The Problem with Definitions.

(Continued from)

Of course having established a definition of art, albeit a weak one, it still must be considered there is the fundamental flaw of subjectivity. Can art be defined by only the majority? A general consensus on what or what is not art? This seems to be the question raised by Duchamp's Fountain, a "found art" piece that was a urinal, laid on its back and signed "R. Mutt 1917". The piece is both ironic and iconic, in the sense that it was originally created in protest to general consensus of what defined art at that time. The irony is formed in that the piece is now iconic in the discussion of art, though it had originally thought to be simply trash. (It is even thought that the piece was lost some time later because someone mistook it for rubbish and threw it out.) However, the piece had made such a statement and created such controversy that it would be wrong not to accept it as art. As well, it also conforms to my earlier definition of art. It had an intended message, a statement that art could take the form of intellectual interpretation and not just physical form. It had an intended audience, the art community of that time. Finally, it had an emotional reaction, notably disgust and anger. So even though the Society of Independent Artists of 1917 had an idea of what construed art, it would seem that position has been redefined over time.

So does this mean that art can be defined by a group of people? Of course it can, but this does not mean that it is the only definition, nor does it mean that definition is applicable in all situations. So, defining art, it would seem, is open to some interpretation and is relativistic to the period and place. Of course this should not be surprising, especially when it is considered, that at its core, art is a form of communication. And, with all forms of communication, the signal to noise ratio has a significant impact on the message. This ratio becomes even more important in art as a lot of the forms, such as poetry, will use noise, such as metaphors, to build the intended message. Add on top of this, noise from outside sources, cultural differences or language translations for example, and the message can be very muddied. Many times the message is lost before it even reaches the intended audience. To me this would be an example of failed art as it is my belief that art, must have a purposeful message.

Sometimes it would seem that art can be meaningless, that it needs no message, it simply exists for the purpose of aesthetic beauty. Take, for example, coffee art, in my opinion it is very beautiful and aesthetically pleasing. It definitely fulfills the criteria of an emotional response and an audience, but does it have a message? In my opinion, I would say yes. To me the artist in this case is saying "look at my my skills to create something that pleasing." It says even more in the sense that it is something that is very temporary, it is intended mainly for a one person audience and it will be enjoyed for only a short period of time. I guess I would even speculate that ability to create something that is aesthetically pleasing is art in its simplest form. That is to say, something on which the artist and his audience can both say, "that looks beautiful", is a consensus on the message "is this beauty?".