When is art objective

The inevitable provocation of thought that ensues when one sees this piece proves its useful function in the world of art as a whole. But how can an artistically inspired piece with a well-received social message, originality, and impact in the world of art not qualify as art? Perhaps, if we aim to define art objectively, we will find that many other pieces with a useful function in society similar to the one exemplified by My Bed , those would also fail to fulfill the necessary components of a check list.

For example, Jackson Pollock was a popular artist during the 50s that became famous for splattering canvases haphazardly with paint. Just as My Bed was scrutinized for its questionable social message, originality, and impact on the world of art many felt the same about works done by Pollock.

While we could argue perpetually about whether a work done by Pollock classifies as art or not, we can be certain of one thing—how it functions in society, and whether that function is useful or not.

As it turns out Pollock is a highly popular name in the world of art and his pieces are sold for millions of dollars. Another artist with a controversial work of art is aforementioned, Marcel Duchamp. Duchamp is a French artist that is famous for his black and white photo of a urinal and heralding the picture as art. This is yet another piece that fails to fit the conventional mode of a proposed objective definition of art.

However when we look at how fountain affected society we may find that it proved to be impactful, and because of this should qualify as a work of art. Defining the topic of art is a long debated argument that seems to have no real conclusion.

But perhaps, this is because we have been going about this task in the wrong way. As art continues to modernize it begins to become more and more difficult to make the distinction between what is truly art and what is not. It seems the only way we can hope to achieve a definition of art, even if it not objective would be to consider how the society it is born out of receives it. If a proposed work of art has a social message, presents an original idea, and impacts the topic of art as a whole, then it should qualify as art.

The function of a proposed work should be of principal consideration in its judgment as quality art, rather than how it fits into an unavoidably subjective mold of a potential definition.

Art is always changing, and because of this, we should expect to judge it in a way that changes just as much. Barrett, Terry. Why Is That Art? New York: Oxford UP, Davies, Ashley.

Guardian News and Media, 11 Oct. Skip to main content. Search form Search. Popular Tags politics. What is art: An Objective Definition vs. Mikala Smith.

Categories: Humanities. Abstract: The question "What is art? Article: The concept of art began an estimated 40, years ago.

Works Cited Barrett, Terry. Dorment, Robert. Tolstoy, Leo. Seeing is partly a result of cultural conditioning and biases.

For example, when many of us from industrialized cultures see a parking lot, we can pick out each car immediately, while others from remote tribal cultures who are not familiar with parking lots cannot. Privacy Policy. Skip to main content. Keep calm, art majors. Your postmodern art is not wasted effort. Hopefully not, anyways.

In fact, arguing about what is and what is not art has become a cultural past-time for first-world countries. This site is a testament to that fact. Night Shyamalan has fallen from a previous high point. These factual suggestions are incongruous to the cultural acceptance that art is entirely subjective-that is, art is whatever the audience wants it to be. In a more academic sense, subjectivity in art means that anything can be art, regardless of any sort of criteria.

A pen laying on a card table, without author or audience, would be art. A lamppost on the side of a road, engineered for an entirely different purpose beyond the artistic, would be art. And, of course, an art piece hanging in a museum would be art-and its purpose would be entirely subjective to the audience. The issue with this belief is already evident: though culturally the belief is that art is fully subjective, in the same breath people make objective claims, opinions, and statements about art.

These claims underlie a set of objective criteria that society and logic dictate must exist in order to argue about art in this first place. If these criteria do indeed exist, then art would have to be objective. But what makes those opinions valid? Why listen to a critic deride a video game if his opinion has no objective base to work from? Surely there must exist some objective criteria upon which people can refer to art.

Art can refer to the medium upon which art pieces are produced. It can also refer to the piece itself. Often it refers to something beyond the art piece: a certain moment upon which human consciousness, intellect, or emotion finds something stimulating in an incomprehensible way.

It can also refer to the art piece after that feeling, as a distinction from other art pieces that did not give them that feeling. Artistic -That echo of the sublime, which does not reach the same feeling of sublime but rather mimics it. As he is watching, he finds himself simultaneously terrified and humored by the antics of Anton Chigurh Javier Bardem in a way that he cannot fully explain-this experience that he has is the sublime. From then on he tells people that No Country for Old Men is an art work because he experienced the sublime.

However, his friends Dan and Lucy do not believe No Country for Old Men is an art work, but instead is simply an art piece. Dan does not comprehend the plot of the film, which he finds too complicated for his tastes. While those antics remind her of a past movie that created the sublime for her the film Fargo , they do not fully reach the same level of Fargo. Notice a few details in this example. One of the objective criteria as to what makes art is that all art requires an artist, and art piece, and an audience.

The artist makes the art piece, which is then experienced by the audience. These three entities could all share in the same object. Because the artist will always be a part of the audience as they are simultaneously experiencing and creating during their art there can be no audience.

What is most important here, however, is that no art piece can be created ex nihilo. An artist must create the art piece; if there is no artist, it cannot be art, even if it evokes the sublime. Why is the artist making the art? There are plenty of art pieces that have been made for the sake of their own existence; in fact, the entire catalog of kitsch art could be claimed as art that has been made solely to perpetuate existence.

Kitsch art is that which is made to decorate or ornate, and has no real value beyond its own existence. Think of paintings of kittens in baskets, or of a Velvet Elvis. These objects exist purely for their own sake; people decorate with them because of attached sentimental value, but they have no meaning beyond what the audience has prescribed it.

This is important because it means that the artist must have intention behind his or her creation, apart from that which the audience gives it. In other words, the art piece must have a means other than its own end in order to become art work. For example, a doodle absentmindedly drawn on the back of a notepad exists as an art piece, but its absent-minded nature means it lacks the ability to become an art work.

However, if during the process of doodling the artist suddenly became aware of the doodle and began to draw with earnest, then it has the ability to become an art work. This declaration points to the heart of the purpose of all of art: to create a lasting impression. Whatever else art does, it starts with evoking something within a person. That something can be an almost infinite combination of different emotions, intellectual stimulations, memories, experiences, and more, but it still requires the creation of impressions.

Above all, art is intentional and relational. So now that art forms and art pieces have been objectively defined, what about art works? Can art works be objectively defined?

Well, as stated earlier, the sublime is experiential. It occurs differently person to person. Some people may never feel it towards a certain art piece, some people may feel an artistic element from art piece, and some people will experience the sublime. This variation from person to person is part of the subjectivity of art, and so it can be made clear that no art work will be fully objective.

However, there must be criteria upon which people argue about art works; these criteria would help narrow down definitions of what makes an art work versus an art piece. The answer has been sought by many different philosophers, the most notable being Immanuel Kant. However, his belief was that the incomprehensible nature of such a clash showed that a person was unfit to actually analyze whatever the art piece was even though ultimately he thought it good for them to experience, because it would develop character.

The problem with this view is that a person may not comprehend the painting to begin with, let alone experience something from it. Everyone knows that person who only enjoys the biggest blockbuster films, and when they are shown a more artistic movie they do not understand the themes behind them.

Kant would say that this person was actually fitter to critique the artistic movie than the person who experienced the sublime-a reasoning that does not add up. A better answer comes from Martin Heidegger, a German philosopher of the 20th century. In fact, to Heidegger art pieces could only transition to being art work if it was continually engaging with the surrounding community in a way that reflected its purpose; if it ever stopped engaging with the community using its purpose, then it would no longer be an art work, but instead would transition back to being an art piece.

Originally created in the Santa Maria delle Grazie, its purpose was to help facilitate religious experience. Objective art is artwork that depicts easily recognizable subject matter. It is also known as representational or figurative art. Nonobjective, or abstract art, is just about the complete opposite of objective art.

Instead of depicting familiar objects, people, or animals, nonobjective artwork deals with the basic elements of art. This means focusing on things like line, shape, color, texture, or space, as opposed to trying to create a realistic picture of a familiar subject. Instead of being confined to the rules of creating realistic renderings of subjects, you can experiment and embrace the media.