Abstract definition for the term art

This is a repost of an article, which was posted in 2002 under the terms and conditions of the UGPL license.

The following text provides a textual definition of the term art as generally and as comprehensively as possible, reflecting the different ways of understanding different people have and explaining the different ways of understanding art. The method used is the definition relative to another term, which sometimes is also used in mathematics.

Think of conversations with your friends, discussions in the circle of colleagues or simply an article from a magazine that you once read, where the word art occurred. Almost every time you have read, heard or used the word art, you have also known what you mean or what is meant. That means that you have already consciously or unconsciously made a definition of the term art.

But people are all different, have different education and different life paths, which leads everyone to develop their own unique definition of art. Everyone understands it differently, but there is generally a large overlap in the definition and understanding of the term, because otherwise people would not be able to communicate with each other.

Here you will find the individual steps of the definition and an explanation of the definition based on an examination and some examples.

Definisions

Object

An object, from the Latin objectum, is something (intentionally not further specified) to which a human thought either refers or is based on. Hereby it is irrelevant whether formal communication or agreement about the object takes place and/or is existing between individuals.

The term object is usually always understood to be something more abstract than the terms item and/or piece. For example, an item or piece is always an object, but an object is not always an item or piece. In a specific context, e.g., depending on the subject or field, various specific definitions for the term can be given (please understand if I am not providing the latest or correct definition here since I do not deal with all of these areas professionally):

Gebiet	Definition
Colloquial language:	Object with which something happens, "object of an action," or subject of an exchange of ideas.
Philosophy	Subject of an activity, e.g. of thinking; in contrast to the subject, the object is a passive element.
Linguistics	Part of a sentence to which the verb refers; objective, relating to the object, concrete, factual, actual.
Mathematics	Term for the designation of elements of a specific category or genus, e.g., a set, a group, a topological space, etc.
Programming languages	A data unit that can be created in a program and can be processed as a whole within it or within other programs (e.g., created, copied, moved or changed). In object-oriented programming languages, this definition is expanded by the possibility of defining subroutines encapsulated in this item or unit for manipulating the object itself or for manipulating objects of the same kind.

Since this text aims to provide a general universal definition of concepts such as art objects and art, we proceed further with the universal, abstract definition of the term object at of the beginning of this section, which is free of any context and therefore free of any specialized stereotypes and pigeonholes.

Art object

An art object is an object that within a limited period of time (where the opinion of the perceiving person does not change, e.g., due to a change in the object's context) induces various associations within the perceiving person that go beyond the simple understanding of the type of object, its purpose and use.

Art

Art is the process or activity of the creation of art objects.

Definition Review

Let's now examine the definitions given using a simple, concrete example. Let's choose a spoon as the art object.

Let's first imagine a very simple steel spoon, so simplified to its function that it has a very simple shape, bears no images, engravings, or indentations, and has a simple, monotonous color, typical for steel. Its shape is not minimalist or reduced; one always immediately recognizes the type of object and its intended purpose. Such a spoon could just as easily have come from a German as an American factory. What associations or thoughts will such a spoon evoke in you? Probably none other than that it is a spoon made of steel and can be used for food. Not even an association with the country of origin can arise. According to the definition given, this spoon is not a work of art.

Let's now try to imagine another spoon. This spoon's shape is so reduced that it almost resembles a small spatula, like a small trapezoid. The material cannot be immediately determined from its color: it could be steel, an alloy, or even a precious metal such as platinum or silver. An image is engraved on the handle, suggesting the upper half of a beautiful woman. She is scantily clad. It is not clear what she is doing. Because the image has lines just as clear as the shape of the spoon, it can be assumed, but not with certainty, that it originates from Western cultural influences. The back of the spoon handle bears the initials of the creator (I don't want to use the term "art" here just yet), which may indicate that it was handcrafted. What associations will this spoon evoke? For me, probably the following: spoon, metal, cutlery, unknown metal, unusual shape, beautiful form, mystery, an image engraved on the metal surface, a woman, telling a lot with few resources, beauty, art. According to the definition given, this spoon is, in my eyes, an art object, because those are my associations: it evoked associations in me that go "beyond the understanding of the nature of the object, its intended purpose, and the use of the object." The creator of the spoon is, in my eyes, an artist.

Where is the boundary between art and non-art according to this definition? If one takes the question literally, then the answer is succinct and precise: it lies in the "eye of the beholder." Because it's about the associations that an object evokes in the viewer, or not. If a person's perception is limited for some objective or subjective reason, and they see the same thing in the second spoon as in the first, then the second spoon isn't art for them either; it's just a commodity.

Why does the definition of an art object speak of a "certain period of time"? Sometimes, over time, for example, through new experiences and events, a person's understanding of a particular object changes. I'll try to explain it using an (admittedly rather banal) example. Let's take a car. A small child might only see metal. When they grow a little older, they know it's a car. For a teenager, it could be a dream. For an adult, it's a commodity. For a retiree, a car might be an unnecessary luxury. If someone experiences all of the associations just described simultaneously, then the car approaches the status of an art object for them. It's not a work of art if one feels differently every day of the week because they change their mind due to external influences. By that, I mean a certain period of time here as a period in which a person's associations have not changed due to their own change of opinion or of situation. This also means, among other things, that an object doesn't automatically become an art object if current social opinion or fashion makes it desirable and "beautiful," because that can change tomorrow. However, there's nothing to prevent such a thing from being permanent...

Let us now approach the actual definition check. First of all, the definition must be withdrawn when applied to an object that the general public doesn't perceive as an art object. Let's just take water. Not in a container, but simply a portion of the water volume, which could just as easily come from a water pipe, a stream, a river, or even a lake. If this water were an art object, then it would have to evoke associations that go "beyond the understanding of the type of object, its intended purpose, and the use of the object." But it doesn't. Certainly, some might say that they still have different associations. However, this is probably caused by a context that causes this. This water, together with this context as a common object, is then a work of art for these people. However, because I don't know this context and, even if I did, I wouldn't necessarily perceive it accordingly, this water or simply water, is for me not an art object. Since water is not created in general, this object is usually not associated with art.

Analysis

The following questions are raised in the description of the term art on www.wikipedia.org (english version, as of October 28, 2002):

Can somebody make art if the creation was not intended to be art?

Is art always a form of individual expression?

Will a work of art only be art once it is finished?

We will now answer these and other questions using the above definition of the terms art and art object.

Can someone create art objects if this was not his original intention?

Yes, an art object can also happen to arise through human activity, but it doesn't necessarily have to be created by humans. An occasional result of a product development process can be given here as an example. The intention of the product developer is to create a product that sells as well as possible. For this to happen, everything simply has to be right: function, price, performance, design, effect on the user, etc., etc. The product developer is usually focused on these goals and does not think of art or art objects. Nevertheless, this process occasionally produces objects that evoke diverse associations that go beyond the understanding of the type of object, its intended purpose, and the use of the object, and become so-called cult objects. Another example is a photo taken by a press photographer, which sometimes becomes an art object by chance.

Is art always a form of individual creativity?

No, even if we limit ourselves to objects originally created by humans. As an example, we can also take the product development process described above, since in the vast majority of cases, a new product in a company is developed or created not only by one but by many people (employees).

Will an art object become an art object only when it is finished?

No, as a hobby artist by myself, I know: a painting can be worse or even destroyed when finished, or the sketch or half-finished painting was, in my own opinion, better than the final version. An art object, even considered unfinished by its creator, can be seen in the eyes of an outside observer as a completed work of art, which can only be destroyed by further work. If the creator of the artwork stops his work in this case, the finished art object must be described as a collaborative effort: one person has maintained the process of working on the art object, while the other has sought the moment when the work can be considered complete. This example illustrates the interrelationships between the various questions around art and the connections between them very well (just compare previous and next questions for this).

Is an art object always something created by humans?

No, the definition of an art object does not limit this to objects created by humans. These can, for example, be computer-generated images, texts, sounds, music, or simply objects created by nature. The important thing is that these items, pieces or objects evoke associations that go "beyond the understanding of the nature of the object, its intended purpose, and the use of the object." The interpretation of the term art according to our definition is difficult here. How is "the process or activity of the creation of art objects" to be understood here, where the objects are already have been created (for example) by nature? Here, the process of finding such pieces or objects must be described as art.

Is an art object clearly defined by ist function, does it exhaust itself in it?

No, this follows directly from the definition of an art object: it evokes associations that go "beyond the understanding of the nature of the object, its intended purpose, and the use of the object." If one understands this question on a simpler level or something more direct or let say flat, than it can be reformulated as follows: "Does an art object always have to fulfill the function that its original creator intended?" The answer in this case is no too, because an old telephone can now be found in a museum and viewed by museum visitors as an art object. Here, the telephone has evolved from an information transmission device to a medium of information (due to the associations mentioned many times above).

How can a distinction be made between art, art objects and crafts?

This is the most difficult question of all. This question also touches somehow the example of the product development process in answer to the first question.

Is the aesthetic value of a work of art always based on social consensus, or is it based on a breach of it?

Yes, if we would distinguish between the objective and subjective value of an art object and focus on the on the objective value defined as follows.