Philosophy of Art: The Pattern

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glover7

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

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?

Is this "Art"?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2787/...63309045_o.jpg

Is this "Art"?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2785/...0e3299c4_o.jpg

Is this "Art"?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2459/...f0285aa6_o.jpg

Is this "Art"?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2645/...2f3df844_o.jpg

Is this "Art"?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2624/...88190a28_o.jpg

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.":goof:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Is this "Art"?

---

Yes, yes, no, no, no.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

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
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...066d800c_o.jpg
ART
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...070d59f0_o.jpg
ART
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...gna_samson.jpg
ART
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...Teslas_Lab.jpg
ART
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...tou_Louvre.png
That's what it looks like.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glover7

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.

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

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2676/...a053b6ec_o.jpg

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:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2647/...c7d58c4c_o.jpg

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

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2762/...259de0a7_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2599/...bb707a77_o.jpg

Others from nothing but written text...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2802/...f4e3291e_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2700/...3623e176_o.jpg
(detail of above work)

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

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2710/...fdbc7fde_o.jpg

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

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2703/...07e11b2f_o.jpg

... 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mortalterror

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

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.

---

I don't think that's quite right. As far as Shakespeare goes, who would expect a professional writer who spent a lifetime composing in the theater to be a great artist? I mean what are the odds that a guy who hobnobbs with Christopher Marlowe, Ben Jonson, Thomas Dekker, and John Fletcher would do something literary? Sure, he spoke three or four languages and read voraciously, but he never went to college!

A friend of mine tried that argument with me recently and quoted Einstein as an example. A simple unknown patent clerk comes up with some of the best scientific ideas of all time. To which I countered, "He had a PHD in Physics. His wife had a PHD in Physics. All of his friends had PHDs in Physics. He was working that job at the patent office while he was waiting for an opening at a reputable University. How much more of an insider does the guy need to be?"

With some rare exceptions, I don't know that art very frequently is found in unlikely places. I think it's found typically in the most expected places. Good art is produced by intelligent highly trained artists, who've likely devoted the majority of their lives to creating art, and they don't just come out of nowhere. That theory of the primitive man and natural talent is fine for the tourists, but Henri Rousseau is no Carravagio.

"I do not deny, Sir, but there is some original difference in minds; but it is nothing in comparison of what is formed by education."- Dr. Samuel Johnson

Art is not an accidental thing like the pattern made on a floor by falling matchsticks. It requires the highest levels of mental discipline and complex thought which infirm minds are simply incapable of. As for John Clare, do you really think of him as a major Romantic poet on the level of Keats or Shelley? I wouldn't put him on the level of Southey. Besides "I Am" how many really good poems does he even have? And he's intentionally trying to write poetry. That's worth a distinction in the context of your larger argument. He wasn't a victim of graphomania.

As far as great films going unacknowledged during the creator's lifetime, Kubrick, Fellini, Kurosawa, Bergman, Scorsese all got theirs. Picasso died a wealthy man. I think you give too much weight to the unsung heroes who occupy a relatively small place in art history. It's a very romantic view of history, but not particularly factual. Most people work their way through the conventional system of their time, and if they produce something worthwhile they get credit. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mortalterror

A friend of mine tried that argument with me recently and quoted Einstein as an example. A simple unknown patent clerk comes up with some of the best scientific ideas of all time. To which I countered, "He had a PHD in Physics. His wife had a PHD in Physics. All of his friends had PHDs in Physics. He was working that job at the patent office while he was waiting for an opening at a reputable University. How much more of an insider does the guy need to be?"

---

Please don't just make up Einstein's life, there are several good biographies out there!

He did not have a PhD, he had a diploma, just about equivalent to a BSc today. He spent almost two frustrating years searching for a teaching post, until he had to settle for a job in in the patent office.

This is a bit like one of todays physics graduates settling for a job in IT because he can't get a job in physics.

With friends he met in Bern (also not PhDs!), he formed a weekly club to discuss science and philosophy. But, mostly, he was, and had been, reading the right people--like Henri Poincaré, Ernst Mach, and David Hume.

Mileva Marić, Einstein's wife at the time, did not have a PhD. Her academic career was disrupted when she became pregnant by Einstein & she failed her diploma.

So he graduates with a mediocre degree at a third rate uiniversity, gets his thick girlfriend up the duff, alienates his professors, drops out for two years, and ends up in a dead end job.

How much more of an outsider could the guy be?

I'd say pattern is one of the basic elements of art, sure. It can be art itself too. It seems to me like the OP's question is sort of like this one: "Is celery dinner"? Well, of course, you can make a meal of it. And, it's also part of all kinds of dinners -- chicken soup, stew, side-salad, . . . .

So, my response, in brief is that patter can be the guiding principle of some art pieces. And it can be a component (either major or minor) of others.

Mal4mac, thank you for correcting my mistake. Science is not my strong suit.

As far as Shakespeare goes, who would expect a professional writer who spent a lifetime composing in the theater to be a great artist? I mean what are the odds that a guy who hobnobbs with Christopher Marlowe, Ben Jonson, Thomas Dekker, and John Fletcher would do something literary? Sure, he spoke three or four languages and read voraciously, but he never went to college!

Yes, Shakespeare was recognized as a professional writer, but just how well respected was the genre of theater? He knew Marlowe, Dekker, Jonson, etc... who are now certainly well respected... but it was not until Jonson published his plays that we even see anybody take the contemporary theater as a serious literary genre... as something even worth publication.

With some rare exceptions, I don't know that art very frequently is found in unlikely places. I think it's found typically in the most expected places. Good art is produced by intelligent highly trained artists, who've likely devoted the majority of their lives to creating art, and they don't just come out of nowhere. That theory of the primitive man and natural talent is fine for the tourists, but Henri Rousseau is no Carravagio.

I'd be the last one to suggest that the majority of great art comes from unexpected or "outsider" sources... but more than a small amount of it does. This may include outside influences, new genre or media, or true "outsider" artists such as the untrained or self-trained artists. William Blake would certainly fall into this classification, producing some of the most innovative art of his time (to say nothing of his poetry) outside of the mainstream art culture and with a formal art training only within a genre (print) that was seen as a minor craft, at best. Rousseau would certainly fall within this range... and no, he is no Caravaggio... but having seen almost his entire oeuvre in person I have no problem recognizing that he was most certainly a major artist... something that numerous other formally trained artists equally recognized (Picasso, Max Beckmann, Max Ernst, etc...).

Caravaggio himself is an interesting case study. His art was dismissed by many within the mainstream as "vulgar" as a result of his lack of idealization and his employment of a harsh naturalism based solely upon observation. His violent personality and long legal record didn't serve to endear him to any patrons, and it was only later artists such as Rubens and Velasquez who recognized his genius who raised his reputation.

I suspect that looking back at the second half of the 20th century from a future date it will not be many of the official "insiders" of the art world who are recognized as the great artists of the time. Film will undoubtedly be central... but even within the traditional visual art forms one suspects a lot of re-evaluations taking place. The visual arts of the last 50+ years have struggled with a rather unique situation. There has been such a passion for collecting art that the market for old masters, Impressionists, even early Modernists has been greatly picked over. In this vacuum dealers and collectors have jumped upon the latest art. As at any time it is not always the best that is immediately recognized... and in many cases the artists that can rapidly churn out a product are the ones who are swallowed up by a market that desires quantity as a means of creating demand. When you add to this mix trustees of museums who are themselves collectors of art you recognize that there are literally fortunes being invested in the creation and preservation of certain artist's reputations. This is quite removed from the literary or publishing world. J.K. Rowling's sales do not depend upon her reputation as a serious author. The work merely needs to appeal to the masses. For a collector to spend $20-million on a Jeff Koons, on the other hand, he or she need to be convinced that this artist is truly "great"... a figure who will go down in art history. There are more than a few artists and art critics who suspect that this entire "art world" will eventually come crashing down... not unlike the Dutch Tulip Craze... and a good deal of what will survive will not be the work of insiders.

What you might want to recognize is that a great deal of the art that you might recognize as serious art is not being produced by leading figures inside the the art system... and a great deal of what you would consider esoteric outsider art... if not mere mental Onanism... is what is being churned out and touted as the best art of our time.