Funny, this same topic came up in a Harry Potter thread. The idea being an objection to HP had nothing to do with the actual content, but the craftsmanship/low quality of the writing desensitizing or lowering the audiences expectation and standards for good writing and the art of written communication.
I tend to agree with much of what Kamaduck has said.
Art is something created by a person in order to communicate/convey something beyond the current moment other than simply facts or discussion. Some would say by necessity that means intended to convey that message/feeling/emotion to another person. If you agree, than art would have to be something intended to be shared. If it is created solely for your own amusement-- it would not be art. But, if someone found it and shared it-- it becomes art.
Now, that could include simply designing something- form vs function in designing a tool or machine or a building. Or particularly thoughtful writing. Even to invoke a sense of appreciation from the user. A craftsman putting a lot of effort and thought into a tool can certainly, at least in my mind, elevate it to a work of art. I have a file of quotable quotes because I believe they are the best way I’ve ever heard of expressing some thought or idea with the appropriate context and emotion.
Great art vs good art vs bad art. If art is a medium of communication, than it is dependent on the audience. It is not a one way transaction. The ability of the audience to perceive the intended message can be limited by their experience, biases, pervailing social attitudes and standards etc. Some would say great art transcends or crosses those challenges by speaking directly to such core human experience that most people can understand and appreciate the intended message. I tend to believe great art is something which does commmunicate something about the basic human condition as intended by the author/creator. What if the audience comes away with a profound truth or emotion that the author didn’t intend? Is there such a thing as accidentally great art? (In the HP thread some said absolutely yes). I don’t think so. I would definitely say that if an author is trying to convey a profound truth, yet the audience (or very few in the audience) get it or understand it-- than it is certainly art, but not great art. Realize, the audience can certainly see something in a work of art that the author never intended to communicate.
An example. The Smithsonian scene in Transformers 2 (of all things) and names chosen for the ships provide an interesting commentary on evil, the choice/decision to confront it or not and how, the inherent costs and consquences of those decisions, and the level of commitment required in both time and physical effort to oppose evil. But to get that out of it, you need to know a lot about WWII and Cold War history, including the significance of the aircraft Bay chooses to show throughout that scene. The most eloquent image being his choice to frame the SR71 between a P-40 and F4U in a high angle shot. Did Bay intend to provoke that kind of thought? No idea (but he does clearly show the Enola Gay twice) Does the fact that some in the audience interpret it that way make it art? Your call- but it’s art to me. Does the fact that the vast majority of folks viewing it, regardless of Bay’s intention, will never understand it that way preclude it from being great art? I would say yes. Maybe even keep it from being good art.
I don’t think it’s art to create something designed to insult someone or their beliefs simply to provoke a reaction. Many disagree- they claim the artist did design and produce something to provoke that emotion and succeeded. I don’t think it sends any message though about belief or communicate anything basic about the human condition. It’s an
%*& You to the audience. If it is art, its bad art and the sign of a talentless hack- that they cannot communicate or elicit emotion with anything other than a cheap insult. It would mean every driver ever extending the relevant digit to another was creating a work of art.
Which leads us to the human form and the long history of nudes in art. Here, again, the audience brings far more to the table in being able to consider a picture or drawing as art vice pornography than the artist. It is something truly beyond the artist’s control no matter what his intention in creating the work. I do believe one can create a picture simply appreciating the human form, what God hath wrought in his creation. There are nudes in the Sistine Chapel. But I don’t think something created or intended to appeal to prurient interest is art. Some artists have captured true awe and almost reverence for women in their art. An expression of appreciation for femininity that I don’t think could have been expressed otherwise.
What is not art? Things made or created with no intention to communicate something lasting beyond the present moment or dealing with an immediate issue. I do believe art is meant to be at least remembered.
Sorry for the long post, I hope you find it useful.
