What is art?

In 2019, Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan bought some bananas for 30 cents at a supermarket in Miami and exhibited them at the Basel Art Fair in Miami. They were sold for $120000.

Preface

What exactly is art? This is a question that almost every art history book discusses at the beginning, but there is never a standard answer.

 

Interpreting 'what is art' is like doing reading comprehension, there has never been a standard answer. A thousand people have a thousand Hamlets, and everyone has their own unique insights into what art is.

Perhaps we can list some famous works of art. Monet's oil painting "Water Lilies", Leonardo da Vinci's "The Last Supper", Rodin's sculpture "The Thinker", and Beethoven's music "Pastoral Symphony"... We won’t deny that these are works of art.

 

Then is banana a work of art? What about a slice of pickled cucumber?

 

Recently, a work by an Australian artist once again raised this ancient question to everyone. This artwork created by Australian artist Matthew Griffin, titled 'Pickle', is part of the Sydney Hosting Fine Arts exhibition and is currently on display at the Michael Lett Gallery in Auckland, New Zealand. The entire work consists of a piece of pickled cucumber from a McDonald's cheese burger, which is mixed with sauce and glued to the pure white ceiling of the gallery.

 

Priced at about 42300yuan, is a pickled cucumber stuck to the ceiling, a spoof or an artwork?

 

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

​
 

Hereto, we had a discussion on "what art is" and together we explored the definition of art.

 

Little Rocket: Those who truly understand art will find this very meaningful.

 

Koreyoshi: In today's culture, the field of modern art seems to have become the main battlefield of various avant-garde forms of expression, and various strange and bizarre artistic carriers make viewers puzzled by the author's implicit meaning behind it. Since the birth of Duchamp's Fountain, various unimaginable attempts have become a stroke of exploring the limits of artistic expression forms. But in my personal opinion, when it comes to artworks that seem elusive at first glance, we often need to glimpse the hidden meaning behind absurdity through its absurd forms of expression, that is, to express our views through the most vivid, profound, and unique perspectives - perhaps it is because the viewer itself lacks this imagination that they are unaware of it?​

 

Of course, the level of price is not related to art itself, but rather becomes the external definition of its capital value. But no matter what the author's original intention is, or whether the hesitant price highlights the style of "noble" art, we can also try to draw our insights from it and recreate our own art from art, because art itself is an extremely rich definition, just like calling stone stone, we can only call art itself. Because the richness of its meaning is enough to overshadow all descriptive language and its judgments, this is why art has been passed down and flourished for thousands of years - a collection of countless forms of expression and incredibly rich kernels.

I believe that respecting the expression of art in any form is equivalent to stifling countless possible masterpieces of art if we attempt to define it. I may not appreciate art expressed in some form, but I agree with any form of expressing art itself.

 

Bard: In the corridor of the art class next to my school, there is a chicken nugget displayed, stuck with a toothpick on a cowhide board. I think it can be called 'art', but it cannot be called 'painting'.

 

Yes: Agree! And there is market hype for 'art', which affects the value of 'art' itself. I think the value of 'art' itself is art and one's own observation, understanding, and investment.

 

Koreyoshi: What is the equivalent of art here? In this way, what remains of popularity is the deprivation of capital factors in art, and the trade-offs made for popularity are pure so-called art?

 

I hate Lenz's law: I think beauty is simply beauty. There is no need for value or profound reasoning. The current art world inexplicably begins to pursue the profound philosophy of life behind artworks, rather than the impact on visual beauty at first glance.

 

Koreyoshi: Agreed. But art, as ‘shu’, that is to say, a means of pursuing beauty, requires room for explanation. Pure aesthetic impact flourished during the period of classical art.

 

I hate Lenz's law: there are fewer artworks created for beauty nowadays. Everyone may think that's too thin and meaningless

 

Koreyoshi: But pure sensory stimulation also has its limitations.

 

Isabella Wang: I remember reading a similar sentence before - beauty is beauty, just beauty. Petrarch opened the Renaissance with the beauty of painting, and Hitler could also use the beauty of military uniforms to lure young people to join the army and serve. Those who interpret beauty disappear in the long river of history, and their interpretations of beauty are carefully studied and annotated by future generations. Only beauty itself is equal, innocent, and innocent, and will always exist.

I feel that beauty is not simply sensory stimulation, just like the “sensory movie” in “The Brave New World” cannot be called “beauty”.

 

Koreyoshi: I believe that pure beauty should not be expressed through any form of expression. Because if there is ultimate beauty in everyone's heart, then beauty will inevitably lose its characteristics when expressed in the material world.

 

I hate Lenz's law: I think beauty is simply beauty. I don't need to have value or profound reasoning. I appreciate art that interprets different ideas in different ways. I understand the emotions, emotions, and various inspirations that bring to the viewer, but I do not understand art that is limited to a certain principle, which directly binds art and loses its meaning.

 

Koreyoshi: Yep! The means of explanation must be free.

 

I hate Lenz's Law: Pure beauty may come from nature, and once it is crafted, it becomes tasteless. Perhaps that's not appropriate either. But I always feel that once carved, it's different from the original meaning.

 

Koreyoshi: Being too fulfilling leads to boredom, being too empty leads to despair. That means denying the beauty beyond nature, but it seems that humans are also creatures that cannot be separated from natural creations, and the things they create also have their natural attributes. Or rather, as natural creations, we, as intelligent populations, are imprinted with the seeds of pursuing beauty in our genes. Because beauty has no purpose, the means of pursuing beauty should also have no purpose, and this concept is rich enough to accommodate countless brilliant ideas without appearing bulky.

 

I hate Lenz's law: Strongly agreed, purposeful art has become utilitarian to some extent.

 

Koreyoshi: In an era full of purpose, please allow young people to dream aimless dreams. Although it may not be the end, it will also be the so-called spiritual sustenance and a resting station.

 

Beilan: I like the idea! When I let go of what I am, I come to what I might be.

 

Henry S: So, the prerequisite for engaging in art is “Can you have a full meal”?

 

Yes: If I simply discuss the value of art, everyone's aesthetics are different, and everything they see is different. But I don't think the value of art itself needs to be so high. The bottom cannot afford to eat, and sticking a banana on the top is called art? Isn't it ironic?

Everyone has a different definition of beauty, and the things they see are naturally different. I personally believe that the purpose of art itself is to record and think. Throughout history, this has been the case in Western art. Until modern times, the definition of art no longer stopped here. Van Gogh's paintings at the time couldn't be exchanged for a bottle of wine, what about now? My first reaction when I saw that banana was: Ah, this? Is the money so easy to earn now?

 

Beilan: Hmm. Yes, engaging in art also requires following the principles in one's own heart. I think art should bring people a sense of beauty or inspiration, rather than some strange things.

 

Yes: Maybe I'm a bit old-fashioned, always thinking that some people sell morality in exchange for giving up their principles, engaging in unethical behavior.

 

Beilan: No, you're just used to seeing the dark side of the world's suffering and human nature. Art expresses one's inner thoughts, and if distorted, it loses its meaning.

 

Yes: But personally, I don't think art hype is necessary and it's also important to make it affordable for the bottom.

 

Beilan: Yes, after all, the material foundation is a necessary condition!

 

Koreyoshi: Actually, this is not a conflict of opposites. Since ancient times, whether in the East or the West, the prosperity of art has mostly originated from the rich life of the artists themselves. Only when material life is abundant and relatively far from secular crises, including various physical crises, can one pursue spiritual freedom. Because when the physical crisis is not resolved, people do not have the energy and energy to think about things beyond matter, which is also what Marlowe's theory of needs states. In life, people must first address their physiological needs and then pursue spiritual freedom. Similarly, I believe that among the nobles of both the East and the West, after meeting the basic needs of food, clothing, and warmth, and gaining power, they ultimately need to open up a path of freedom spiritually. At this point, poets and artists emerged.

​

I don't know if it's positive or negative. After experiencing social changes, everyone has more freedom and is more accustomed to existing in an atomized form. Therefore, the individual's spiritual needs have become even more elusive, which is also one of the postmodern challenges in philosophy.

​

However, in postmodernism, everyone still pursues spiritual prosperity after meeting their material needs. So I think pursuing art may be one of the major viewpoints to solve postmodern problems, but it also needs to be based on everyone solving material difficulties. Because pure hunger, pure difficulties, and pure physical pain can erode spiritual abundance.

I don't think art has a purpose. In my opinion, it is boring to give something value. I believe more that this is a form of self rescue for social groups in the face of spiritual crisis. Relieve the pain of life through a simple and natural understanding. The sources of pain vary from person to person, but they always have common characteristics such as not being understood, crisis of values, lack of faith, and so on... But art is a placebo to alleviate these many hardships.

 

Conclusion

 

Can art be defined? As early as ancient Greece, philosophers were already discussing this issue.

Defining art with simple words is definitely one-sided. Combining all these viewpoints, there may be a more comprehensive and complete analysis of art. The definition and standards by which each person measures beauty are different. With continuous self negation, art has its vitality. Therefore, art will not perish, but will only innovate. As long as there are still humans alive in this world and humans are still engaged in spiritual creation, art will never come to an end.

​

As Gombrich said, "There is no art, only artists." The existence of art is inherently emotional. Everyone has different understandings and feelings towards art, which is why. Art has its unique charm.

 

​

Producer: Sissi Zhang, Isabella Wang

Editor: Lilian Liu

​

​

Footnotes

1. Francesco Petrarca (Italian: Francesco Petrarca, July 20, 1304-July 19, 1374) was an Italian scholar, poet, and the first humanist of the Renaissance, known as the "father of the Renaissance". He is famous for his sonnets, which paved the way for the development of European lyric poetry, and later generations revered him as the "Saint of Poetry". He is on par with Dante and Boccaccio, and is known as the "three giants" in literary history.

2. The "sensory movie" in the Brave New World by Huxley refers to contentless, simple videos with the only aim of entertaining and providing sensory stimuli. 

3. Social atomization refers to the social crisis caused by the disintegration or absence of the most important social connection mechanism in human society - the intermediate group - resulting in individual loneliness, disorderly interaction, moral disintegration, interpersonal alienation, and social anomie. Generally speaking, the crisis of social atomization arises during periods of intense social change.