Lesson 2: What is Art? Philosophies of Categorization

Canonical versus Non-canonical art

A related distinction is between canonical vs. non-canonical art. According to Diepeveen & van Laar (2001), the canon is the commonly agreed upon artworks and /or artists established as central to understanding of art (p. 22). Canonical works are certainly viewed as art, particularly high art. But how does a work get into the canon? Who decides what is culturally important versus what is not? In their text, Diepeveen & van Laar (2001) discuss several factors that converge to establish works as important: museums, academics, art critics, art dealers and the artists themselves. The process of inclusion, however, is not a simple democratic and quality-based process. Like other areas of life and industry biases make inclusion easier from some compared to others. The authors point out that art history is not only riddled the racism and sexism that prevents artists from becoming established merely on the basis of demographic; type of artworks themselves are excluded from consideration. For example, mass-produced collective works such as animations, works that have function beyond the aesthetic such as quilts, and ephemeral works that cannot easily be collected have been excluded. Although the notion of a canon may be unavoidable, the authors that “it is more than just a neutral container for art. (p.31).” The idea of a canon may be unavoidable, but the canon can change and it certainly seems that this is not the best place to look for a definition of art.

Art vs. Entertainment

In today’s world of mass production and instantaneous mass dissemination, one distinction that has become of a matter of discussion is that of art vs. entertainment. Like the discussion of high art vs. low art, this distinction avows that art created to entertain panders to the lowest, most unsophisticated among us in to order to be successful. Also, creative endeavors for the purpose of entertainment are usually motivated by commercial gain, and this motivation is said to strip away the high standards and innovation that is thought to motivate true art. Does art as entertainment always simply appeal to the baser aspects of human nature? Comedy, for example seems to be constructed for pleasure vs. contemplation, and has since Plato has been classified as low art (Fisher, 2005). But one of today’s most famous comedians, Ricky Gervais revealed his secret to comedy in an interview with the Chicago Tribune: Empathy (Pang, 2009) which doesn’t seem like a cut and dry case of higher ideals vs. base human instincts. It also seems unlikely that art only includes works solely created for deep contemplation and not created for enjoyment. Further, it seems unlikely that all true art has never been created free from commercial considerations. Is it possible that something that was created for commercial gain be art? Can art ever be commercially successful?

Take a minute to take some notes: Give Examples of canonical vs. non-canonical art. Also, give examples of art vs. entertainment.

Focus on Effect

Instead of focusing on the work of art or the artist, some theories focus on the effect or the intended effect on the audience. Some of the general principles have been that art – real art is sublime and/or challenging. Many of these are along the same lines as the distinctions that have been made between high and low art. For example, even Plato suggests that certain genres appeal to human weaknesses. It has been suggested that ‘real’ are appeals to higher notions of beauty, morality, and cognition whereas low art or creations that don’t qualify as art appeal to lower aspects of human nature. Further, it is argued that the effects of art should be challenging. Art shouldn’t be safe and easy; it should encourage you to think more deeply about something meaningful. It should work on multiple levels and inspire insight. Another claim is that true art is genuinely new – not derived or formulaic. Also, art should be socially challenging – it should provide insight into and frequently challenges the existing social and economic systems versus reinforcing them (Carroll, 1998; Fisher, 2005; Kaplan 1972).

Focus on Process

Process vs. Product:

We can distinguish the doing from the done and critique each in different ways. When we talk about process we are talking about the act of creating. In contrast, the finished work is the product. Many psychological theories and substantial research has been on the process of creating rather than on the creation itself.

Personal vs. Collective

This being a Psychology class, I turn to a Psychologist:

“Art is a kind of innate drive that seizes a human being and makes him its instrument. The artist is not a person endowed with free will who seeks his own ends, but one who allows art to realize its purpose through him" (p.173).
-- Carl Jung

Carl Gustav Jung divides Art into two modes of the artistic process. The first is the psychological (a.k.a. personal) mode and the other is the visionary (a.k.a. collective) mode.

The Personal or Psychological Mode is directed by the conscious mind; in this mode the process of creation comes “wholly from the author’s intention to produce a particular result” (Jung). Artworks generated in the ‘psychological mode’ are frequently more realistic and accessible in form and content. The artist intends to create a picture or a tree or represent anger and consciously engages in that process.

Visionary mode (or collective mode), in contrast, is directed by the unconscious mind, and art created in this mode tends to be more abstract and symbolic. In this mode, the artist creates without consciously directing the process. As an example, Jung would often use mandalas Links to an external site. in therapy. The goal was not to create something specific, but to let the unconscious take over in the creation of the mandala.

Take a minute to take some notes: What is meant by looking at the product vs. the process? How does Jung’s distinction between personal and visionary modes of creation relate to this distinction?

What are some philosophical views on Art?

Being a Cognitive Psychologist, I think about definitions in general:

Another view - Does Art have any defining features in the first place?

Another way of looking at this is to question whether the concept of art has any specific, defining features. In cognitive psychology, we distinguish between Concepts and Categories (see Medin, Ross & Markman, 2005).

Concept: A mental representation (ex: "cup")
Category: All the things in the world that represent that concept (all the things in the world called "cup")

Classical vs. Probabilistic Views of Concepts and Categories

Classical View: Concepts have defining features, which act as absolute criteria for determining category membership (something is either "in" or "out" ... period). In other words, there is a finite set of rules that will include all and only the relevant category members. How does the classical view match with the real world?

Some concepts conform to classical view
For example, a triangle (Has three sides and the sum of the interior angles is equal to 180 degrees)

Other concepts are more difficult

Lamp (Links to an external site.)

Chair (Links to an external site.)

Love (Links to an external site.)

The concept of art is far more like a lamp than a mathematical construct like a triangle! As another illustration of how difficult it is to apply the classical view to capture a concept, think of your favorite style of music (rock, jazz, rap, country, classical, pre-911 industrial funk, whatever you like). Now, try to find a set of rules that will include all and only the relevant bands. If there is one exception, you lose! It seems that even when you feel certain of category boundaries, they are more slippery than you think!!!

So far, I had been applying the classical view to try to define art. But there is an alternative:

Probabilistic view: An alternative to the classical view, the probabilistic view posits that concepts are organized around typical features and that category boundaries are often fuzzy. More specifically, concepts are organized around properties or features that are considered more or less characteristic, i.e, some members of a category will be better examples of that category.

Ludwig Wittgenstein’s take on concepts and categories

Language games and the word "game"

Wittgenstein (1954) presented readers with a task: generate a definition of the word “game.” Try it yourself. Like defining art or your favorite genre of music, it may seem simple at first but frustration sets in soon enough when we try to generate all and only the items and activities we call “game," for example games are defined as…

FUN –but chess isn’t fun, it is challenging
COMPETITIVE- but isn’t solitaire a game. And what about playing catch or hide and seek with my 3-year-old niece?
RECREATIONAL- what about professional level sports?

… and so on. Yet, Wittgenstein (1953) points out that we don’t need a thorough definition to be easily able to identify any inaccurate uses of the word game - even my 3 year old niece is an expert! Wittgenstein contends that definitions are simply emergent forms from what he termed 'forms of life', which are the products of the culture and society from which they emerged. In other words, any definition of art is simply a convenient account of natural form.

Family resemblances

How exactly does this work? Why is it that we are sure a certain activity, solitaire, for example, is a game whereas a similar activity - like using a deck of cards to demonstrate a statistical principle in my statistics class - is certainly not? To explain, Wittgenstein's uses an famous analogy: how do we recognize that two people we know are related to one another? There may be many similarities: large nose, light blue eyes, northern accent, red hair, odd behaviors, etc. Any two family members may share a few or many of these individual characteristics – but across the group the family membership is clear.

The term “Art” could be thought of as the surname of a huge and ancient family!

Art has been defined by category membership, exclusion, effort, effect, technique, talent, novelty, etc. but no one definition seems to encapsulate what art is as a whole because both art and the people engrossed in art are constantly evolving. The nature of art is creativity – which necessarily seeks to discard fixed boundaries.

So, maybe Art is that ancient family, each member of which includes some, but not all the features that have been discussed - and which is constantly evolving.

Take a minute to take some notes: What is meant by the distinction between the classical and probabilistic views? Which of these 2 views does Wittgenstein’s theory represent?

TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE: Take this Short Quiz and Matching Quiz

Now that we have discussed Psychology and art the next lesson is ... you guessed it ... CREATIVITY!

Image Source: Link Links to an external site.