|
The Word “Art”
There is a misconception propagated by the misuse of the word “art” when applied to fields of design and craft that in previous ages would never have been assigned that appellation. The result has diminished the expectation of what art is and replaced it with examples either outside of art or whose limitations suggest a complete misunderstanding of what constitutes the aesthetic experience.
The current usage was initiated to acknowledge the expanding parameters of art practice that hitherto resided in the precincts of theatre, dance, or carnival. Its consequences have diluted aesthetic practice sending it to the margins and leveling the playing field to mediocrity, blatant exhibitionism, superficial extravagance, and chaos.
Its proponents have purposely alienated new generations towards understanding their heritage and disregarding what that tradition might still offer. With this in mind, it may be time to reexamine the current widespread practice of calling fields that boarder on art “art” and practitioners in those disciplines “artists”.
At issue is not the wish to diminish their achievements nor to withhold honor and respect towards them, but simply to call a spade a spade and a diamond a diamond. After all, once a great craftsman was proud of being called a great craftsman; just as a great designer was proud to be called a great designer. Their works were treasured for being great designs and great crafted objects.
In truth, we use the word “art” in place of the word “mastery”, and when we wish to award a tribute to a great craftsman or a great designer, we automatically assign that person the title “artist” and his or her work “art”.
This particular usage had once been implied as an unusual honorarium only. Now it has assumed a greater significance than what is the province of that creative métier no matter how successfully achieved or how agreeably received by the world.
There is confusion about what constitutes high craft or high design as distinct from the function of art. What separates the experience of art from design is the scope and breadth of how art triggers the entire human cognitive capability, stimulating the full spectrum of perceptions and insights that human beings enjoy.
I do not see that wide range of possible experience happening in the results of design in the applied arts- their goal being the sensual satisfaction of form matching function in a utilitarian entity. That’s no insignificant task, but it keeps within its own boundaries: its intended purpose being functional beauty.
If we feel nostalgic for the object designed, that is a circumstance after the fact as all “artifacts” assume the status of relics. Usually emotional resonance does not come with the design but as a by-product of time. Although in instances of unusual eloquence a design might inspire a fuller emotional engagement, and in consequence, one needs to make an exception.
But delight in sensual beauty alone is not the full engagement of the aesthetic experience. Nature has all the most incredibly beautiful designs we ever need to see, and in almost every instance we can observe form following function. So what is it that humans can do beyond Nature’s sensual attributes that makes art a unique experience.
If an image by itself doesn’t address multiple states of perception whose functions work in cooperative dialogue towards the comprehensive unity of heightened awareness, than what is before us is not art but a crafted artifact.
It is a vital experience that happens through one’s eyes and in one’s mind. And it happens quietly, endlessly quietly. The carnival of frenetic activity is not a replacement for the meditative experience. That’s why there were the words: carnival, vaudeville, and circus for all those imaginative, ingenious, uproariously inventive entertainments containing deconstructive, institutional critiques centuries before the avant-garde was a word to describe performers involved in such “popular” activities.
At issue here is the wholesale makeover by adherents of the social sciences of what constitutes a work of art. And what once was a reference point to gain a sympathetic understanding of the cultural milieu from which artistic expression emerges, has become the principle means to evaluate that art. Consequently, aesthetics are not a consideration, for aesthetic grounds by which to make judgments is considered elitism for those adhering to a pluralistic agenda. In a world where everybody’s art is equal than there can be no mastery; there can be only artists and art.
Then the words have no meaning.
|
