“A conscious creation” doesn’t really lend itself to things we can do with the theory other than not mistaking inanimate things for Art or confusing John Cage’s 4'33" or Duchamps Urinal as Art, rather than commentary in the guise of Art. Or as Rodger Scruton called it, “the Painted Word.” But once we’ve done that, we’re still left with “How do I use this definition to make better Art?”
“Beauty”. This is much more helpful than it seems at first glance. Due to all the fuzziness around the definition, intended or not, many are driven astray when looking for ways to improve their Art by trying to adhere to principles we were taught or gleaned from others. In my case, in the Theater, we were given principles like “find the truth in the moment”, or “ground yourself in honesty”, or “reconnect with your scene partner.” These are lovely ideas, that no doubt have importance and merit in the creation of living breathing three dimensional characters, but how do they practically help make what I’m doing better? How do I know when I’ve achieved it using any metric outside of gazing at my own navel? What if what I’m doing honestly
is still bad Art?
How do I actually improve it?
The concept that Art is the creation of Beauty (or aesthetic pleasure for those more analytically minded) is what will get us back in line with what all artists are in fact trying to do. So when we’re at a loss, the first place we should look to is the tool kits of our respective Artistic formats. In the case of actors (my cohort) our tool kit is wrapped up in our bodies and the choices we make with our lines. “How do I make this more beautiful to watch” translates to: Are you paying attention to your body or are you just existing physically as yourself? Unless you’re playing yourself, there is work there that can be done. Can the way you stand tell us more about your character without the need for words? Can you use more economy of motion in your gestures so that each movement has more significance than it would if you were just existing normally? Can you craft a richer tone of voice? Can you find a more novel, yet still believable, reading of a line? This focus lifts our heads up from our navels and back to our training, be it acting, writing, painting, singing, etc.
“For it’s own sake” lends us a hand here as well. Aim first and foremost to the work being beautiful on its own merits. Not whether it advances an agenda, an ideology, or speaks some sort of truth to power. These are all important things in their own right, but when aiming to improve your art, look to first principles before you attempt to refine or insert a topical message. For one, if the art is truly extraordinary then your message, should there be one, will be lifted by the beauty of the art itself. Second, the more you focus on a message the more you risk making the art itself secondary, cheap, and that most dreaded of all things; propaganda.
What can’t this theory do for us?
Tell us “why”. That isn’t a definitions place. What you do and why you do it is up to you. That’s where the Art exists after all. Any definition that attempts to tell you otherwise is selling something, even if it’s simply the agrandizement of the person doing the selling. There will be no lack of people telling you what they think the purpose of Art is; the Why of Art. What that beauty is here to
do.
You can take and leave those as you choose. But if someone tells you that the purpose of a racecar is to taste good, you’ll know they’ve missed something. So too, with Art. There are infinities of the possible within this definition, but never forget the operative word is “within”. Don’t confuse what you’re engaging in before you’ve even begun. After that, the rest is up to you.
What Is Art?
This question has plagued mankind for centuries now. But there is an answer to this question. It is this:
Art is the conscious creation of beauty for its own sake.
How does “beauty” make sense here? It’s simply to signify that the act of conscious creation of Art is in the realm of aesthetics. Nothing more, nothing less. And it should not be confused with barbie dolls, or super models. Aesthetic pleasure can be found in the darkness as well as the bright pinks of the world. The painting A Portrait of Dorian Grey is hideous, still art. A Rammstien concert is not where you’d go wearing glitter, still art. A slasher flick is full of blood and gore, still art. They are all aesthetic creations consciously created purely for their own sake.
Why “conscious”? Because the act of aesthetic creation is something that can only be done with a conscious mind. A computer program is not the creator of art, it’s programers are. It is no more the artist than the paintbrush is a painter. As we get ever more and more powerful unconcious AI’s this point will become more and more salient.
Why “for it’s own sake”? Purposelessness is inherent in all art. No basic human needs are met by art. Which is what distinguishes it from decoration of a useful item or propaganda. It’s just a thing we do that generates nothing but aesthetic pleasure, for no other purpose but that aesthetic pleasure.
What isn’t Art?
Chairs, beds, tables, a leather jacket, a spoon, a computer. In these cases the primary function of the object is to fill a necessity. Decoration is common because beauty makes everything better. These are often referenced to as “almost a work of art” for a reason. It a high compliment to the tradesman to get you to almost forget the thing you’re looking at actually has a purpose. To remove craftspeople from the category of artist isn’t to diminish them. Is it to give back the proper weight on their creation of useful things. And to not allow an over expansive definition of art to lay claim to everything under the sun. Also, nature is not art. It is nature. It was not crafted for our pleasure, no matter what your religion says. It is a thing made by unconscious forces that we evolved in. Thus naturally we’ve come to find it beautiful. But it is to diminish nature by comparing it to the pretty and pointless baubles made by humans. Finally Lionel Messi is not an artist as what he’s doing fits none of these categories in our definition. Is soccer “The Beautiful Game?” Yes. But the point of it isn’t the creation of aesthetic pleasure. The point is to win the game. Thus, not art.
Is shitty art still art?
Yes. The quality of an art work is not a barrier to qualifying for the category and no such stipulation is included in the definition. Millions of four year olds with crayons are making art every day.
Why is this question so fraught then?
Humans, especially artists, don’t like to be told that not everything they do is art. They want to lay claim to the word in every action in their day to day lives. It’s simple greed that informs this. We value art highly so everyone wants a piece of that pie, definitions be damned. It’s also a form of selfishness enshried in Andy Warhol’s empty definition that “Art is whatever you can get away with”. Artists understand definitions outside of their field. Being told that “cancer is whatever you can get away with calling cancer” would strike them as absurd. They simply refuse to be consistent. This is aided by art’s inherent uselessness. Unlike cancer, art can seem to lack stakes. This leads to: “What does it matter how we define it?” The natural answer is that if we’re going to give a word a definition, that definition needs to work. A definition has no meaning if it can be used to define anything, and exludes nothing. That is by definition, not a definition. To give something a definition is to set limits around it, to distinguish it from other human endeavors so that we may better understand it. But human beings are incentivized to want the glory we place upon the act for themselves. Add to that the fact that there is no governing body over definitions, and you can easily see why it’s been made confusing, when in fact it’s really rather simple. But some people don’t get what they want out of any coherent definition, so they reject it.
Who are you to say what Art is anyway?
I’m a human being. That’s the price of entry to this discussion. After that it’s simply down to who has the most coherent definition. I happen to be an artist (actor) and a philosopher, so this is a natural fit for me. But anyone can play the game. Relatedly, this style of questioning can be flipped around: Who are you to tell me I can’t offer a definition? Once that move is rendered moot, we’re back to judging every applicant based upon the cogency of their answer to this question.
And that’s it. That’s the painfully simple truth about art. Now go thank a craftsperson. They do things that are useful.