Weitz

Weitz defines art as an open concept that cannot be defined, but certain aspects of it seem to almost always be the same in his mind. He writes, “mostly, when we describe something as a work of art, we do so under the conditions of there being present some sort of artifact, made by human skill, ingenuity, and imagination, which embodies in a sensuous, public medium –stone, wood, sounds, words, etc,- certain distinguishable elements and relations”(192). This does not address the emotions, expression of wants, etc. that many of the other artists have included, but it also does not exclude them as aspects of many works of art. It seems that this quote could serve as a definition, but it is likely Weitz had at least a few exceptions in mind because of the use of the word mostly. If this were to be used as a definition, as Weitz would not want it to, it would eliminate animals creating art and any art where there is not an artifact present so oral storytelling would not be an art. This definition would not exclude much art. A definition based on this one that includes a little more would be art involves the creation of something either enduring or brief that involves the use of skill, ingenuity and imagination to create something for more than practical use. This definition is vague and probably includes too much.

                What are the flaws of this definition?

Indirect Response to Jonathan

           Jonathan asked about how the environment one sees art in impacts the experience, but I decided to look at the connection of art and the environment. I think this disscussion connects, at least indirectly to his post.   

  The Hudson River artists present art is a representational manner, but one that often idealizes the setting. It seems possible that viewing this art could instill or renew an interest in natural surroundings in the viewer. Art could expose people to aspects of the natural world that they do not regularly see. For example, someone growing up in an urban area will be exposed to a lot less of nature then someone in a rural area. Growing up without seeing much of nature may limit someone’s appreciation, but art may allow them to get a sense of what they are missing. Art can also be used to draw attention to environmental issues and encourage people to take an interest without coming out and asking for donations or anything like that that might turn people off from various causes. If a goal of art is to increase people’s emotional connection to nature, of course it would not be the goal of all or even most art, then nature photography would serve an important role. Photography is often questioned as an art in class, but a good photographer often provides a view of nature that many of us would not notice walking in the woods by ourselves for example. The different angles and close-ups can make nature more beautiful than a casual observer would see. One exhibit at the Craft Museum in Brockton had a structure outside not far from the parking lot with various pouches from parts of nature. People were encouraged to take something out that they liked and replace it with something new. The act of searching for a new piece to add to the work of art forced people to really look at the natural world and most of that work of art was nature. In that case it was hard to separate the art experience from the nature experience.

                How closely can nature and art become intertwined before something is no longer considered art?