Hey, Tim Jones, here.
I’ve been asked by some commenters here at JA.O what I thought about abstract art, and whether I appreciate any modern art (like that of Robert Motherwell, shown at left).
Now, I am no expert on anything. I am a practicing artist (a painter ) *begin hypnosis – VISIT MY WEBSITE – end hypnosis* with a Master’s degree in Fine Art. Maybe something worthwhile rubbed off while I was in college, but I do not present myself as any kind of Art Pundit.
I am also really not that well-read, so I can’t lay claim to any great depth of historical knowledge.
What I can try to do is to clarify some terms and state, in very simple language, what I believe art is and is supposed to "do". Art should not be presented (in my view) as the exclusive purview of highly trained experts. If you have to read a paper to understand a painting, it has already failed as a work of art, in my opinion.
I had a professor once, who traced the meaning of the word art back to it’s Latin root ars, pointing out that this was also the root of the word artificial. He went on to say that, in a sense, everything that is not from nature, that is "man-made", could be called "art".
This was received with knowing nods of approval at the time, probably even from me. It is an idea that still holds a great deal of sway in the world of modern art. The idea was that we should not take a narrow view of what is and is not art, which sounds okay, until you try to really begin talking about art.
The truth is, this is just not the way that people think and talk. In this broad, philosophical view of art, the tissue that I just used is "art". So is the notepad I just scribbled on, my shoelace, and every other human artifact you can think of.
The logical conclusion to this kind of thinking led the Dada-ists to hang latrines in museums, and still resonates to this day.
So, what separates art and fine art from non-art? Here is where it might help to draw and define some broad categories. You will see that there will be a good deal of possible overlap between them.
To get the ball rolling, I offer these working categories:
DESIGN – Everything that people make has a design. A tent, a spear point (like the one pictured) a clay pot, a mocassin, a tissue – all are made with an ideal design in mind. The actual object may be more or less close to the ideal, but the design is still evident. The design of an object can be pleasing, but this is not necessary. While some man-made objects may incidentally strike people as pleasing, the same is true of non-man-made objects. Design – in itself, then – would not be what we would call "art" in any commonly understood usage of the word. Art certainly incorporates design, but art is more than just design. Some design is so consciously elegant, though, that it becomes…
DECORATION – You might think that early in human history, people made plain things and gradually began to decorate them over time. There is no evidence for this, in fact. People have always decorated things. It’s what we do, and part of what makes us qualitatively different from the animals. From the beginning, people wanted to make their stuff look cool. So, clay pots received etched, painted or stamped decoration. Clothing was beaded and fringed and dyed. Spears were hung with feathers. People tattooed their skin. Decoration is just built into human beings.
Some of these decorations had symbolic meaning, and some did not. Decoration could be a simple geometric pattern, or an actual picture of something else. The purpose of the decoration, though, was always to add something (appeal, interest, information, etc…) to an already existing object, and was not there to be appreciated simply for itself. So while art can incorporate elements of decoration, decoration – by itself – does not constitute art. Decoration can, however, begin to take on the characteristics of…
ILLUSTRATION – Now we come to the real magic of art; that is, the ability to invoke, or to make present (in a way that is truly mysterious) something that is not there. Not only objects and creatures, but events and environments can be re-presented, merely by the etching of lines or the arrangement of pigment. You probably already have an intuitive grasp of something else that separates illustration from decoration – storytelling. Where do we generally find illustrations? In books.
Illustration exists, not to enliven some existing object or tool, but at the service of a story, or narrative. Many great pieces of art are illustrations, including so many of the wonderful religious icons you are familiar with. Norman Rockwell was proud to be called an illustrator. The strong narrative (story) element in his art makes it very illustrative. All illustration is art, then, but at times it can be elevated to…
FINE ART – What sets fine art apart from illustration is the way it treats this element of narrative or story. All images tell some kind of story, of course, but in fine art the narrative element is subordinated to the visual, sensual properties of the depicted objects (like in the piece at left, by artist Jeff Legg).
It might be a landscape, a woman, a bowl of fruit… but a piece of fine art exists as an homage to some discreet part of creation. Fine art is meant to be appreciated in itself, and by itself. It needs no underlying narrative (as a religious icon or other illustration does) to make sense of it.
Many great illustrations (like Michelangelo’s Pieta) cross over into the area of fine art, owing to the importance that they give to the native visual properties of the depicted objects, environments or people. Great artists often walk a line between illustration and fine art.
There is a danger, in pushing an illustration toward becoming fine art, that the visual elements of the image will overwhelm or detract from the desired narrative. This is why many religious icons are so graphic and simple. Too much attention to realism would actually serve as a distraction. As long as people can readily recognize who the icon symbolically represents, things like realistic shading or accurate anatomy are unnecessary.
There is, conversly, also a danger in allowing a piece of fine art to become bogged down in sentiment and narrative, to the detriment of the image. If an object can’t stand on it’s visual properties alone, then it’s presence in a piece of fine art becomes questionable.
Now, because of the arrangement of the above categories, you may have the idea that I think that fine art is superior to illustration, illustration to decoration, etc… . This is not the case. All of these things are good and necessary in their own right. The reason they are placed in a kind of ascending order is because each successive category comprehends, or incorporates, all the previous categories. So, all art involves design, but not all design is art. This will also be important in the next post…
BEYOND? – There are those who posit another kind of art that passes beyond mere illustration or representation, and becomes something greater. I will examine that idea in my next post, where I discuss Realism, Abstraction and Non-Objective Art.
There will be a quiz next Thursday. Bring two #2 pencils.
If you have read this far, God Bless You!!
