Common Creativity and Art
I once took a class where on the first day, the teacher asked the class to define art. There were a lot of responses regarding the eliciting of emotion, “high class”, lasting value, etc. The teacher then posed the problem of defining the difference between “art” and “entertainment”. Some thoughts regarding artist’s intent, audience reception, etc were brought up. The teacher then wrote a quote on the board that summarized the whole debate in such a perfect way that it was clear she was just building up to The Big Reveal (instead of letting us think about it ourselves too much, but whatever):
“Art and Entertainment are not different types, but different degrees of intensity. Entertainment becomes Art when it forces you to re-evaluate your own worldview in light of it”
You won’t find a lot of people who specifically disagree with the idea it presents. In fact, you may find (like the classroom I was in when I was first exposed to it) that people enthusiastically embrace this way of defining such an ambiguous concept as “art”.
Where I think a lot of people experience a disconnect is when people refer to certain mediums as “art”. Few people will argue that an exploration of how the death of a loved one affects someone isn’t some form of “art”; a painted picture, a carefully worded poem, a short story, and even a movie are generally “accepted” ways of exploring this artistically. What if this concept were done through, say, a video game? Would that be art? (Arguably, it’s been done; Shamus Young, a popular video game blogger, gives a great artistic interpretation of Silent Hill 2 for those who don’t want to play the game and interpret it themselves)
So where is that line? Roger Ebert has gone on the record saying “Video Games can never be art” (He later elaborated that Video Games can never be “high art”; they’re “art” in the way a can of Campbell’s Soup is art, but they’ll never be Shakespeare-level). I’m not going to specifically argue against that, but I am putting it out there for the sake of context.
Ok, so poetry, novels, even movies can be “high art”.
Yep.
Photography?
Sure.
Dance?
Of course.
Painting?
Absolutely.
A Song, or even an Album?
I can get behind that. Sure.
What about a Concert or Musical Performance, even if it’ not necessarily Classical or Orchestral music?
You know what? Yeah. That can be “art”. Some are obviously better than others and such.
Architectural Planning and Design?
Ok, yeah. That works. Roman and Greek architecture can surely fit there.
Graphic design?
Maybe a stretch, but ok.
Gardening?
That’s a stretch. I don’t know about that.
Web page design?
Um, I think that might depend on..
What about Software Development?
Now you’re just…
What about Furniture Design?
Are you kidding?
TPS Reports and Spreadsheets?
Stop talking to me.
What I find is that everyone tends to think the thing they’re interested in/can do really well is “art”. You’ll get few arguments from people on that, but when you start comparing your particular field as equal to that of “high art”, then you’ve successfully baited them into a discussion of concepts and ideas, likely not even using the same basis of definitions.
Because really, I think that’s what all these discussion about what “art” is boils down to: nobody actually knows how to define it in a way that excludes things they don’t consider “art” without specifically naming them (You also get this with what sorts of activities are considered “sports”; sure, nobody argues that Baseball and Football are sports, but what about Cheerleading? Or Dance in general? Chess? etc)
I recently attended an “Art Walk” in the city of Anaheim (apparently it’s held every year?) and there was definitely a lot of “artsy” things there: hand-made jewelry, blankets, portraits, framed painted scenescapes, some dance performances, a swing band playing, and (of course) some exhibits that gave free wine and cheese in exchange for looking at the paintings of “high art” that people (well, usually just one or two people) have created and put on display (I’m no art connoisseur, but the wine and cheese were pretty good). Here, “art” means something slightly different than the “high art” thing I’ve previously discussed: it’s anything creative enough to be sold. I seriously doubt that the people selling stuff here have to sell a certain amount to make rent, but I think a lot of them would like to be compensated for their time and talent. Is this stuff “art”? Sure. But it’s purpose isn’t to tell a story or challenge your worldview; it’s meant to be exchanged for money.
Let’s talk about “art”. What is it? Like, really? How would you define it if you were writing the dictionary definition? What would you include/exclude?
