Philosophy of Art: The Pattern

[glover7]

Not being a philosophy major, I feel it's important to explore some issues before I start essaying. My most recent essay discusses certain elements of art, so I have a question for all of you. I feel that asking, "What is your definition of art?" is too...well, vague, I suppose. So here's a question that lets you put it into context:

Can a pattern, such as paisley, ikat, polka dots, houndstooth, etc., be art?

Interpret the question as you will, and if this question gets enough responses, I'll put in the "leading" questions I have that are corollary to this one.

[coberst]

What are the motifs (central themes) of visual art?

The motifs (central themes) of visual art are designed to compete with nature and can only be derived from nature. Every natural entity is either organic (living matter) or inorganic (dead matter). “Motifs in visual art must be either organic or inorganic.”

Nature shapes inorganic matter into crystals, which are geometric (symmetrical forms conjoined at angles throughout) in form. Once we humans discover the need to create meaning--using dead matter as a substance--we are destined to use the natural laws of crystallinity. “Art, after all, deals exclusively with inorganic matter, including once-organic materials, such as wood and bone, which become lifeless after losing their growth capacity.”

When we humans were contesting with nature while trying to create something both decorative and practical we were confined to use inorganic nature as our model. The basic formal principles “such as symmetry in lines and planes, have continued to assert themselves in human artistic production up to the present day. Only in the design of inorganic forms does man stand on equal ground with nature, for here he creates purely out of inner compulsion and uses no external models.”

Neither practical nor decorative aims in art provided wo/man with the opportunity to stray from inorganic forms; however, our conceptual needs did provide such an opportunity.

Abraham Maslow informs us that we humans have both organic needs and conceptual needs. The three fundamental organic needs are physiological, safety, and love (belonging), while the fundamental conceptual needs are self-esteem and self-actualization.

“Because it was the liveliness and movement of superhuman forces in nature that so impressed human beings, these could only be conceived as animate and organically mobile…conceptual needs brought organic motifs to art.”

Quotes from Historical Grammar of the Visual Arts by Alois Riegl

[Nick Capozzoli]

Can a pattern, such as paisley, ikat, polka dots, houndstooth, etc., be art?

The general answer to the question Can X BeY? is Yes.

[glover7]

The general answer to the question Can X BeY? is Yes.

Wow, how incisive and thought-provoking of you. Perhaps I should be more dynamic with my terminology. Do you consider a pattern to be art?

[stlukesguild]

Is this "Art"?



Is this "Art"?



Is this "Art"?



Is this "Art"?



Is this "Art"?



If you answered "yes" to but a single one of these it would appear that a pattern can be "Art". One of the recent aesthetic arguments is that everything and anything can be "Art"... not that it is... but that it CAN be. I somewhat sit on the fence on this one. Artists repeatedly prove that there can be no limitations to what "Art" is by continually creating "Art" where you believed it could not be found. At the same time, I agree with the aesthetic philosopher, Dennis Dutton, who suggested that if we wish to find out what art is we need to look at those works which are clearly and unquestionably examples of great "Art" (the Sistine Ceiling, Beethoven's 5th Symphony, Bach's St. Matthew Passion, Hamlet, the Divine Comedy, Guernica) and seek out that which they have in common... not focus upon the exceptions. There will always be exceptions. The exceptions do not automatically nullify the rule. It is still "I" before "E" except after "C" (with further exceptions).

I was required some years back to write my own definition of "Art". The result is as follows:

A DEFINITION OF ART:

To define art seems to be one of the most difficult, if not down-right foolhardy attempts to apply human reasoning and logic toward the mad quest to decipher, explain and categorize the known universe. It is, perhaps, no less absurd than mankind's constant search for the meaning of life... and yet, perchance, if it is not an equally noble quest it still remains a necessary (if somewhat Quixotic) cause. Here, nonetheless, stand I.... after much thought and fully aware of the hopelessness of the situation, offering up my own futile attempt at such a definition:

"Art is the visually perceptible, human-created form expressive of the artist's experience."

Having offered such a universe of human action ranging from painting and drawing to film, architecture, ceramics, dance, performance art, print, etc... etc... to the reader under so slight and condensed a definition, I am quite certain that said reader may be tempted to paraphrase Byron and exclaim, "I wish he would define his definition!" So it was written...so it shall be done:

I began by stating that art is "Visually Perceptible"; I am assuming here that we are speaking of the "visual arts", and not ART with a capital "A", which might also include poetry, drama, and the entire universe of literature, as well as music, mime, philosophy, etc... Thus, having pin-pointed my subject as the "visual arts", I declare that art must be visually perceptible. Some conceptual artists might take umbrage with this assertion, but I would have to question whether any purely conceptual work, lacking a visual form, might be properly defined as visual art at all. Is something art and not philosophy, criticism, literature etc...just because the creator says it is so?

The second assertion of my definition is that art is "Human Created". At times it has been argued that nature itself is an artist in the sense that while nature as a whole often appears formless and chaotic (or at least, lacking in a humanly perceptible form), on a smaller scale nature does create an infinite variety of highly structured and often exquisitely beautiful "art forms" (a sea shell, a snow flake, the human body). I would argue that the works of nature, for all their beauty (which I would freely admit, often far outstrip the works of man) are all simply an end. They are complete and total in and of themselves and are not symbols for or of something else. In other words, a sea shell or a snow flake is not a symbol for or expressive of anything else. On the contrary, all art (as perhaps opposed to craft) is as with any language, both symbol and expressive.

The word “Creation” may indicate the molding of an object from raw materials (as it does with painting or ceramics), or it may signify simply re-configuring or re-contextualizing already existing images or objects (as with collage, montage, and assemblage). However the creator approaches creation.... whatever language or craft the artist speaks through, the act of creation assumes a process of a human mind. While one might argue that animals can "think" and plants can "feel", it would seem that only the human mind is capable of imagination. Creation or invention is impossible without the ability to envision what is not or what does not exist. The ability to conceive, dream, philosophize or invent beyond our perceptions of our physical surroundings is impossible without the imagination.

My definition of art continues with the word "Form".This is perhaps the central issue in art itself, in the sense that while everyone can conceivably think, feel, perceive, imagine or dream the same things as does the artist.... the artist, then again, gives these things an actual tangible, perceptible form. We've all heard people proclaim, "Oh!, anyone could do that!, Why, even I could do something like that!" ....but COULD HAVE and DID are two entirely different things. There can be no art without a perceptible form.

Artists and the art public both regularly use the word "Expressive" to denote any work of art which is blatantly emotion-laden...but what does "expressive" really mean? Is DeKooning "expressive" simply because of his use of a loose gestural painting style? (Isn't this what Rauschenberg and others were challenging?) Does this then mean that Ingres or Vermeer are un-expressive? That, of course, is absurd. All art is "expressive" because all art speaks, signifies, communicates or engages in a dialog with the viewer. The human creation which does not seek to communicate...which does not exist as a metaphor or symbol for something beyond itself, is what we define as craft. (A building that is ONLY a building or a chair that is ONLY a chair are not ART!) The craft object, no matter how beautiful its form, exists solely as a form...solely as an object. The Art Object is at once, both object and symbol.

My final assertion in defining art is the notion that art is "expressive of the artist's experience". I once read a quote from Franz Marc in which he spoke of his attempts to paint animals as they saw themselves. I immediately thought how utterly ridiculous this was! How can a human being hope to even know how another human being sees himself or herself, let alone an animal?!

This, then, is as false as the notion that the great portraitist is somehow able to get inside the sitter's head to capture his or her personality. An artist speaks only for him or herself. An artist might paint what he/she imagines animals perceive themselves to be...or what he/she feels the sitter's personality may be...but no artist can create what he cannot imagine or perceive. An artist can only give form to his/her OWN experiences, be these sensual or sensory (things seen, felt, smelt, heard, tasted), emotional, spiritual or intellectual (things dreamt, read, remembered, imagined, fantasized).

For all their obfuscations, their smoke and mirrors of illusionism, false personas, etc...artists are first of all simply individuals expressing themselves, seeking to be heard and to engage in the conversation of dialog. Artists are not (necessarily) visionaries, revolutionaries, or representatives of their times, their age, their nationality, culture, gender or race. Artists do not speak for all of us but for themselves. Artists do not speak FOR mankind but TO mankind. Matisse bid us each and every one to remember that all art is self portraiture... that before any painting is a Madonna, a Crucifixion or a landscape it is first of all a Rembrandt, a Raphael or a Matisse.

*****************

"Ah but I was so much older then... I'm younger than that now..."

I don't believe this definition is all that bad... in spite of some of the mannerisms of style which now make me wince. Nevertheless... I think I'm less certain about what "Art" is today... in spite of the fact that I myself am a painter and as such have aspirations to be considered among the rank and file.

Duchamp was the great revelation for many. His "art works" and his philosophy challenged the viewer to stretch their definitions. His conclusion (which he himself questioned) seems to have been (or so it has been interpreted by others who didn't understand his humor) that Art is anything that the artist says it is. Of course this leads us to the question of just "who is an artist"? Building upon Duchamp many have assumed that An Artist is anyone who says he or she is an Artist.

With time I have come to greatly doubt this. The individuals who created the great Gothic stained glass windows (seen above) or the magnificent Islamic palace (also above) or the stunning medieval illuminated manuscripts would never have thought of themselves as "Artists"... not as we think of it. They were craftsmen, certainly... but of no real difference than the iron smith. But today we recognize what they created to be "Art" of the highest order... and them to have most certainly been "Artists". Why? Because the culture as a whole... especially those whose opinions most impact "Art" (art critics, art historians, curators, art collectors, art dealers, art writers, art lovers, and artists) have come to a certain degree of consensus that these achievements are indeed "Art".

In other words, "Art" is not simply whatever a self-proclaimed artist declares is "Art". Every sophomoric art student and art school grad has pretensions that what he or she does is "Art"... not something so mundane or lowly as mere craft. But thinking does not make something so. I may think that I am a doctor... or the President of the United States... unless I am recognized as such by others... especially by those whose opinions matter... these are but vain illusions. Once again, I am a painter. I have achieved a certain level of mastery of my craft. Whether my creative efforts amount to "Art" is not something that I can decide... that is reserved for others: Art is what the larger culture... and especially those most concerned with Art deem to be Art. Or as Renoir put it, "First be a good craftsman; it never prevented anyone from being a genius."

[mortalterror]

Is this "Art"?

Yes, yes, no, no, no.

[stlukesguild]

Yes, yes, no, no, no.

How did you go about coming to these conclusions? You will note that I asked if they were "Art", not whether they were good art or whether you liked them or not. Just curious. You've established a dislike of Modernism in the visual arts a few times in the past.

The third work, by the way, is a quilt.

[mortalterror]

The third work, by the way, is a quilt.

And the fifth is the result of too much Tetris as a child. I know you'll tell me all about the layering and brushwork and how it was artificially aged, plus in a certain light... and I can listen to you while you say all that with an open mind. But then I look at it and think, "It's a bunch of blocks."

Mostly, I'm just going on a gut reaction, and an assessment of how much training, thought, and effort it looks like went into the compositions. I could probably whip something like the fourth one up in photoshop in like a minute, but who even wants to see something like that? I wouldn't use it as a wallpaper. I honestly think childish stick figures exhibit a more aesthetically pleasing style.
ART

ART

ART

ART

ART

That's what it looks like.

[glover7]

Thank you, god! StLuke, I love the examples you've provided as the first two exhibit a certain utility in concert with their "status as art."

What I'd like to ask further is whether you think that, say, a pattern constructed from a series of numbers input into a computer program can be art.

What I mean to say is that if one takes a program that formats a binary code into a series of stripes, then would you consider that art? If so, then when you remove the stripes from the equation by severing the formatting program from the binary input, do you consider the sequence of numbers alone to be art?

Also, if you DON'T consider stripes to be a work of art, would you feel differently if, for instance, Marcel Duchamp had tacked a striped cloth onto a canvas and declared it art? Does reputation of the artist have a great deal to do with whether or not we judge something as artistically meritorious?

[Nick Capozzoli]

Wow, how incisive and thought-provoking of you. Perhaps I should be more dynamic with my terminology. Do you consider a pattern to be art?

Sorry. Didn't mean to sound glib. Sure, I think patterns of the type mentioned can be aesthetically pleasing and defined as "art." One of the posters mentioned crystals and other natural patterns. We usually think of art as created by humans, but photographs of natural patterned objects (including electron micrographs and x-ray crstallography can be aesthetically pleasing.

Maybe a better question would be can something be art that has no "pattern" whatsoever? I.e. can something patternless and amorphous be aesthetically pleasing? I don't know, but I can't think of anything at the moment.

[stlukesguild]

There is a mentally-challenged Japanese man, Kunizo Matsumoto, who produces volumes of random writings that I would consider "art":



A mentally disturbed American from the midwest with a genius aptitude for mathematics and an obsession for calendars produced some fascinating "art" solely constructed of numbers and text:



There are others who have produced "art" solely from obsessive patterned mark-making:





Others from nothing but written text...




(detail of above work)

... nothing but a single repeated letter...



... or text in an unknown... perhaps "invented" language...



... as in the "infamous" Voynich Manuscript.

Again... all of these examples are recognized as art by portions of the larger culture and the larger art community: Art is what the larger culture... and especially those most concerned with Art deem to be Art.

I see no reason why a computer code could not be art. Music... it might argued... consists largely of an organized pattern of sounds. I have seen computer generated works that consist largely of text, random numbers, and evolving fractals and other patterns. Were they "art"? Perhaps. They were certainly visually intriguing.

Again... as a painter I have reached the point where I no longer concern myself too much with the question "Is it art". I create that which I believe in... which intrigues and interests me... to the best of my ability, and I let someone else worry about whether it is art or not.

[Nick Capozzoli]

A mentally disturbed American from the midwest with a genius aptitude for mathematics and an obsession for calendars produced some fascinating "art" solely constructed of numbers and text:

Yeah, great stuff. Columns add to "66." I guess that the human mind "likes" to find patterns, and finds them pleasing when it does. "Art" then emerges from the pattern when it is perceived, consciously or unconsciously. Think of the quincunx, a pattern of planted trees, seen from a certain angle on the road. Or a pattern of hexagonal tiles on your bathroom floor. Your mind arranges them for you in different ways.

There was a scene in the movie, Rainman, described also in an essay by Oliver Sacks, when someone spills a bunch of matchsticks on the floor. The "idiot savant" looks at them and calls out a number...he apparently saw something in this complexity of matchsticks and perceived its number instantly. Sacks was talking about two autistic kids who apparently could perceive "the shape" of prime numbers.

[mortalterror]

There is a mentally-challenged Japanese man, Kunizo Matsumoto, who produces volumes of random writings that I would consider "art":

A mentally disturbed American from the midwest with a genius aptitude for mathematics and an obsession for calendars produced some fascinating "art" solely constructed of numbers and text:

Well, if you already have the deranged and mentally feeble on your side, what more do you need?

[glover7]

Well, if you already have the deranged and mentally feeble on your side, what more do you need?

You do understand that you're being completely offensive, don't you? Or are you just dense?

[stlukesguild]

Well, if you already have the deranged and mentally feeble on your side, what more do you need?

Of course the same criticisms were often leveled against William Blake, Thomas Traherne, Glenn Gould, John Clare, etc... The point is that there are those who fall outside consideration as "artists"... who perhaps never even saw themselves as "artists" like the medieval scribes... who still are eventually recognized as "artists" by the larger arts community. How many classic films were never recognized as great art at the time of their creation? How many comic book artists or childrens' book artists/authors receive serious recognition as artists... and yet it is quite likely that "art" will repeatedly be found where it is least expected. Shakespeare... writing in a debased genre that wasn't even considered worthy of publication during his lifetime may be the greatest example.