Toward a Definition of Art and Bonsai as Art

[Chris Johnston]

Again, let me thank everyone who weighed in on this issue. Defining the terms we bandy about is absolutely crucial to human communication. I appreciate everyone who added to the thread.

 

[Anonymous User]

So it would indeed appear that we agree that art can happen without intent, so "intent" can be left out of the definition. This is good, it is a start. I was prepared to bring up the Literati and other such "rebels" who decidenly broke away from the art community and in no way intended to create art as defined at the time. In attempting not to create "art" they did so. It would seem that art can happen even if the intent is not to create it at all.

Ash, grouper, and Brent all made some very valid and intelligent points on the subject which causes us to reevaluate the definition preswented once again. This is a good thing, by doing so we are eliminating some previous "truths" spoken here and adding others. Hopefully we can distill it down further?

But I am afrai the definition got longer for me instead of shorter...

Art is the intentional or non-intentional product of a creative and talented application of skills which creates an object that is more than the sum of its parts (ie more than paint on a canvas) which suspends belief or transends reality and affects the viewer on an emotional, intellectual, or spiritual level. Images that invoke combinations of the above levels are the most successful as art and can be considered high art as opposed to those that invoke only a single level, which can be considered low art.


Could Brent's "suspends belief or transends reality" be considered movement on a intellectual level? Could we just leave out intent all together?

Art is the product of a creative and talented application of skills which creates an object that is more than the sum of its parts (ie more than paint on a canvas) which affects the viewer on an emotional, intellectual, or spiritual level. Images that invoke combinations of the above levels are the most successful as art and can be considered high art as opposed to those that invoke only a single level, which can be considered low art.

Could we refine this further by taking creativity and talent as a given?
Could we also take making something more than the sum of it's parts as a given also?

Art is the product of an application of skills which creates an object that affects the viewer on an emotional, intellectual, or spiritual level. Images that invoke combinations of the above levels are the most successful as art and can be considered high art as opposed to those that invoke only a single level, which can be considered low art.

Could we also leave out defining different levels of art?

Art is the product of an application of skills which creates an object that affects the viewer on an emotional, intellectual, or spiritual level.

Close, but we need to add something back in, something that defines the great from the not so great....


Art is the product of a talented application of skills which affects the viewer on an emotional, intellectual, or spiritual level.

Not quite, because as discussed, one beholder is not enough...



Art is the product of a talented application of skills which affects the community on an emotional, intellectual, or spiritual level.



Wow, now that is distilled



Will

 

[Attila Soos]

Grouper, I would have to agree that the "by-product" is almost always the original intent of the artist. Except in the case of happy accident, by which, for example, a potter collapses a pot accidentally and it sparks a new direction in his work, the artist begins to create with the end in mind.

Not quite so. The happy accident, in the case of the potter, has nothing to do with the intent, which is still there. That's because the potter will make a conscious decision whether or not he will incorporate this event in his art or not. The intent is still there. The potter is using the qualities available in the material (in this case, the material has a dent or a crack), in order to create his art. The potter is also using the physical and chemical reactions that happen at high temperature, inside the kiln, to create his art. If he decides that the crack or dent is out of place, he trashes the pot. So, it is all a matter of a conscious decision and selection by the potter/artist. He only selects the material that meets his expectation, and discards the rest. There is no "accident" in this process of selection.

Same with my bonsai: nature creates the material, through a series of events outside my control. But I am the one who decides which one to use and which to discard. Nothing is left to the accident, every single detail is examined and decided upon. Same is in the case of the potter. Ask the potter: how come that he discarded all 45 mishaps and has kept only 1. He will tell you that part of creating pottery art is to decide which material is worth keeping.

Remember that these natural events shape the character of the material, but have nothing to do with the creation of art. When the artists takes that material and creates a work of art, there is nothing accidental about it.

 

[Anonymous User]

Attila,

I see your point, but still have to differ in that, although there may be an "intent", the intent does not mandate success in creating art. Art can be created with or without intent and therefore, intent is not a precuser to art.....much garbage is created with the "intent" to create art.

 

[Attila Soos]

Attila,

I see your point, but still have to differ in that, although there may be an "intent", the intent does not mandate success in creating art. Art can be created with or without intent and therefore, intent is not a precuser to art.....much garbage is created with the "intent" to create art.

We all agree that the intent does not mandate success in art. And yes, much garbage is created with the intent.


I think that there may be a miscommunication factor here. You are thinking that the artist just want to "do his thing", and the art "happens", as a result. You mentioned the Zen art, and this is a good example.

The monk sits down to do calligraphy. He is disinterested in the "success" of the outcome: what happens, happens. He doesn't care about creating art, just wants to have some fun, or meditate.

So, you would say: he has no intent on creating art.
And we say: he does have the intent to create calligraphy.

The intent to create calligraphy is what we are talking about, as the "intent" in art. To work on a certain medium, and do something with that medium.

Nobody has the intent to create "art" in general. People have the intent to paint, to sculpt, to draw, to bonsai, to sing, or to act. But this IS the intent that makes art happen.

 

[Anonymous User]

We are, after all, in agreement.



Will

 

[Chris Johnston]

So it would indeed appear that we agree that art can happen without intent, so "intent" can be left out of the definition. This is good, it is a start. I was prepared to bring up the Literati and other such "rebels" who decidenly broke away from the art community and in no way intended to create art as defined at the time. In attempting not to create "art" they did so. It would seem that art can happen even if the intent is not to create it at all.

Is this guy having the same conversation as the rest of us? This is the exact opposite of the consensus of other members of this debate. What is going on here?

 

[Smoke]

Again, let me thank everyone who weighed in on this issue. Defining the terms we bandy about is absolutely crucial to human communication. I appreciate everyone who added to the thread.

...and will absolutely change nothing in the way any of us here do bonsai. They are what they are.

 

[Anonymous User]

...and will absolutely change nothing in the way any of us here do bonsai. They are what they are.

A classic example of another attempt to marginalize the discussion of art and its relationship to bonsai.

Please let those of us who actually wish to further our understanding of such matters do so. You have the right to stay inside your own limited mindset, please don't demand that we all join you and put on blinders as well.

I have heard these same words "will absolutely change nothing in the way any of us here do bonsai" a few times before, in the discussion of three dimensional bonsai and the myth of the single front for example. They were as wrong then as they are now.

Anything that furthers or understanding of any aspects of bonsai changes our outlook and in doing so, changes the way we view and design bonsai, even if only on a subconscious level. Even after careful thought, if we realize a idea put forth is wrong, it confirms our own beliefs and that also affects how we view and design bonsai.

In short, there is not now, nor has there ever been any harm in open, intelligent discussion on the many aspects of bonsai. This is a discussion forum, one can not design bonsai here, one can only exchange ideas and information. Your attempt to devalue this exchange is actually what is harmful to the art.



Will

 

[No it's not...]

So far no one has mentioned that art is first and foremost a way of communicating, and as that both the "sender" and "recipient" needs to "speak the same language". That would make art highly contextual, and the "viewer" would have to share the "language" of the artist.

Another thing I would like to adress is the phrase "Art is the intentional or non-intentional product of a creative and talented application of skills which creates an object that is more than the sum of its parts". To me, a better way of expressing it would be "art is the communication of experience through means that the artist finds appropriate". To state that it has to be an object really narrows the possible expressions that art can take.

 

[Anonymous User]

So far no one has mentioned that art is first and foremost a way of communicating, and as that both the "sender" and "recipient" needs to "speak the same language". That would make art highly contextual, and the "viewer" would have to share the "language" of the artist.

Another thing I would like to adress is the phrase "Art is the intentional or non-intentional product of a creative and talented application of skills which creates an object that is more than the sum of its parts". To me, a better way of expressing it would be "art is the communication of experience through means that the artist finds appropriate". To state that it has to be an object really narrows the possible expressions that art can take.

Communication! You're correct, we should consider this.

"To state that it has to be an object really narrows the possible expressions that art can take."

True and embarassing obvious, thanks for bringing this up.

So are we getting closer with:

Art is communication though various mediums, created using talented application of techniques, which affects the community on an emotional, intellectual, or spiritual level.



Will

 

[No it's not...]

So are we getting closer with:

Art is communication though various mediums, created using talented application of techniques, which affects the community on an emotional, intellectual, or spiritual level.



Will

Not really, that's your definition not mine

 

[Anonymous User]

Not really, that's your definition not mine

Fair enough, how would you change "mine" to meet "yours" and what is "yours?"



Will

 

[No it's not...]

I don't have one. And even if I did mine wouldn't matter. The closest I've come to a definition of art that I can live with is "art is what the art-community says it it, and the art community are the ones with the influence to define art".

Basically I trust others that have more knowledge than me do the defining. And whatever they define, does it have a huge influence on my life? It sure doesn't feel that way.

I don't really see art as a quality, rather (as I stated before) a way to communicate. I don't care much if the Mona Lisa is considered one of the "best" pices of art, I'm not gonna buy the painting. That particular piece doesn't do anything for me. I am one of those that think Jackson Pollock is really good actually. Do I think that Pollock is more "art" than Mona Lisa? No, just different. I basically like what I like, regardless if it's art or not. Jackson speaks to me in a way that fits my "temperament", the Mona Lisa doesn't, simple as that.

So is Walters trees art? I DON´T CARE! IMHO they're some of the best BONSAI in the world, that's all that matters to me.

 

[grouper52]

So far no one has mentioned that art is first and foremost a way of communicating, and as that both the "sender" and "recipient" needs to "speak the same language". That would make art highly contextual, and the "viewer" would have to share the "language" of the artist.

Another thing I would like to address is the phrase "Art is the intentional or non-intentional product of a creative and talented application of skills which creates an object that is more than the sum of its parts". To me, a better way of expressing it would be "art is the communication of experience through means that the artist finds appropriate". To state that it has to be an object really narrows the possible expressions that art can take.

Good points. Let me take the second one first: We had decided at one point, as I recall, to limit the discussion to visual art for the sake of simplicity. Certainly there are other art forms. Visual art necessarily relies on a visual "object" which can be viewed.

I touched upon the first point earlier during a more general discussion about the use of language as a primary means of getting ideas from one person's mind into another's, something essential for social animals such as Homo sapiens. We, and other animals, especially social animals, have other "languages" as well. Art is certainly one. It is most definitely a form of communication, but I think it seeks to communicate something different than ordinary language - unless we are talking about the artistic use of language, poems, literature and such. The communicative aspect of art is implied in my definition when I stated that the art seeks to evoke a certain type of inspiring emotional response in the viewer. That response in the mind of the viewer is what the artist seeks to communicate. Others have also touched on the idea, although not as directly as you state it, that the viewer must "speak" the same artistic language. We have seen this repeatedly, I think, in posts where people dismiss the productions of some artistic endeavors as not being "art", because they "don't speak to me" or some other dismissive phrase. Once again, I think this "language barrier" argument can be avoided, at least in terms of forming a definition, by using the term art to refer to the activity which had the intent/purpose of evoking the response, whether or not the viewer/recipient actually had the desired response evoked. It's an interesting discussion, but muddies the waters from the standpoint of simply forming a definition. My definition removes the result-driven "context" concerns viz-a-viz the recipient, in favor of the "intent" concerns of the activity of production itself. (sounds like poorly worded jibberish, a bit, but I hope you understand what I mean!) If an artist sets out to create an object of art, and nobody "gets it" (he did it poorly, or was ahead of his time, or was from another culture or artistic school), then I still contend that the activity was still art, independent of the context or any specific recipient's reaction.

 

[No it's not...]

Good points. Let me take the second one first: We had decided at one point, as I recall, to limit the discussion to visual art for the sake of simplicity. Certainly there are other art forms. Visual art necessarily relies on a visual "object" which can be viewed.

Ok, but doesn't that mean that the "artness" of visual arts is qualitatively different from other arts? In that case, I'm not so sure it is...

"Art is certainly one. It is most definitely a form of communication, but I think it seeks to communicate something different than ordinary language - unless we are talking about the artistic use of language, poems, literature and such."

If it's better said with words, then say it in words. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is more/less art. Once again, this statement implies that the "artistic use of language" is a different kind of "art" than the visual kind, wich I say it's not, only different ways to make art.

To be continued, I have a party to go to.

 

[Anonymous User]

The closest I've come to a definition of art that I can live with is "art is what the art-community says it it, and the art community are the ones with the influence to define art".

This is amazingly similar to what I posted back on page 7...

However, (and here is the truth of the matter everyone hates to hear) if the art community and the community as a whole suddenly saw my stop signs as art, guess what, they are. If my signs were seen as being moving on an emotional, intellectual, or spiritual level, they would be recognized as art by the community. Sadly, what the one single person driving by these signs thinks means very little.

Basically I trust others that have more knowledge than me do the defining. And whatever they define, does it have a huge influence on my life? It sure doesn't feel that way.

I guess that depends on how those decisions affect you or your work. If those decisions never affect you, then you would naturally not be concerned with them, this is understandable. However, you must admit, that unlike yourself, there are some people, like many involved in this discussion, that are truly interested in obtaining a better understanding of art and what exactly it is. By discussing the concept, we may well not get an inch closer to understanding, but we will have explored many options to consider in the quest.

I stuck my neck out in this thread, I posted a definition of art, something some have said they could do, something I never claimed I could, but I did never-the-less. Notice this definition has changed as new information has come forth, things were added, things were taken out, what is left is still just an idea needing refinement. It is not a definite definition by no means, what it is, is a base for discussion, a catalyst for further thought.

Is it groundbreaking? Is it unchallengeable? Is it set in stone? By no means, instead it serves only to get us thinking about a subject that many allude to, many claim to understand, and which in the end, many really have no clue and rely on surface deep oft repeated clichés.

Is it the art community that decides what is and what isn't art? Certainly it takes more than a single person's view on what is art for an object to be so, if not then anything, from a freshly cut lawn, to a poorly made ashtray, to a one year old maple seedling bonsai in a milk carton would be art.

We can't trust one person's viewpoint, it is too subjective, but we can trust, as you have pointed out, many people who are in the know to at least come to a consensus. But in the end, as your example with the Mona Lisa shows, it is the individual viewer that will determine artistic and sometimes, financial success and art, like it or not, at the end of the road, is a personal experience.

Yet we must remember, that without the art community promoting, discovering, and recognizing "art" the single viewer would never see it and therefore never have the chance to make it a personal experience. The art community discovers, proclaims, and otherwise decides what is art and what isn't, in most cases, long before the public, the single person ever sees it. Sad maybe, but true.

Still the community must reflect the majority of the population's viewpoints....it does no good to proclaim something as art if only three or four people will get it. So what then is art? What does the individual and the community have to see, to experience for an object to be art?

And here we are at the core of this thread once again.




Will

 

[No it's not...]

If an artist sets out to create an object of art, and nobody "gets it" (he did it poorly, or was ahead of his time, or was from another culture or artistic school), then I still contend that the activity was still art, independent of the context or any specific recipient's reaction.

(back from the party, a bit fuzzy around the edges though)

I'd say that the activity/product or whatever WASN'T art but became art since, from my perspective the whole concept is a social construct hence we (or rather, those that have something to back up their claims i.e. the art community) decided that it's art now (or then).

A tiny and perhaps bad example, Kandisky was considered to be the first true abstract painter and has been given a lot of attention because of that. However, Hilma af Klint was discovered after him (because of something she wrote in her will) but made abstract art some 15-20 years before him. Kandisky is still considered more important artist, but that may chnage in the future. My point is that (wich I'm sure you all understand) what constitutes art changes over time and place.

 

[No it's not...]

This is amazingly similar to what I posted back on page 7...

Yes, byt there's nothing spectacular about it. The definition is only a google or wikipedia away. However, it's the one that fits me the best. Just a personal preference.

I guess that depends on how those decisions affect you or your work. If those decisions never affect you, then you would naturally not be concerned with them, this is understandable.

I've actually worked as a painter/illustrator and studied art full-time for about 3,5 years, but I still don't care much

If someone wants to know something about art, my suggestion is to go to the library and not some internet forum. Or better yet, get some brushes, paint and something o paint on...

It is not a definite definition by no means, what it is, is a base for discussion, a catalyst for further thought.

Is it groundbreaking? Is it unchallengeable? Is it set in stone? By no means, instead it serves only to get us thinking about a subject that many allude to, many claim to understand, and which in the end, many really have no clue and rely on surface deep oft repeated clichés.

Call me elitist or whatever, but some actual studies of the subject might be worthwhile. I don't discuss quantum-mechanics for a reason. For the same reason I never discuss the horticultural requirements of Japanes Maples.

We can't trust one person's viewpoint, it is too subjective

Everything is subjective, some are just more open about it than others.

Still the community must reflect the majority of the population's viewpoints....it does no good to proclaim something as art if only three or four people will get it. So what then is art? What does the individual and the community have to see, to experience for an object to be art?

If it's the right 3 or 4 ppl that get it, that might be the best thing that has ever happened to the artist. Artistry, the art establishment and to some extent the public wants the art to be exclusive and esotheric, I'd say it's fundamental for the art to function. But that's another issue, those that are interested can read some Pierre Bourdieu.

 

[No it's not...]

Anyway, I just feel that the discussion might have been more interesting from a phenomenological poit of view rather than struggling to find a universal defintion. It kinda hard to rationalize the irrational.