A Question of Definition
This post was inspired by an article in the Austrian daily newspaper DerStandard.1 The article explored—at times with considerable irony—whether celebrities who also pursue successful careers in the visual arts owe their success to genuine artistic talent or ultimately merely to their fame.
Naturally, this also involved a fundamental clarification of terms: What exactly is art—and who gets to decide what qualifies as art?
People often stand in front of a modern work of art and loudly express the opinion that they—or their ten-year-old niece—could have produced it just as well. In that case, the only appropriate response is:
“Perhaps. But did you?”
Who Decides What Art Is?
So who decides what art is? I would tend to agree with the view that this can ultimately be determined only by the creator of a work of art, by declaring it to be art.
Who else should define it? A state commission, a popular vote, or perhaps the art market? If everyone were to establish their own binding definition, we would end up with millions of different definitions—which would not necessarily be particularly useful.
And who am I to tell another person that what they have created is not art?
Calling something art ultimately says nothing about whether, or what kind of, impression the work leaves on those who view it. Nor does it say anything about whether it can be successfully marketed or generate financial value in the art market. Here it certainly helps if your name is Johnny Depp or Sharon Stone!
It is often said that art needs recipients—in other words, viewers or an audience. But here, too, the question arises: Where is the threshold? Is it ten people, 1,000, a million—or does a single millionaire ultimately suffice?
And let us be honest: A work of art always has at least one recipient—its creator.
Of course, everyone can and should develop their own criteria for deciding whether a work of art speaks to them or appeals to them. Over the decades, I have pieced together the following criteria from countless attempts at explanation by both authoritative and less authoritative voices.
My Three Criteria for Art
1. Intention
The creative process begins with a conscious, free decision. That decision gives the object a meaning of a higher order.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, Marcel Duchamp provoked and revolutionised the art world by, among other things, signing an ordinary urinal and exhibiting it in an artistic context.2 His so-called readymades made him world-famous and thoroughly unsettled the established concept of art.
2. Execution
For me, art also involves the concrete execution of a work: the choice of medium and tools, as well as the deliberate way in which they are used.
In photography, for example, this includes composition and framing, the use of light, and also the choice of post-processing, printing method and paper. It is not only about the idea, but also about how that idea is realised.
3. Responsibility
The person who creates a work must be able to take responsibility for it. This responsibility has a legal, social and, above all, aesthetic dimension.
The creator should, at least in theory, be able to explain what their intention was and why they chose the means they used.
In my view, this also provides an elegant distinction from works created by artificial intelligence. Perhaps more on that in a later post.
Head, Heart and Gut
My personal understanding of art can also be summed up quite simply:
A work of art must connect with my three “control centres”—the head, the heart and the gut. Ideally, it will engage all three at once.
In other words, it must challenge me intellectually and move me emotionally—regardless of whether that response is positive or negative.
This world can never have too much art! So don’t be shy—call your art art. Bring more beauty into the world and forge new connections.