What Is Art?

What is art? Why is it that one person can make a hamburger and it's a culinary masterpiece, and one person can make one and it's just food. One architect can design a building, and it simply meets the requirements of the task, and another designs a building and it's a beautiful work of art that inspires people and is remarkable enough that travelers come from across the world to marvel at it.

Is it because the one is just a better specimen? Not necessarily. Maybe the hamburger made by person number two was just as tasty if not more so than the first. He simply made it just because he was hungry and that's how he prefers it. Is it in the attitude behind the work? The creative energy and love being poured into it? Maybe, maybe not. Surely the little child in school pours love into his class pottery project, but does that make it art? Maybe it isn't just love and creative energy, maybe it's also the skill to successfully make it. Does art have to be good to be art? Also, what can be art? Society acknowledges painting and sculpting as art. Usually music is considered art. Poetry. Culinary arts. Many people consider fashion to be an art, as well as ballet. But what about the other things? People pour passion and love into all kinds of hobbies and tasks. Can a passionate mechanic be an artist? What about an inventor? They certainly put a lot of care into the things they create. And also how do you distinguish who is and who isn't. A person who paints is a painter is an artist. But a person who cooks isn't a chef isn't necessarily a culinary artist. Why are some hobbies automatically arts, and some you have to qualify? Is it because some are in their foundation an artistic thing to do, so obviously you're an artist if you do it? And the others aren't really artsy in nature, but can be converted into such through the hands of a passionate and creative person? And also, is it really true that anyone who takes a paintbrush to a canvas is an artist? That seems to be a popular opinion, but is it true? Anyone can decide to (Or be forced into)take an art class. They go for four weeks and have a project each class, they have fun with it, and once they're done they're done. People go to their house and see a project or two and declare "Those are wonderful! You're an artist!" But is that all it takes? Also what if they were really bad? The projects didn't come out as desired, and aren't pleasing to the eye. Still, the friends declare the person an artist, because hey, they painted something, right? That's all it takes.

But is it?

And here's another question, does art have to be pretty to be art? What most people think of as art is some beautiful painting, or some marvelous statue, but is that all? I think it depends on your definition. Does it have to be pretty, like a flower or sunset? No, but I do believe it's always beautiful somehow. Art can be sad, or moving, or angry. It can be quiet, or vibrant and full of life! It can be completely off putting, but so raw and genuine that it's beautiful somehow. Art can give a window into a persons soul. Or act as a portal to a new culture, or different way of life. It can bring you into a moment, or emotion. Sometimes it isn't a moment you like, or an emotion that is enjoyable, but somehow the expression is beautiful. So no, I don't think art has to be pretty, but I believe all true art is, in some way, beautiful.

Is writing an art? Sometimes it's just typing facts, sometimes it's telling fantastical stories, sometimes it's telling deep and moving truths. Where is the line? Is it in the author? In the works? Or in both? Is it case by case? And also who makes the call about what is and what isn't art? Is it if the majority of the population agrees? Can something be art if no one in the world says that it is? Is there some cosmic truth that qualifies something to be art, and it is so for as long as it exists, whether or not it's publicly acknowledged? Take Van Gogh, for instance. He's acclaimed world wide as a wonderful and influential artist, and yet he had no fame when he lived, and died thinking himself a failure. Were his works always wonderful works of art, and the people of his time just missed the memo, or did they become art as they were rediscovered and appreciated? Is art in the object in question, or is it all in the perspective of the beholder?

Also, is making a bold statement art? Like the bizarre spectacles that can be seen on the fashion runway. Things made not for function, and not for beauty, but to make a point, or to surprise or shock people. Does the fact that they shaved their models eyebrows off and colored in her lips as black, then stuck her in a black plastic bag with hot pink 12" heels make it art? It's certainly unique, and a surprise to see, but does that make it art? Lots of people seem to think so, but why? Can anyone just spin the wheel and put together a cacophony of clothes and accessories then put it on the runway and be an artist? Or maybe you say that those strange and alarming sights aren't just random or there just for the element of surprise, but that the designer seamlessly and diligently put all those pieces together for a work of art that is on a higher level, and simply cannot be understood by everyone. I don't believe that. Undeniably there are pieces just made to be unique and bizarre. Never made to be worn out on the streets, or introduced into everyday fashion. So once the goal is just to be different from everyone else, who's to say that they still have the underlying artistic intent, and aren't just trying to think of anything and everything that hasn't been done before, and therefore will make them stand out. Perhaps you'll say that the goal of doing something that is so weird it hasn't been done before, is in itself an artistic thing to do. That's a thought, but I'm not sure I agree. I think the idea of flying from one extreme to another with your only goal being to do what's never before been done, to shock people, isn't a path for the artist, but for someone desperately seeking attention. I've seen lots of people hailed as an incredible and gifted artist, who don't make things for the sake of art, but for shock value, or to get under peoples skin. Are they artists? Is what they make art? Take some of the famed artists from the 20's for example. Most of their goals were to push the limits of society and be rude or obscene somehow. He's an example of the question of whether or not it's art. Pablo Picasso painted a very abstract picture of three naked women, and when he finished it he couldn't stand to look at it, and kept it hidden away in his office, turned around out of sight for years. Everyone at the time (himself included) were put off by it, and thought it to be brash and indecent. Now, however, an old painting of three crudely painted female bodies in less than flattering poses hardly makes anyone bat an eye, and is hung proudly on a museum wall, declared as a beautiful art piece. But it wasn't meant to be. It was painted not as a beautiful creation, but as a rude piece to be used to thumb the nose at society. The artist himself viewed it as such, as did all his friends and colleagues. And yet, here it is now. Labeled by everyone as art. Who is right? Is the painter and creator of it right, and it's an indecent jab at the world, or are the modern day art curators right, and it's beautiful and cutting edge? And if so, was it always a wonderful work of art, that was simply unappreciated in it's time, or has it never been art, and people are simply holding it up to be that because of it's age and who painted it? Or, stranger yet, did it somehow change, and was made not as art, yet turned into an art piece as society changed? Is it really that fluid?

Speaking or fluidity, take acting. Back in time being an actor was a low thing to be. It wasn't respected and it was viewed as basically the same as being a circus performer. I'm referring to way back in time, like Dickensian Era and before. Acting in plays, or being in a traveling show was not considered being an artist at all, it was not looked up to, and it wasn't a desired career choice. But now, being an actor on Broadway is a very big achievement, is considered by many people as a form of art, and is the dream of millions of people. So, were those old actors artists like their modern day counter parts, or were they not? If modern critics could go back, would they wax on about the raw emotion, the troubled soul of the unappreciated artist who was born too soon to an unprepared world? How these people were spreading emotions and stories of drama, and how they were so dedicated to their art that they did so even in the face of a society that didn't understand? Or, were these just vagabond people dancing around on a stage primitively acting out the roles of their character for money? I suppose I have a two part question. One, can we view modern day actors and our days gone by actors as the same, and then if yes, was it art back then and simply not acknowledged, or was doing the same exact thing at one point in time not an art, and at another point in time an art. Is it so subjective as that? Or is art an unchangeable thing. A rule, a truth that always is and always has been and always will be, whether acknowledged or not.


I truly don't know the answers to all these questions, and maybe no one else does either. But I thought they were worth asking, and worth thinking about. I hope you enjoyed reading my thoughts, and maybe it sparked a few new ideas for you.
Even if not, thank you for your time


~Carrie