Toward a Definition of Art and Bonsai as Art

[Attila Soos]

And I would say that ALL trees created with an artistic intent, as per the definition, are ojects/pieces/works of art, whether or not they are good or bad examples of the art, which is another question.

That's right. The 4 trees that I called failures, could be an example of "bad art" or "not so good art".
I was going to say that some people would simply refuse to call these trees "works of art", but others would just say that they see them as "bad art".
But since the intent was to create art in the first place, I agree that, although they are not good, they should still qualify as works of of art.

By the way, talking about art as by-product:

I grew up in Europe in an art community, where some of my childhood friends were passionate artist (later became well-known names in the art circles). They always referred to themselves as Artists. And they referred to their own work as My Art. They say their purpose in life to Create Art.

And believe me, they wouldn't have taken it lightly if I told them that the art is "incidental by-product" in their work. No sir, art was everything and the only thing in their lives. They were their own worst critic, and clearly dissatisfied with some of their own work, but they would call it nothing else, but art. These were poets, musicians, painters and actors. And they knew more about the arts and being an artist, than I will ever know.

 

[Chris Johnston]

That's right. The 4 trees that I called failures, could be an example of "bad art" or "not so good art".
I was going to say that some people would simply refuse to call these trees "works of art", but others would just say that they see them as "bad art".
But since the intent was to create art in the first place, I agree that, although they are not good, they should still qualify as works of of art.

By the way, talking about art as by-product:

I grew up in Europe in an art community, where some of my childhood friends were passionate artist (later became well-known names in the art circles). They always referred to themselves as Artists. And they referred to their own work as My Art. They say their purpose in life to Create Art.

And believe me, they wouldn't have taken it lightly if I told them that the art is "incidental by-product" in their work. No sir, art was everything and the only thing in their lives. They were their own worst critic, and clearly dissatisfied with some of their own work, but they would call it nothing else, but art. These were poets, musicians, painters and actors. And they knew more about the arts and being an artist, than I will ever know.

Attila, thank you for that personal insight. I agree with you 100 percent that intent is necessary. In fact the only person who has agreed that it is unnecessary is Will. I think artists in general and the art world in particular would disagree.

Where is this "talent is supreme" and "accidental art" taking us? Anyone wish to hazard a guess?

 

[Anonymous User]

I guess it is time for a yes or no question.

Can art be created without intent?



Will

 

[Smoke]

I see that question as a double edged sword.

On one hand I agree with some of the statements Will has said about creating art in bonsai without really focusing on creating art in bonsai.

Yet I believe that to make artsitic bonsai one has to set out to create artistic bonsai by trying to make as many of the right decisions as possible.

I think where it gets bogged down..like so many threads about art is that most art is created and labeled as such after the fact. Not many people are given a twenty pound block of clay and been ordered to produce a piece of art that will stand the test of time or you will be hanged at dawn. Though I am sure that has happened in history.

So if I were to give a one word answer I would have to say no.....


But...maybe the artist is thinking yes when he/she picks up the pruners.


I too, like Will do not set about to produce art when styling bonsai. It is just not that important to me. Now my stands...that is another story.

It is static, it will endure and I would like to be someone remembered a few years from now as a guy who didn't build too many, but he poured his heart and soul into them and it shows.

Cheers, Al

 

[Anonymous User]

Let me pose a question to lower this to my intelectually challanged mind. Will if someone sits at an easel and slaps paint around for a while, then puts it out on display and both of us walk into his shop and see it, you love it, it makes you cry even, I just stand there and wonder what you are thinking, it's just paint splattered on canvas, is it art?? No name paint slinger, Joe Schmo, you and I.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, by the above statements it's art for one, a drop cloth for another, same result of infinate answers.....

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

This phrase has often been used in the discussion of art, in fact you can count on someone saying it in any such discussion. Beauty may well be in the eye of the beholder, but art is not. Beauty actually has little to do with art, sure some art is beautiful, but art is not judged by its beauty.

The two people you used as an example, both looking at a painting, one thinks it is art...good for him, but one person's thoughts do not make it so. Attila mentioned artists that talk about their "art" and the world is full of such artists thinking they are creating art, wanting to create art, and saying they are creating art....but calling it such or thinking it as such does not make it such. All the intent in the world can not produce art without talent, that's just the way it is.

If I walked up to a bent stop sign on the side of the road and proclaimed it as art, would that make it so? If I then took a sledge hammer and started bending up stop signs all over town with the intent to make art, would it then be art? If I called myself an artist and told people about my art, would it now be art? The answers are all no.

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.

Ever go into a gallery and wonder why in the world the objects there are displayed? Do you think your opinion means a thing to the gallery? To the artist? To the financial situation which is obvious by the prices paid for these objects you think are crap?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder....

Art is in the eye of the beholder.....

Have you ever seen a Rembrandt in person? If not, why then would you say it is art? Have you ever been personally "moved" by a Monet? If not, why would you say he was an artist or the work he created was art? Why? Because you were told it was art, because the community has said it is art. What good does the definition of art do you then? The definition in this case would be, art is what the art community says it is.

Certainly it must be more than that, right? Of course, art should be personal, and it can be. Each person has their own personal tastes and should use them intelligently. I don't personally like Picasso's work and yet I recognize his talent and I can put away my personal feelings and understand the genius behind the work, I still see it as art, not my preference of art, but art never-the-less.

So to judge something as art actually has nothing to do with a single beholder's eye, or preference.



Will

 

[Anonymous User]

I do apologize for being so focused on "intent" however, if the purpose here, as I assumed it was, is to define art in relation to bonsai, then I feel it is important to either include intent in the definition (if art can not happen without it) or to leave it out (if indeed art can happen without it).

I posted a definition to start with, one meant for dissection and discussion earlier.

Art is a by product of the creative and talented use of learned skills which produces an image that affects the viewer on 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.

I think that many here are on the same path and I would welcome discussion to bring us closer to the same destination.

Finally, thanks to all of you, this has really been an insightful, intelligent, and educational thread so far, I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts.



Will

 

[Anonymous User]

The reverse of an argument just occurred to me...

So if an artist sets out with the intent to create art and the object falls short, did the artist create accidental non-art?



Will

 

[Ashbarns]

I guess it is time for a yes or no question.

Can art be created without intent?



Will

In the main no. But if we can reflect on say Jackson Pollock, then yes. His work had eclat but it was really just a guy throwing paint around on a big canvass on the ground. We all could do that no problem and lay claim to that being art. Pollock might have thought he had intent but it was sporadic and without precision. Even Picasso had intent.
When we look at the work of painters and sculptors then the intent is there, working in a controlled methodical way. They take materials ...brushes, canvass, paint, marble and produce something that everyone who views gets enjoyment from. The big difference between them and myself is they have been taught and have a talent to delight us with their work. Can we include the person who makes pots or who makes stands? Of course we can. The same principles are involved ..materials and talent.
The same can be applied to bonsai. That is why we use the term 'bonsai artist'. If we look at the work of Walter Pall, Hans Van Meer and Kimura as examples do we refuse to acknowledge that what they give us is not art? The person who can look at a sprawling mess in the form of a yamadori and see the tree, clearly has the eye of an artist. Training has been involved, materials used, but the vision of what could be, comes from an artistic bent. Bonsai ...the living art.


Ash

 

[Steve]

I don't know what "good art" is but I know what I like.

 

[Chris Johnston]

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.

Will

This here is the biggest piece of what Rick edited out of his post that I have ever seen. Nothing becomes art because the "art community" says it is. This is exactly where this mentality is going, isn't it?

Will is trying to establish Art of Bonsai, and himself by extension, as the bonsai "art community." This is an attempt to establish a "New Literati." Will fancies himself a mover and shaker, and this is his game plan.

Will, what about those African American quilts I mentioned? Were they only art once they were recognized as such in the "arts community?"

This is the biggest fallacy so far in the debate. It has nothing to do with my definition of art, nor even of Will's. It is fancy at its highest.

Someone please quote this to make sure Will can't ignore it.

 

[grouper52]

I posted a definition to start with, one meant for dissection and discussion earlier.

Art is a by product of the creative and talented use of learned skills which produces an image that affects the viewer on 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.

I think that many here are on the same path and I would welcome discussion to bring us closer to the same destination.

Will

Will,

Before my detailed analysis of your definition, let me make a few general statements about it.

First, it is more complicated than it needs to be or should be. It throws in criteria/considerations that I think are peripheral to the basic definition. More on this later.

Second, it also is an attempt to define objects/pieces/works of art, which I have said seems to complicate the matter, and I think it is more clear to define art as the activity rather than the product of that activity, as I have said before.

Let me parse out some specific comments.

1. The use of the word "by product" make the objects of art sound like mere epi-phenomena of the artistic process, rather than the essential reason for the process in the first place. This seems to gets back to the disagreement about intent, but I think it doesn't even do that. I doubt people merely set out to "create", as if that activity is unconcerned with the creations that flow out as "by-products", and if there really is such little regard for the creations by some artists, then it is unlikely that such mere "by products" would be elevated in your mind to the exalted status of art. The simple words, "product", or "result" would capture the sense of things better, it seems to me.

2. "The creative and talented use of learned skills" IS the activity, the process that I define as art. But this phrase says more than it needs to in my opinion. "Creative" is already implied in the definition, since it is inherently a creative activity with a product, a result, and therefore this word can be eliminated. "Talented" is a judgement call that merely muddies the waters with the peripheral argument about good art vs bad art, IMO, and therefore this word can also be eliminated. Skills are always "learned", so this can go as well, and an intentional activity without "skills" is impossible to imagine, so there is no need to mention skills as well. All this merely complicates the idea of art being a purposeful human activity, and to keep it simple, that was the phrase I used.

3. "Which produces an image that affects the viewer . . . " We are on the same page here, but differ only in that I point this out as the underlying intention/purpose of the activity in the first place, (and I stick by my guns that it is essential )

4. "On emotional, intellectual or spiritual level." IMO, neither you nor I have quite got this part of the definition right yet, and yet it seems important to do so. What, exactly, is it that the artist hopes to evoke in the viewer, or how exactly must the image affect the viewer, for it to be art as opposed to mere pornography, comedy, illustration, propaganda, intellectual instruction or spiritual/moral exhortation and encouragement? What exactly is the nature of the reaction that art, and only art, induces or is meant to induce? I don't have good words for it, and maybe there aren't completely satisfactory ones. I recall years ago reading Kant's little treatise, "Of the Beautiful and the Sublime", which took a rather unimpressive stab at it, but I don't know if others have done a better job of it. I suspect someone must have, but I don't know. And maybe that is the ineffable something that is in the eye of the beholder, and that makes the idea so hard to pin down. I do know that there are things - for me, for instance, certain aspects of science, mathematics and philosophy - that are not at all artistic or superficially similar to any art, but that evoke deep experiences simultaneously on those three levels, and I imagine it is similar for others in other arenas as well. How does that connect with art, which seems miles apart in most ways?

5. "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." I don't necessarily disagree with this statement, and find it interesting (though a real stepping-off point for a lot of contentious "elitism"! ) but it seems superfluous to our basic task here of defining art. It does seem to me, however, since you bring it up, that the intensity/quantity of the effect (and also, perhaps, your "echo", or the duration and resonance of the effect) also has to be factored into the equation, not just how how many of these three levels are invoked.

Those are my thoughts.

grouper52/(the other Will)

 

[Anonymous User]

Ashbarns, Grouper52,

Wow, that is a lot to think about and digest, thanks, I needed that. Please don't think I am bowing out of the discussion, I just want to consider your words carefully before responding.




Will

 

[Brent]

I don't know if this really belongs in this discussion, but I will try to describe what makes art 'work' for me, since I don't see this yet in the definition, although the emotional part touches on it. I think consideration of this facet reveals a lot about the 'quality' of the work and describes the emotional aspect. For want of a better word, I will call it transcendence, or the suspension of disbelief. It is the quality that evokes a feeling of going beyond the physical object in bonsai, painting or sculpture, or beyond the notes in a musical performance, or beyond the waving of arms and legs in dance. It is an almost mystical or magic quality.

'Magic' can do the same thing, or any phenomenon that defies the cage of ordinary perception. The difference is that tricks of perception are quickly perceived as such, or simply explained away and lose their power (intent comes in here too). When it happens in art, knowing how it is done doesn't make any difference and can even enhance the experience. Good art for me evokes a flight from reality, but it is more like to a super reality. One of the best descriptions of this I saw on a PBS production on the art of Ansel Adams. The critic (I forget his name) describes the photos as a frame in reality that allows you to see through this world into another place or dimension, a fantasy world. The better the art, the longer you can stay, and the deeper the experience. Any perceived 'fault' shatters the illusion and brings you back to this reality . It is really this last bit that I like, because it explains how to create this illusion and judge how good it is. For me bonsai or any art has to have at least a smidge of this to be real bonsai or real art.

Of course the degree of response to this quality is embedded in a cultural context as well a personal context. We are conditioned to receive this experience by many factors in our lives. This explains why some art 'works' for some individuals and not for others, although it may be impossible to actually identify the conditioning elements.

As I said, this may not help the definition, but it definitely helps me create bonsai and appreciate other art.

Brent
EvergreenGardenworks.com
see our blog at http://BonsaiNurseryman.typepad.com See the new pine post

 

[grouper52]

It occurs to me that my original attempt at a definition helps to clarify the discussion if we break it down into its component parts as I did with Will's definition. Let me explain what I mean.

Here's the definition again.

"Visual art is defined as a human activity that creates a visual form for the purpose of evoking an inspiring emotional response in viewers.

"An object of such visual art would then be the form created."

1. "Visual art is defined as a human activity". This, coupled with the second sentence, does several things. First, it separates out the activity of art from the products of that activity. This removes ambiguity when we use the word "art", and it also helps put the discussion about whether bad/ineffective works of art are actually art into another aspect of the definition (purpose/intent) where I think it more accurately belongs. More on that in a minute. Second, it defines the activity as a human one. I don't believe there is much argument about that at this point.

2. "That creates" - it produces something. I hear no arguments here.

3. "A visual form" - again, no arguments that I'm hearing.

4. "For the purpose of". This, again, posits an "intent" in this activity, and this point is still not completely satisfactory to some people here, so it is still being discussed somewhat, but to most here it seems accurate.

5. "Evoking an inspiring emotional response in viewers". This seems to be the area where most discussion is still taking place, and I also think it is the least clear to me as well, as I have stated above. This is where we are trying to differentiate art from other visually creative human activities like the creation of pornography, etc. It is, however, unfortunately in my opinion, also still being used to eliminate "bad art" from the definition at all, which I think makes a definition impossible. This is why I think it is best dealt with in a separate discussion about whether the objects produced by art fulfill the intention of the artist or not, ie good/effective vs bad/ineffective works of art. This is a useful discussion, but only confuses the matter if it is part of the overall definition of art in general.

So let me recap.

When we say "visual art", what are we talking about?

I basically catergorize it as a human activity - that is its taxonomy, (again, a contribution to our way of thinking from Aristotle).

Genus: Activity

Species: Human

Defining characteristics:
1. What kind of human activity? Creative.
2. What does it create? Visual forms (the "objects/pieces/works of art").
3. Why? For the purpose of evoking an emotional (/intellectual/spiritual?) response in the viewer.
4. What specific kind(s) of emotional response? This is still being defined by Brent, Will, Atilla, Ashbarns, myself and others. I used the word "inspiring", but am not entirely happy with that word choice.

And once again, this definition does not address whether or not a form created by art fulfills the purpose of evoking the desired response, ie, is a good/effective work of art or not - but leaving that distinction out of the definition does not take anything away from that discussion about excellence in art, which is worthwhile in its own right.

I think that's about all I have to say at this point. We can still look for good words to define the type of response art aims at, and can still discuss what constitutes excellence in the art of bonsai, but for me there is little else to say. Hope some of you found all this useful.

grouper52

 

[Attila Soos]

(.....Elvis has left the building.)

 

[Chris Johnston]

I don't know what "good art" is but I know what I like.

Steve, I know you were making a joke, but it's important to distinguish between works of art and works of art that someone likes. We all have our personal tastes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that art we don't like is bad art. Some art is intended to repulse.

 

[Chris Johnston]

1. The use of the word "by product" make the objects of art sound like mere epi-phenomena of the artistic process, rather than the essential reason for the process in the first place. This seems to gets back to the disagreement about intent, but I think it doesn't even do that. I doubt people merely set out to "create", as if that activity is unconcerned with the creations that flow out as "by-products", and if there really is such little regard for the creations by some artists, then it is unlikely that such mere "by products" would be elevated in your mind to the exalted status of art. The simple words, "product", or "result" would capture the sense of things better, it seems to me.

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. The end product does not always match the original vision, but that is the nature of things.

Your emphasis on the process as "art" as opposed to the "works" is intriguing. They have generally been used interchangeably in modern discussions, have they not? And yet the phrase "work of art" seems to be heard less and less. I like the distinction, though, and think it is important to the discussion.

 

[Chris Johnston]

2. "The creative and talented use of learned skills" IS the activity, the process that I define as art. But this phrase says more than it needs to in my opinion. "Creative" is already implied in the definition, since it is inherently a creative activity with a product, a result, and therefore this word can be eliminated. "Talented" is a judgement call that merely muddies the waters with the peripheral argument about good art vs bad art, IMO, and therefore this word can also be eliminated. Skills are always "learned", so this can go as well, and an intentional activity without "skills" is impossible to imagine, so there is no need to mention skills as well. All this merely complicates the idea of art being a purposeful human activity, and to keep it simple, that was the phrase I used.

This point about "talent" is well made. It has made me uneasy from the first, this almost worshipful reliance on the word "talent." It is an amorphous, changeable concept that lends itself to almost any interpretation. As such it also lends itself to miscommunication and abuse.

I disagree with removing the concept of skill from the definition. Modern claims of works of art are often made for those who use no skill whatsoever in their execution. Installations with nothing in the room, etc. spring to mind. I have given examples before. For this reason I think a reference to the skill of the artist should remain in place.

 

[Chris Johnston]

3. "Which produces an image that affects the viewer . . . " We are on the same page here, but differ only in that I point this out as the underlying intention/purpose of the activity in the first place, (and I stick by my guns that it is essential )

Amen!

4. "On emotional, intellectual or spiritual level." IMO, neither you nor I have quite got this part of the definition right yet, and yet it seems important to do so. What, exactly, is it that the artist hopes to evoke in the viewer, or how exactly must the image affect the viewer, for it to be art as opposed to mere pornography, comedy, illustration, propaganda, intellectual instruction or spiritual/moral exhortation and encouragement? What exactly is the nature of the reaction that art, and only art, induces or is meant to induce? I don't have good words for it, and maybe there aren't completely satisfactory ones. I recall years ago reading Kant's little treatise, "Of the Beautiful and the Sublime", which took a rather unimpressive stab at it, but I don't know if others have done a better job of it. I suspect someone must have, but I don't know. And maybe that is the ineffable something that is in the eye of the beholder, and that makes the idea so hard to pin down. I do know that there are things - for me, for instance, certain aspects of science, mathematics and philosophy - that are not at all artistic or superficially similar to any art, but that evoke deep experiences simultaneously on those three levels, and I imagine it is similar for others in other arenas as well. How does that connect with art, which seems miles apart in most ways?

Grouper, you shame me. Never read any Kant, either in High School or College. In fact, this question never arose in my mind. This is quite a conundrum to ponder, and will take some reflection.

5. "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." I don't necessarily disagree with this statement, and find it interesting (though a real stepping-off point for a lot of contentious "elitism"! ) but it seems superfluous to our basic task here of defining art. It does seem to me, however, since you bring it up, that the intensity/quantity of the effect (and also, perhaps, your "echo", or the duration and resonance of the effect) also has to be factored into the equation, not just how how many of these three levels are invoked.

Those are my thoughts.

grouper52/(the other Will)

Well I am just blown away by the quality of your thought process and the clarity of your expression. Thank you for putting so much into the discussion.

 

[Chris Johnston]

I don't know if this really belongs in this discussion, but I will try to describe what makes art 'work' for me, since I don't see this yet in the definition, although the emotional part touches on it. I think consideration of this facet reveals a lot about the 'quality' of the work and describes the emotional aspect. For want of a better word, I will call it transcendence, or the suspension of disbelief. It is the quality that evokes a feeling of going beyond the physical object in bonsai, painting or sculpture, or beyond the notes in a musical performance, or beyond the waving of arms and legs in dance. It is an almost mystical or magic quality.

'Magic' can do the same thing, or any phenomenon that defies the cage of ordinary perception. The difference is that tricks of perception are quickly perceived as such, or simply explained away and lose their power (intent comes in here too). When it happens in art, knowing how it is done doesn't make any difference and can even enhance the experience. Good art for me evokes a flight from reality, but it is more like to a super reality. One of the best descriptions of this I saw on a PBS production on the art of Ansel Adams. The critic (I forget his name) describes the photos as a frame in reality that allows you to see through this world into another place or dimension, a fantasy world. The better the art, the longer you can stay, and the deeper the experience. Any perceived 'fault' shatters the illusion and brings you back to this reality . It is really this last bit that I like, because it explains how to create this illusion and judge how good it is. For me bonsai or any art has to have at least a smidge of this to be real bonsai or real art.

Of course the degree of response to this quality is embedded in a cultural context as well a personal context. We are conditioned to receive this experience by many factors in our lives. This explains why some art 'works' for some individuals and not for others, although it may be impossible to actually identify the conditioning elements.

As I said, this may not help the definition, but it definitely helps me create bonsai and appreciate other art.

Brent
EvergreenGardenworks.com
see our blog at http://BonsaiNurseryman.typepad.com See the new pine post

Brent,
Thanks for the contribution!

The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City is a world-reknowned art museum with collections second to none. One of the current exhibitions is a collection of photography from the earliest daguerrotypes to 1885. It is titled, "Developing Greatness: The Origins of American Photography, 1839-1885."

After visiting the collection, we were discussing photography as art, and noted that there is an ongoing debate in the art world whether unaltered photography can be considered art, since it captures "found" objects or situations.

Our conclusion was that if ever there was a photographer who produced true works of art, it was Ansel Adams. We saw some of his subjects while in Yosemite National Park this year, and I was simply overwhelmed by his photographs of them. Photos of the same subjects by other good photographers simply did not produce the emotional response that his did. That was a welcome mention, I wish I had seen the show you mentioned.