the world through the eyes of sweet melancholy. about the arts, science, and personal affairs.
8106 › What art is.
home | admin | Log in | entries feed | about| downloads

What art is.

well, let’s put an end to this neverending discussion about a topic that is rather simple, when you got the point. i am so sick of people arguing what art is and what it should do and shit. i won’t explain much here, because imo the answer is quite self-explanatory.

art is communication.
and that is pretty much it. it’s a form of communication, i think everybody agrees with this so far, right?
there are dozens of ways of how to communicate with people. the most famous may be by language. speaking, writing, singing, you name it. other forms of communication are emotions, hand signs, specific actions, and so on and so on. well nearly everything we do can and is used as a matter of communication.

what is communication anyway?
it’s also quite simple: the transport of information from one to another. when anything informs anything else about something, that already is communication. people need to interpret it (and usually do it totally wrong, haha) to get ‘communicated’, but you don’t really have to recognize that all that you just DID was communication.

and that is the major point of every art out there: an artist trying to communicate IN HIS WAY.
rather than using the direct ways of bringing information to others, like speaking or writting, he uses other forms. for example a painter may draw a sad picture of a tortured clown in order to express self-inhibition. the viewer of this piece of work may not understand it the way the artist meant it to be, that’s quite like talking to someone in another language. but as you may see it’s quite the same thing, just only on another basis of communication.

what makes art nevertheless hard to define is the fact that what is my major point here: it is the ARTISTS decision on how he wants to communicate, using HIS form of art.
a good term i would like to bring up here would be meta. because the meaning of every art most commonly lies within the meta content of the piece of work. you don’t actually SEE the self-inhibition in the clowns face, but it IS there. because the artist wanted it to be there. if you don’t see it you’re simply not able to communicate with the artist on the same level. you are talking french, he is talking german. sorta like that.

so, what is when there is no meta content at all? that is widely understood as NOT art. for example a school book which only states facts. there is no meaning between the lines, and the author did not meant to transport any other information than the obvious. that is not art, and everybody should agree at this point, isn’t that so?
well, you could argue that it is a art to bring certain information to the reader like the way school books do, but what you actually mean is “skill”, not “art”. it is no alternative way of communication.

“art begins, when simple words don’t do it anymore.”

so, i will end this article with one simple sentence that sums up what i was trying to put my finger on. you may disagree with it, and maybe you’re right, but as far as my knowledge goes it is that easy:

art is an alternative form of communication, where the actual information lies within its meta content.

tags: , ,
last modified: 2010-Nov-28, 13:09:08
short link | perma link | comment feed

comments (0)

Leave a Reply

◀ newer post
older post ►