Throughout history, art has fallen under many diverse definitions, making it hard to pinpoint what it means. What makes something artistic? What makes something an art? How does some art cause you relax and invoke peace, while other art makes you want to smash your screen and set it on fire?
And most of all, why?
capital A Art
Fine Arts have commonly been called “capital A Art” or “the Arts” vs. “art.” With all these different disambiguations, getting lost in the weeds is easy. Everything from marking a canvas to composing music has been called art. It’s sometimes strange to think that everything from musicians to painters to sculptors is commonly called “artists” while, in practice, their work is highly different.
(Of course, there's a whole history on this topic. But that's not the point of what I'm saying.)
However, their work is actually very similar in essence. It just seems different superficially. So how does a statue of a biblical figure made from carrara marble and a video game about a boy crossing the barrier between life and death be similar? (Michelangelo's David and Playdead's Limbo) How is a video game which critiques Libertarianism and individualism similar to one about placing blocks in a sandbox world? (Bioshock and Minecraft)
the essence
All these works, regardless of their medium, (I consider all creative work to be art: painting, music, writing, film, etc) are expressions of a person, the artist. This is the essence of art—artists investigate their own ideas and emotions through art.
And for the audience, it's a means for us to look at ourselves in a new way—whether through a writer narrating a story about the adventures of people on a planet that has continent-encapsulating storms or a mysterious, surreal film about the future of humanity through a cosmic baby. (The Stormlight Archive and 2001: A Space Odyssey)
It explores the limits of our understanding and senses. From architecture to pottery, painting to dance, art is everywhere and in everything, as all these things contain creativity, a remix of ideas and thoughts into something novel.
the eye of the beholder: looking pretty for the sake of it
Of course, not all art needs to be a profound look at humanity. Sometimes art is just there to be looked at and appreciated. In fact, it’s possible to argue that everything humans do is some form of art. Whenever we design or engineer something, we’re being artistic by principle. Whenever we speak, we do so with musical cadences and inflection. Even our movements have a rhythm and essence that are almost dance-like—it's something we take for granted, honestly.
It's easier to see when it's on something mechanical, like say, an android. The sheer artistry of even designing such a thing is enough to tell you. Just look at any of Boston Dynamic's robots.
However, this leaves room for confusion and muddles the definition. When everything is art, nothing is. So, a better description would be a work that encompasses the meaning and intent in art—again, that becomes difficult as we humans find meaning in almost everything. Even if an artist explicitly says, “This piece has no meaning,” we find meaning in that very statement. It's impossible not to.
(A lot of this can be related to aesthetics, the branch of philosophy about the nature of beauty. Cooking, for example, is the art of aesthetically pleasing taste.)
functional and nonfunctional art
This is my own philosophy, and is riddled with holes and is under constant reconstruction. Here's the gist:
Mentally, I've divided art into two categories: functional art, and nonfunctional art. Now I don't mean "nonfunctional" is in it doesn't operate or work, but that it's not intended to be used in a functional way.
The Mona Lisa doesn't do anything. It's a bunch of oil on a a white Lombardy poplar panel. (I searched that up)
A flyer, on the other hand, is pretty functional. It educates you about a topic.
(There's probably a wider discussion here about how art is just brushstrokes, pixels and symbols that make us hallucinate beautiful things. That arrangement of pixels makes me sad! That one makes me happy!)
Functional art are things like logos, basically, web design and—actually, scratch that—design. Design is the essence of functional art. It serves a purpose. Now, this gets kinda confusing to define, as there are the principles of art which are design principles. That's not what I mean by design. I mean design like architecture and cars. They're very clearly meant to serve a purpose, while also being aesthetically pleasing.
Going into intent is complex and difficult to pin down; It's been a pretty big debate in art. (See: the philosophy of the Death of the Author Like, you can place a bunch of drinks and food on the Mona Lisa and use it as a serving tray—but I don't think Davinci intended to make a very fancy serving tray when he was painting the Mona Lisa.
There really isn't a big point to these two divisions. It's just an interesting way to think about art. It's unlikely that you'll find a deep reflection on human existence by looking at a car, much like how you won't get much physical use out of a painting.
another form of communication
Art is, really, just another form of communication—one that places an emphasis on imagination and creativity.
There's potential here to talk about an alien civilization that communicates primarily in what we would call art, like paintings or music or something. Kinda like the Singers from the Stormlight Archive. Of course, this loops around itself, as like I've mentioned before, human speech is musical.
Art mediums are languages—you got to be fluent in them to get your point across effectively. It's subjective because communication is subjective. Art is opinions and feelings, just in an interesting medium. It doesn't need to have a message. It just needs to exist.
It’s also a depiction of human expertise and skill. Many pieces of art are unique just because of the competence and proficiency that went into creating them. Competency is an art itself.
Art is a celebration of humanity through expression and aesthetic beauty—a subjective one, sure, but one nonetheless.
Now there's just one more question: Is art still art if it wasn't made by a human?
W blog post