Tatarkiewicz's Definition of Art .....(to further our discussion):
The literature of aesthetics contains an embarrassment of riches when it comes to definitions of art. In "What is Art? The Problem of Definition Today," Wladyslaw Tatarkiewicz defines a work of art as follows: "A work of art is either a reproduction of things, or a construction of forms, or an expression of experiences such that it is capable of evoking delight, or emotion, or shock."
Note that this sentence defines art disjunctively ("Anything is a work of art just in case it is A or B or C."), whereas most definitions are conjunctive (Anything is a work of art just in case it is A and B and C"). Tatarkiewicz regards this as an advantage. But what this means is that there are three things (reproductions, constructions, expressions) and three reactions or responses they are capable of evoking (delight, emotion, shock), any one or more of which from each set is a logically sufficient condition for something's being a work of art. The only necessary condition is that a work of art must be at least one of the three things and must be capable of evoking at least one of the three responses.
Is this an adequate definition of art? Do some works of art fail to satisfy Tatarkiewicz's definition? Is there anything that is not a work of art that satisfies his definition?
- taken from "Puzzles About Art, An Aesthetics Casebook".
Now this is to point out that most Aestheticians do not consider "Everything is art" as an adequate definition, which was most of your stated definitions so far, with the exception of Sonny. So I want you to spend some time thinking about the above definition, and we'll discuss this in class Tuesday as part of our critique. Pretend you have to come up with a more concrete definition for what you consider to be art.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe Tatarkiewicz’s definition of art is still open to considering everything as art. Although, the second part of the definition is what really defines art. The definition includes anything that is “a reproduction of things, or a construction of forms, or an expression of experiences.” All of these things could very well include everything, but I think where the distinction lies is in the second part of his definition- “that it is capable of evoking delight, or emotion, or shock.” These feelings that come from viewing something is, what I believe, defines it as art.
ReplyDeleteI think Tatarkiewicz's definition of art is believable. I agree with his definition regarding what really defines art( "that it is capable of evoking delight, or emotion, or shock" ). In my opinion, I think that the most effective way to destroy the concept of what art is, is to expand its meaning and say that art can be everything. Today, the most common belief is that anything intended to be art is art. I disagree with this statement and believe that a work of art has an objective meaning.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that it is fair to say that art has to fit within those three guidelines. I think that a lot of people make art and may not have any of those intentions at all. All of those intentions are aimed at the viewer. I don't think that all artist's make something with the intention of what the viewer will think, I believe that a lot of artists make something only with themselves in mind. What they think of it or as it being an extension of themselves or their emotions.
ReplyDeleteI am not saying that Tatarkewicz's is not justified in his opinion, however, I am not sure I fully agree. I think that art has the ability to evoke any emotion, depending on what each individual viewer brings to the piece. Also, I think that we can find art anywhere in life. Nature itself is a work of art. The lines of a tree, the values shadows create in a canyon. It is all art, but not constructed by man. So that leads me to the question of whether or not we are just talking about art made by man...or art made by a greater being than man.
ReplyDeletei think of art and good art as being two different things. I might feel that any sort of creative expression is a form of art, but that doesn't mean it will interest me or communicate effectively to me. But I might not respond to one piece while someone else does, depends on our perspectives.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Tatarkiewicz's statement about what really defines art. Someone could just sit down and draw a picture of their dog or cat and not have a true emotion about that piece of work such as, delight, emotion, or shock. Not everything is art in this day and age, but most everything developes from art. You could consider a bilboard in New York city a piece of art but rather it is just a marketing tool to get people's attention, but it has come from the idea of art with it's element's and priciples of design.
ReplyDeleteGood comments. Way more thoughtful than your previous definitions ... so I'm led to believe that Tatarkiewicz had something good to say.
ReplyDeleteStephanie's point that the last part of the definition is what actually sets some parameters for what is art is a good point. I think that this is true, that you need to consider the idea or thought behind the creation when you consider what is art. I'd be hesitant to say that something that is not created intentionally can be art ... which probably puts me in Danielle's camp. Kaity asks a good questions, whether we are talking about art made by a higher being or art made by man. I would also be hesitant to classify something from nature ... made by a higher being ... as being "art". I pretty much think that all art is a reproduction of something pre-existing. Jean Paul Sartre stated that there was no new thought, that everything that could be thought of had already be thought and I probably lean toward that idea when I think about what is art.
Sonny's point about there possibly being a different definition for what is art based on what is good art or not is interesting. That this is also based on whether or not the art work communicates to the viewer is also a good point and ties in nicely with Stephanie's thought that it is the feelings that come from viewing a piece of art that makes it art.
I absolutely believe Brea's thought that many things in our day to day world that we experience visually; commercial messages especially, comes from art, but may not be a work of art. I believe this because I don't think that the message that is intended is of any moral, intellectual, esoteric or spiritual value. But it is Monica's definition that prompted me to deliberate whether art's definition is based on the viewer or the artist.
When I finish something that I know is good and has something to say, I want to become the viewer as well as the creator. I can't stop looking at it. I take it home with me and prop it up so that I can see it in my home, I take it to my bedroom so that I can see it as I go to sleep and as I awake, and I take it back to work with me so that I can view it as I work. As an artist, I know that this is what sets it apart and defines what I have created as art.
WHAT IS YOUR PERSONAL DEFINITION for how you know YOU have created a piece of art? (Brea, you can apply this any way you want to what you love to do and what fulfills you and makes you feel valuable.)
After I have created something, I examine it to make sure that it fulfills what I intended for it to fulfill. If it fulfills everything I wanted it to, then I would call it art. For anything that I create to really be called art, it has to meet my beginning expectations and then it must go one step further. What I create has to reach my emotions somehow. I would not call a simple drawing or snapshot of a something art because it doesn’t reach the emotions and feelings of viewers. What I would consider artwork from what I have created has to fulfill two things: first reach my expectations and second reach my emotions.
ReplyDeleteMy personal definition of art would be something that makes me proud to be the creator and that I also enjoy being the viewer. I truley enjoy photography because its something I have created that from my point of view is beautiful because I have made it. As much as people like to be humble and try to play off their "proudness" for their creative piece truely they are bursting at the seams to tell the whole world how magnificent their piece of art work really is.
ReplyDeleteI constantly judge most of everything that I create/design. Each time I create something, I review it over and over again. I look at it from a distance and zoom in close to see what it is that moves me and makes me feel comfortable. Also, I look to see if it meets all of the goals that I had intended. I have come to find that when I know that I have created a piece of art work, I not only feel good about what I have created, but I also feel at ease and don't have a negative feel towards it. Everyone has their own opinion as to if they believe what you have created is their definition of art work. My intention/definition for each piece of art work that I create is to really capture viewers attention and make them ask questions and find something that moves them.
ReplyDeleteVery good personal definitions so far. These are nicely defined and articulated. Each response has a personal goal that the artist wishes to meet before they deem something they have created as art.
ReplyDelete