written on Dec. 9, 2008, revised on Dec. 28, 2008
In today's world, many may feel that we live in a decadent age, where the words "art" and "artist" have become commonplace and meaningless. So I felt it necessary to attempt to give a potential definition of "true Art", which might also inspire others to try to give better ones.
"Creation" is a process composed of a sequence of adding and removing elements, resulting in a single isolatable element, with an overall positive aesthetic property. "Destruction" is also a sequence of adding and removing elements, resulting in a single isolatable element, with an overall negative aesthetic property.
A "human artwork" is the result of human creation, either conscious or subconscious, meant to be perceived by one or more of the human senses, separately or simultaneously, created in such a way, that it seems to be a well-above average - or even superhuman - feat to a large enough portion of a diverse enough set of human observers, sufficiently representative of the full human population in existence. These human observers should appraise the human creations deep inside their soul, with their inherent human aesthetic sense. A human artwork also must especially evoke the aesthetic appreciation of creators in the same sensory type (eg. hearing), who have achieved other such feats (as perceived by other diverse observers and creators). The set of all human artworks is "Human Art". Those creating human artworks, are the "human artists". Human Art is not equivalent to mere human creation, but is a higher and more special form of it, that few are capable of. Destruction is not creation but the opposite of it, therefore nothing achieved via destruction, may become a true artwork.
Since humans currently have a finite lifespan, the above definitions are hereditary in the following sense: Humans are born and die in a way that the population of past and future artists is intertwined. Thus the legacy and knowledge of past artists carries on, develops, and evolves towards higher and higher levels, even if decadence occurs in certain parts of the set of Human Art. Also, the set of current human artists appraising one certain human artist, will both lose members over time because of death, but will also gain new members, via this selection process. Lastly, members of the current set of human artists, may inspire average observers to learn and practise, and through their inherent aesthetic sense, attempt to create human artworks themselves. So the hitherto observer, may recognize her/his ability via being inspired by other artists, inheriting their legacy this way. It is very much possible that all humans are born with the potential for any artistic ability, which may be awakened by a moment of inspiration.
Art can be created by both lower (eg. bee dance or bird mating dance) and higher (eg. alien) species. If the lower/higher species is called A, then the word "human" should be replaced with A in the above definitions, in order to get a corresponding definition for the "Art of species A". From above, it follows that the majority of a species population must possess an inherent aesthetic appraising ability (eg. to select the best mate). However, a higher species may consider the creation of (a possibly instinctively) creating lower species, as Art. As a consequence, simpler species such as chimpanzees, birds, or even ants may possess sufficient aesthetic sense to have their own Art, or they create Art partly unknowingly, as appraised by higher species. Species may well be capable of appreciating the art of both lower and higher species, perhaps being overly critical of the former, and not fully comprehending the latter.
The highest form of Art, is that of the Creator of the Universe - God - who is the highest species. Therefore the Universe is the greatest piece of Art ever to be created.
Since we humans contain only a portion of God's supreme aesthetic sense, we only collectively may add up and average our individual aesthetic senses, to approximate that of God. We also likely have an upper limit in our artistic abilities, beyond which no human(s) can go, either alone or collaboratively. The art beyond that limit may be termed "high art".
The definition of Art above is a practical and approximate one. In fact there is a perfectly accurate - theoretical - definition. "True Art" is any creation of a species which appeals to the aesthetic sense of God. Since any member of any certain species possesses only a certain portion of God's supreme aesthetic sense, they can only collectively and statistically judge what true Art approximately is. Thus true Art is necessarily divine, and only God's Art is perfectly true.
As Michelangelo said:
In other words, what we individual humans perceive as likely true Art, is judged with a very small portion - only "a shadow" - of God's (and the noise of the Devil's) aesthetic sense, which allowed God to create "Divine Perfection", us and all there is in the Universe.
As you have likely noticed, the above definitions all sprang from the term "creation", so we could say that "true Art" was defined above within the creative realm, and the term "true" should be included before each term. We must also note, that there are indeed analogies for the above definitions within the realm of "destruction". Let us call the art of that realm "untrue art" - not that it is any less valid for us to make than "true art". At the core of those definitions, will be the aesthetic sense of the supreme entity which enjoys destruction - and thus untrue art - the Devil. Just as the Universe is the battleground of God and the Devil, and just as we humans carry both good and evil within us, we have a natural affinity for both true and untrue art, so we have both a portion of God's and the Devil's aesthetic sense within us. Therefore, our art is a mixture of true and untrue art, and we individual humans being both good and evil, take pleasure in making such works. In fact, even the making of a single artwork, involves lapsing into the true and untrue realms. Low-quality and decadent art are also a form of untrue art. Some people balance their aesthetic more towards the true than the untrue, and vice versa. The most untrue form of art is what I would call "low art", at the opposite end of the spectrum to "high art". Few artists - if any - make exclusively true (or untrue) art. But one who consistently creates low art, loses the title of an "artist". However, an artist may venture into true and untrue realms both, while striving for quality. (In all of the above, the terms "true" and "untrue" could be replaced by other terms, such as "light" and "dark", but the terms themselves matter little, only what they represent does.)
After writing down the above definitions, I did some research on the history of attempts to define "Art", and I found two pages especially worth mentioning:
[1] The Meaning of Art as Viewed by Various Philosophers
[2] The Definition of Art
"Creation" is a process composed of a sequence of adding and removing elements, resulting in a single isolatable element, with an overall positive aesthetic property. "Destruction" is also a sequence of adding and removing elements, resulting in a single isolatable element, with an overall negative aesthetic property.
A "human artwork" is the result of human creation, either conscious or subconscious, meant to be perceived by one or more of the human senses, separately or simultaneously, created in such a way, that it seems to be a well-above average - or even superhuman - feat to a large enough portion of a diverse enough set of human observers, sufficiently representative of the full human population in existence. These human observers should appraise the human creations deep inside their soul, with their inherent human aesthetic sense. A human artwork also must especially evoke the aesthetic appreciation of creators in the same sensory type (eg. hearing), who have achieved other such feats (as perceived by other diverse observers and creators). The set of all human artworks is "Human Art". Those creating human artworks, are the "human artists". Human Art is not equivalent to mere human creation, but is a higher and more special form of it, that few are capable of. Destruction is not creation but the opposite of it, therefore nothing achieved via destruction, may become a true artwork.
Since humans currently have a finite lifespan, the above definitions are hereditary in the following sense: Humans are born and die in a way that the population of past and future artists is intertwined. Thus the legacy and knowledge of past artists carries on, develops, and evolves towards higher and higher levels, even if decadence occurs in certain parts of the set of Human Art. Also, the set of current human artists appraising one certain human artist, will both lose members over time because of death, but will also gain new members, via this selection process. Lastly, members of the current set of human artists, may inspire average observers to learn and practise, and through their inherent aesthetic sense, attempt to create human artworks themselves. So the hitherto observer, may recognize her/his ability via being inspired by other artists, inheriting their legacy this way. It is very much possible that all humans are born with the potential for any artistic ability, which may be awakened by a moment of inspiration.
Art can be created by both lower (eg. bee dance or bird mating dance) and higher (eg. alien) species. If the lower/higher species is called A, then the word "human" should be replaced with A in the above definitions, in order to get a corresponding definition for the "Art of species A". From above, it follows that the majority of a species population must possess an inherent aesthetic appraising ability (eg. to select the best mate). However, a higher species may consider the creation of (a possibly instinctively) creating lower species, as Art. As a consequence, simpler species such as chimpanzees, birds, or even ants may possess sufficient aesthetic sense to have their own Art, or they create Art partly unknowingly, as appraised by higher species. Species may well be capable of appreciating the art of both lower and higher species, perhaps being overly critical of the former, and not fully comprehending the latter.
The highest form of Art, is that of the Creator of the Universe - God - who is the highest species. Therefore the Universe is the greatest piece of Art ever to be created.
Since we humans contain only a portion of God's supreme aesthetic sense, we only collectively may add up and average our individual aesthetic senses, to approximate that of God. We also likely have an upper limit in our artistic abilities, beyond which no human(s) can go, either alone or collaboratively. The art beyond that limit may be termed "high art".
The definition of Art above is a practical and approximate one. In fact there is a perfectly accurate - theoretical - definition. "True Art" is any creation of a species which appeals to the aesthetic sense of God. Since any member of any certain species possesses only a certain portion of God's supreme aesthetic sense, they can only collectively and statistically judge what true Art approximately is. Thus true Art is necessarily divine, and only God's Art is perfectly true.
As Michelangelo said:
"The true work of Art, is but a shadow of the Divine Perfection."
As you have likely noticed, the above definitions all sprang from the term "creation", so we could say that "true Art" was defined above within the creative realm, and the term "true" should be included before each term. We must also note, that there are indeed analogies for the above definitions within the realm of "destruction". Let us call the art of that realm "untrue art" - not that it is any less valid for us to make than "true art". At the core of those definitions, will be the aesthetic sense of the supreme entity which enjoys destruction - and thus untrue art - the Devil. Just as the Universe is the battleground of God and the Devil, and just as we humans carry both good and evil within us, we have a natural affinity for both true and untrue art, so we have both a portion of God's and the Devil's aesthetic sense within us. Therefore, our art is a mixture of true and untrue art, and we individual humans being both good and evil, take pleasure in making such works. In fact, even the making of a single artwork, involves lapsing into the true and untrue realms. Low-quality and decadent art are also a form of untrue art. Some people balance their aesthetic more towards the true than the untrue, and vice versa. The most untrue form of art is what I would call "low art", at the opposite end of the spectrum to "high art". Few artists - if any - make exclusively true (or untrue) art. But one who consistently creates low art, loses the title of an "artist". However, an artist may venture into true and untrue realms both, while striving for quality. (In all of the above, the terms "true" and "untrue" could be replaced by other terms, such as "light" and "dark", but the terms themselves matter little, only what they represent does.)
The Artistic Creative Process of an Artwork
After writing down the above definitions, I did some research on the history of attempts to define "Art", and I found two pages especially worth mentioning:
[1] The Meaning of Art as Viewed by Various Philosophers
[2] The Definition of Art