What is Art?
A LEXICOGRAPHER’S NIGHTMARE
“Art is either plagiarism or revolution.” —Paul Gauguin
The most fundamental question in the philosophy of art is that of the nature or definition of art in general. Of course, many philosophers have debated the question but never has there been universal satisfaction with any one theory.
It’s worth asking whether it is even possible to properly address the question, “what is art?” or whether there is any practical purpose in doing so. The arguments may be fascinating to some, but supposing a proper definition is even possible, what would its creation accomplish? Part of art’s appeal is in its freedom from rules and boundaries, and time has shown that art is a fluid concept defying rigid classification. Whenever new art forms emerge from revolutionary minds, humanity gradually adapts to the change and the concept of art is modified.
So, it is important that radical views on art receive open-minded consideration. However, if the idea of art is going to retain meaningful specificity, it is going to need some boundaries. If everything could be considered art, then the word “art” would be void of meaning. We must use some discretion in identifying art in order to prevent such a fall into semantic oblivion.
When it comes to matters of taste and technique in the world of art, subjectivity is all well and good, but it may become troublesome if we become too relativistic with our categories. —CKG
QUESTIONS TO PONDER
• How would you define “art”?
• Do you believe it is possible to define art in a way that satisfies everyone?