense of the word, I suppose communication presupposes deliberate intent and reception of a message.

    I thumbed through the article you linked to, it looks right on. I’m going to read it in its entirety tonight probably. Thanks for sharing.


  8. [...] objective thing. Art has an objective ideal. And art has a subjective appeal. There’s been some discussion on this blog about what art is. I have made the argument that objectively speaking, art (as a “thing”) is communication. [...]


  9. [...] public links >> communicate What is art? Saved by esvenson on Sun 26-10-2008 Retooling Computer Applications course Saved by [...]


Leave a Reply