What Constitutes "Art"?
From the NY Times, December 8, 2003: The Turner Prize, in its 20th year,
has increasingly stirred debate over the nature of contemporary art . . .
This year public attention focused most on the prolific Chapman brothers,
who first made their name by creating child mannequins with genitalia
growing from different parts of their bodies and by building a
three-dimensional tableau of a Nazi-like apocalypse. This year's most
debated work was piece "Sex," a bronze version of plastic blowup dolls
engaged in oral sex. In "Death," which provoked protests when it was first
shown in an exhibition in Oxford this spring, the brothers doctored a 1937
set of 83 etchings of Goya's "Disasters of War."
I have given much thought as to what distinguishes art -- meaning anything
an artist produces -- from Art (which I capitalize here) meaning that which
has the 'magic', so to speak. I have subjectively concluded that for a work
to qualify as Art, among other things it must satisfy these criteria:
1. It possesses -- above its other traits -- beauty. Whether a symphony, a
play, a painting, or a whatever -- first and foremost it is rooted in
beauty. I'll let you define beauty as you see fit. If you believe Art can
be rooted in ugliness, I respect that, but I disagree. I'd also be
interested in what ugly art you have in your home.
2. It moves me -- in a life-affirming way. Although it may stir in me a
range of emotions, Art ultimately whispers that yes, life is worth living.
It does not anger, irritate, or disgust (emotions that are infinitely easier
to evoke than spiritual pleasure).
3. It amazes me. Besides being moved, I am amazed that a human being could
do this marvelous trick. It seems a small miracle, and typically part of
this impression is an apparent labor-intensiveness and mastery of technique
projected from the work. I go home with the accurate impression that should
I wish to replicate such a feat, a great deal of my time (years) and
relentless energy will be required and that even after making such
sacrifices I am still likely to fail.
4. It invites, with complete grace, repeated scrutiny. I want to keep
looking, or listening, etc. I want to repeat the experience. Remarkably,
this repetition serves to enhance, rather than detract, from the work's
spell.
5. It does not need an explanation. It works on its most fundamental level
without additional 'information', although its power may be enhanced by
additional facts. Upon hearing the music, or seeing the painting, either I
am drawn to it or I am not. Whether the work is groundbreaking or trend
setting is ultimately irrelevant - the work must still work. No amount of
explanation by the artist or critic is going to significantly change my
impression, unless I so desire to like the work (a la the emperor's new
clothes) that my desire is able to overrule my judgment.
6. It does not preach or propagandize. At most, it "suggests". It may
legitimately convey values, but not agendas. I will let you decide where
the line is between values and agendas. Typically the heavy-handedness of
the agenda evident in the work is inversely proportional to the amount of
labor and technique the artist exhibits. The light emanating from a work of
Art originates not from the artist's negative emotions (hostility, anger,
self-satisfaction, self-absorption, holier-than-thou-ness) but from his
aesthetic transport mixed with the reflection of the partaker's soul, which
the artist has evoked. .
7. It is original -- within a reasonably flexible set of boundaries.
Originality unconfined by boundaries is the most easily attained of all
components of would-be Art. This struck me many years ago upon viewing a
photography exhibition consisting of pictures of dead fish placed upon
various objects - a car, a bus stop bench, etc. I sometimes think of
originality as analogous to a bullet - relatively impotent unless confined
in a chamber where its energy is directed in an extremely focused direction.
Much of the necessary confinement comes from satisfying the above 6
criteria. While it is very easy to be original without boundaries, it
remains extremely difficult to be original within classic esthetic
boundaries. This, of course, is one of the great challenges that all
artists must confront, and one that a great many modern artists have chosen
to avoid.
A negative example: Warhol's life-size fake Brillo boxes (and just about
everything else he produced) meet none of these criteria and are not, to my
mind, Art. Upon seeing this work I do not find it rooted in beauty, I am
not moved, I am certainly not amazed, and I have no interest in continuing
to partake of the experience. It is certainly not original in any context,
and, it also preaches -- in this case that everything is Art (and that
therefore anyone can be an artist). At the Guggenheim, where these boxes
were once part of a much larger show, a guard had been posted next to them
because passers-by were likely to think they were simply real Brillo boxes
and bump, kick, or sit on them.
I would also like to stress that there is, indeed, much modern art -
certainly including abstract -- that I consider Art, although I feel far too
much of post-1960s work has by and large been a media-driven jerk-off
contest involving philistines posing as artists and reinforced by
philistines posing as art critics.
- Hugh Prestwood