What isn't "art?"

[John Kasaian]

A couple of years ago I had a student who had fled Julliard and joined the Navy, which is how he ended up in my night class at a naval air station in the middle of Nowhere, CA. He was an interesting fellow and during a unit on art, he came up with a definition which I thought was pretty neat and certainly well thought out. Unfortunately I forgot his definition, but I was reminded of him the last time my informal coffee house philosphy group met. We've been slogging through the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas for the last six months and are nowhere near the end of the tunnel. Fascinating stuff, really---but what reminded me of that young sailor was Aquinas' accepting that some things cannot be defined other than by defining what something is not(God, in the Summa) and how, I'm wondering, that maybe that can be a way of defining "art"---by defining what it is "not" instead of attempting to define what it "is." The reason for my curiosity about this comes from what I've discovered about my own enjoyment of a photograph and how it is not really based on "creativity" but rather a recording of a time past. Even with most of the abstracts I've enjoyed looking at, I find that what makes for a "successful" image(to my mind, anyway) is not the result of some contrivance, but rather from some acute observation of some detail---record if you will---of some "thing" that had been photographed(past tense) This seems to me to be the opposite of what many espouse in those dreaded "artist's statements" I keep seeing at exhibitions.

OK theres got to be a bunch of art institute graduates ready to jump on me for asking this, but here it goes anyway: Can you give me a definition for what "isn't" Art? At least from the photographic standpoint so as not to be too OT?

[Ralph Barker]

"Can you give me a definition for what "isn't" Art? "

Yes. Nothing, depending on one's perspective. Although, come to think of it, the absence of anything might be an art form in itself. ;-)

[chris jordan]

For me it's a continuum. At the left end is work done by photographers who are striving to be self-aware, fully present, and in that state are facing honestly what they see as important in the world and in their lives. They take the risk of finding out what they care about, and express it despite all the costs and risks, pushing themself to achieve the highest degree of expressive integrity and excellence that they are capable of. This kind of work is driven from the interior; it is a labor of love that has no agenda other than the doing of it.

On the right end of the continuum is commercial work that is driven by forces external to the photographer-- what others want, what the photographer believes others want, what the "market" demands, what the photographer is comfortable doing because of fear of external rejection if they do something riskier, what their stock agency says will sell, what they think will sell, what does sell, what their wife says will sell, etc.

The further it gets along the right side, the more diluted it becomes and the less it looks like art; the further it gets along the left side, the more pure of a personal expression it is from that one photographer, and hence the more it looks like art. For me great art is the pure and undiluted realization of a Self, executed into tangible form. Anything that dilutes the effort puts the work further to the right on the continuum.

But then this continuum is a small part of a bigger continuum too: Photography and other artforms on the left, and being a lawyer or corporate executive on the right. In that respect we photographers are all artists. So what isn't art? Legal briefs and corporate minutes are DEFINITELY not art!!

~cj

[julian_4860]

My two fave philosophers for this are Gadamer and Adorno ('relevance of the beautiful' and 'aesthetic theory'). You'll hear a lot about art has to be 'authentic' - which leaves another problem of defining authenticity, it must resist nostalgia, commodification (I thought of this at the weekend seeing a show of almost identical images that was nicely wrapped up for any viewer to be spoon fed). Adorno nicely describes 'authentic language' in art, one aspect of this means that Ansel may have shot 'art', but shooting using Ansel's language now, out of its original time frame isn't (because it then becomes 'mere' nostalgia i.e. lacks authenticity). Gadamer talks about what it is like to view art, a sense of timelessness etc. They both agree that 'enjoyment' has little to do with art too - 'threnody for victims of hirsohima' ain't enjoyable but it sure is art

[domenico Foschi]

Any creative endeavor that doesn't come out from the maker's inner core can be defined as not art.

[Graeme Hird]

If I may paraphrase Chris Jordan, I believe art is the skillful expression of one's creative thoughts without inhibition.

What is not art? Formulaic repetition without consideration or inclusion of personal expression.

However, I could be wrong ....

[neil poulsen]

I'll bet there are legal briefs out there that, to other lawyers, are art.

I know it's simplistic, but I tend to like the following: "If it works, it's art."

I recall on the video taped recording of "Horowitz, The Last Romantic." Horowitz was just getting started, and he commented that his playing was like "cardboard". I noticed, because I've used the same expression. Cardboard, stiff and tasteless.

To me, the best of art transcends the medium and takes on a life of it's own. The initial medium, a photograph, a soprano voice, or a statue isn't nearly so important as the collection of ideas or the meaning that has been produced.

[JohanHB]

Hi John,

An interesting site with some equally intriquing philosophies on art... and photography!

http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2003/Best_of_ARC/best1.asp?msg=92&forumID=18

My answer to your question; Anything that is not known to human beings, or hasn't been

invented yet isn't art, IMHO.

[JohanHB]

...but then again as Ralph already said, I must agree, contrary to my earlier post, the idea of nothingness is Art in itself.

[Robert A. Zeichner]

"Can you give me a definition for what "isn't" Art?"

Perhaps it's anything by Thomas Kinkade? That would certainly be in keeping with Graeme Hird's definition "Formulaic repetition without consideration or inclusion of personal expression".

Just another opinion.