"High Art" (a.ka. "Fine Art")

[greg]

Took a look at this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_art

Is this an accurate description?

Fine art describes an art form developed primarily for aesthetics and/or concept rather than utility.[1]

(It's a bit vague)...

Overall, how do you think you can define "high art" (if it's even possible in the first place)? It's easy to tell apart the latest pop trash from a Beethoven String Quartet, but sometimes it can be unclear.

For example, is there a such thing as "high art" in film or TV series? Or does it not apply because film started in the 20th century in the first place?  (at the same time, it's easy to tell apart some of the latest pop trash and a truly well-made, meaningful, intelligent movie).

[Keemun]

I think these sentences from the article do a better job of defining it:

The clearest definition of fine art is "a visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness, specifically, painting, sculpture, drawing, watercolor, graphics, and architecture."

The word "fine" does not so much denote the quality of the artwork in question, but the purity of the discipline. This definition tends to exclude visual art forms that could be considered craftwork or applied art, such as textiles.

On a side note, today's Dilbert comic is somewhat applicable to this topic:

[greg]

HA! 
Nice one there... I hope there aren't too many people who actually believe "it's not really art if no one likes it." 

[CD]

It's probably easiest and more practical to simply differentiate between "bad" and "good" art, as opposed to something either aspiring to Art (with a capital A) as a status. One could say both Hannah Montana and Mahler's 8th are art, but one is good and one is bad, and the designation of each comes down to the individual person's taste.

I'm pretty comfortable with saying "I don't like it. I don't know why I don't, but I don't" instead of trying to justify it by giving reasons why it's objectively bad.

[drogulus]

HA! 
Nice one there... I hope there aren't too many people who actually believe "it's not really art if no one likes it." 

      If no one likes it what does it matter what it is?

     

It's probably easiest and more practical to simply differentiate between "bad" and "good" art, as opposed to something either aspiring to Art (with a capital A) as a status. One could say both Hannah Montana and Mahler's 8th are art, but one is good and one is bad, and the designation of each comes down to the individual person's taste.

I'm pretty comfortable with saying "I don't like it. I don't know why I don't, but I don't" instead of trying to justify it by giving reasons why it's objectively bad.

      The distinctions I draw depend on how art is appreciated. Somehow you have to allow for various kinds of art either with or without high art intentions. Otherwise you're in the position of disallowing popular or primitive forms. Excellence must somehow be recognized taking the frame within which it's produced into consideration. So I don't feel there's much to be gained by questioning what something is. Instead I simply react to it, and then I may wonder about what the artist intended, and how effects are achieved. Too much effort is expended on attempts to draw boundaries around the objects of art witrhout the proper focus on what art must do in order to matter. It must move someone, emotionally, cerebrally or in some combination. That's where you look for evidence of art, and only after that in the objects themselves.

      I come to this point of view from the realization that the most frequent error people make is to treat abstract categories as though there were objects that possessed essences that satisfied them. This is an art object because it has an art essence (undefined, of course) while some other object doesn't. And then when this essence evaporates when you try to investigate it then this just serves to prove these these essences are some kind of message from a nonmaterial realm. Needless to say, this crops up all over the place, not just in aesthetics.

[Cato]

(I think I remember the quote correctly):

"If it is art, it is not for everyone, and if it is for everyone, it is not art." - Arnold Schoenberg

This is the ultimate post-Romantic viewpoint, which I strive against as a teacher.  Art takes effort, but there is no reason why "everyone" (assuming no brain damage) cannot experience "Art."

[greg]

(I think I remember the quote correctly):

"If it is art, it is not for everyone, and if it is for everyone, it is not art." - Arnold Schoenberg

This is the ultimate post-Romantic viewpoint, which I strive against as a teacher.  Art takes effort, but there is no reason why "everyone" (assuming no brain damage) cannot experience "Art."

Yep.

Somehow you have to allow for various kinds of art either with or without high art intentions.

That would explain the difference between Mahler and Hannah Montana. You could say that the artist of high art (when it comes to music) might have a more musically intellectually developed mind, maybe?

[drogulus]

Yep.

That would explain the difference between Mahler and Hannah Montana. You could say that the artist of high art (when it comes to music) might have a more musically intellectually developed mind, maybe?

     In the specific case of Mahler, of course. But I don't think generally you'd make that distinction. You can have high art intentions realized to a great degree in nonintellectual types. And popular forms often develop an explicitly high art branch at some point, and I'm not sure I'd associate great achievement in, say, jazz with intellectuality. Intellectuals tend to be interested in concepts about music in addition to music, and that syndrome describes musical primitives, sophisticated jazzers and some classicists, while sparing others.

[Elgarian]

Overall, how do you think you can define "high art" (if it's even possible in the first place)?

Over years I've slowly come to the conclusion that it's not possible. There's just too much blurring of the edges to be able to formulate a precise definition - and since philosophy hasn't succeeded in producing an entirely satisfactory description even of what 'art' is, the notion of 'high art' gets dragged along into the general muddiness of that. Which all sounds rather unhopeful - and yet, curiously enough we find the term useful, and often we seem to understand each other when we use it. I'm reminded of the concept of 'Reynolds number' in physics. It's a value you can calculate related to the flow of a fluid - a low value implies that the flow will be smooth, while a high value implies turbulence. It's ever so rough and ready, and the boundary is terribly blurry, but even so it's proved to be a useful way of talking about fluid flow.

The most useful (I don't say 'precise' or 'complete') description of artistic activity I've encountered so far comes from Susanne Langer's book Feeling and Form. She suggests that artistic activity involves the creation of 'symbols of feeling' - so the idea is that the artist makes these symbols (in paint, or music, or whatever), which we can then contemplate and, at least potentially, experience a similar feeling ourselves. If for the moment we take this as a starting point for a definition of art, then I suppose 'high art' or 'fine art' would involve the creation of an object whose primary purpose was entirely devoted to this process - that is, the communication of feeling, through symbols, to the viewer or listener. This distinquishes it broadly from craft-objects such as chairs  and teapots, whose primary purpose (however beautifully they're designed) is to assist in the process of sitting and tea-drinking.

And that all sounds well and good, until we start thinking about the blurry overlap areas - like the painting whose sole purpose is to decorate a room tastefully, to match the furniture; or a Morris chair which is best enjoyed as a piece of abstract sculpture because it's so uncomfortable to sit on.

So I think we search for a rigid definition in vain, because the concept will always keep ducking out from under our grasp and spreading into awkward places. But we'll still keep talking about it because it seems to be broadly useful despite its soap-in-the-bath ungraspability.

[karlhenning]

It is a pleasure to read your posts, Alan.  Yours is certainly one of the lowest 'Reynolds numbers' on this forum.

[greg]

Over years I've slowly come to the conclusion that it's not possible. There's just too much blurring of the edges to be able to formulate a precise definition - and since philosophy hasn't succeeded in producing an entirely satisfactory description even of what 'art' is, the notion of 'high art' gets dragged along into the general muddiness of that. Which all sounds rather unhopeful - and yet, curiously enough we find the term useful, and often we seem to understand each other when we use it. I'm reminded of the concept of 'Reynolds number' in physics. It's a value you can calculate related to the flow of a fluid - a low value implies that the flow will be smooth, while a high value implies turbulence. It's ever so rough and ready, and the boundary is terribly blurry, but even so it's proved to be a useful way of talking about fluid flow.

The most useful (I don't say 'precise' or 'complete') description of artistic activity I've encountered so far comes from Susanne Langer's book Feeling and Form. She suggests that artistic activity involves the creation of 'symbols of feeling' - so the idea is that the artist makes these symbols (in paint, or music, or whatever), which we can then contemplate and, at least potentially, experience a similar feeling ourselves. If for the moment we take this as a starting point for a definition of art, then I suppose 'high art' or 'fine art' would involve the creation of an object whose primary purpose was entirely devoted to this process - that is, the communication of feeling, through symbols, to the viewer or listener. This distinquishes it broadly from craft-objects such as chairs  and teapots, whose primary purpose (however beautifully they're designed) is to assist in the process of sitting and tea-drinking.

And that all sounds well and good, until we start thinking about the blurry overlap areas - like the painting whose sole purpose is to decorate a room tastefully, to match the furniture; or a Morris chair which is best enjoyed as a piece of abstract sculpture because it's so uncomfortable to sit on.

So I think we search for a rigid definition in vain, because the concept will always keep ducking out from under our grasp and spreading into awkward places. But we'll still keep talking about it because it seems to be broadly useful despite its soap-in-the-bath ungraspability.

I see what you mean- drawing the line between "high" and "low" art is kind of like deciding exactly how many grains of sand can form a clump.

Which leads me to conclude it's just one of those things that no one has specifically defined simply because of the challenge. We know how many a dozen donuts is, right? How many grains of sand forms a clump? (no one wants to waste their time counting  ) So, similarly, there are so many variables in music that no one would be up to the task of defining it (and probably couldn't, and probably wouldn't be interested, etc.) so we just have to go with general impressions which of course may lead to disagreements in categorization.


With this definition:

The clearest definition of fine art is "a visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness, specifically, painting, sculpture, drawing, watercolor, graphics, and architecture."

The word "fine" does not so much denote the quality of the artwork in question, but the purity of the discipline. This definition tends to exclude visual art forms that could be considered craftwork or applied art, such as textiles.

and this:

Fine art describes an art form developed primarily for aesthetics and/or concept rather than utility.[1]

How would this apply to music?

[Brahmsian]

I don't know what the proper description is for F. Art?

[Elgarian]

Yours is certainly one of the lowest 'Reynolds numbers' on this forum.[/font]

I presume you're referring there to the Debbie Reynolds number, Karl. And gladly I accept the description, for I have indeed starred in old movies only very rarely as a cute and homely blonde female.

[Elgarian]

Which leads me to conclude it's just one of those things that no one has specifically defined simply because of the challenge.

But I think the point is that the challenge is probably impossible to meet. We might succeed in getting a reasonable consensus that a lot of Mozart's music is 'high art' and a lot of Britney Spears's music probably isn't, but in between it gets very fuzzy. What about Gilbert & Sullivan? The Sound of Music?

What I say is, let's get clear of this fuzziness, and contemplate a few lines of poetry that we would all regard unquestioningly as 'high', as we crane our necks and strain upwards to look towards the stars, listening for the tell-tale sounds of distant jingling bells:

Better watch out,
Better not cry,
Better not pout,
I'm a-tellin' you why:
Santa Claus is comin' to town.

[greg]

I presume you're referring there to the Debbie Reynolds number, Karl. And gladly I accept the description, for I have indeed starred in old movies only very rarely as a cute and homely blonde female.

I think he just means that you're smooth. 

[greg]

But I think the point is that the challenge is probably impossible to meet. We might succeed in getting a reasonable consensus that a lot of Mozart's music is 'high art' and a lot of Britney Spears's music probably isn't, but in between it gets very fuzzy. What about Gilbert & Sullivan? The Sound of Music?

I lost you on that last paragraph, but as for this one:
I would say you could at least do comparisons, although it would still eventually get a bit difficult.

Is "The Sound of Music" high art? I don't know. BUT, wouldn't you agree it's higher art than, say, Garth Brooks? (though you'd have to excuse me for not really being familiar with both of these, and I'm only going on the little knowledge I have of these, though I suspect it should be enough).

I would say a comparison like this would typically only work for a genre with few exceptions (maybe a popular rock artist writes something avant-garde or a composer starts rapping  ).

You can still make general comparisons, like:
Smooth Jazz is closer to High Art than Rap ( i feel uncomfortable saying it, but it just seems true)
Progressive Rock is closer to High Art than Mainstream Rock (obviously)
Avant-garde Metal is closer to High Art than Nu Metal (then again, being avant-garde, it may arguably be high art)

etc., and these generally work. Being more specific is a bit harder, of course.

[drogulus]

Over years I've slowly come to the conclusion that it's not possible. There's just too much blurring of the edges to be able to formulate a precise definition - and since philosophy hasn't succeeded in producing an entirely satisfactory description even of what 'art' is, the notion of 'high art' gets dragged along into the general muddiness of that. Which all sounds rather unhopeful - and yet, curiously enough we find the term useful, and often we seem to understand each other when we use it. I'm reminded of the concept of 'Reynolds number' in physics. It's a value you can calculate related to the flow of a fluid - a low value implies that the flow will be smooth, while a high value implies turbulence. It's ever so rough and ready, and the boundary is terribly blurry, but even so it's proved to be a useful way of talking about fluid flow.

The most useful (I don't say 'precise' or 'complete') description of artistic activity I've encountered so far comes from Susanne Langer's book Feeling and Form. She suggests that artistic activity involves the creation of 'symbols of feeling' - so the idea is that the artist makes these symbols (in paint, or music, or whatever), which we can then contemplate and, at least potentially, experience a similar feeling ourselves. If for the moment we take this as a starting point for a definition of art, then I suppose 'high art' or 'fine art' would involve the creation of an object whose primary purpose was entirely devoted to this process - that is, the communication of feeling, through symbols, to the viewer or listener. This distinquishes it broadly from craft-objects such as chairs  and teapots, whose primary purpose (however beautifully they're designed) is to assist in the process of sitting and tea-drinking.

And that all sounds well and good, until we start thinking about the blurry overlap areas - like the painting whose sole purpose is to decorate a room tastefully, to match the furniture; or a Morris chair which is best enjoyed as a piece of abstract sculpture because it's so uncomfortable to sit on.

So I think we search for a rigid definition in vain, because the concept will always keep ducking out from under our grasp and spreading into awkward places. But we'll still keep talking about it because it seems to be broadly useful despite its soap-in-the-bath ungraspability.

       While music can and often does operate symbolically it primarily does not. I think music has direct access to the emotions without symbolism. It's not a sign of something else, at least I don't think the basic attraction of music is that. This may also be at least partly true for the visual arts, and even poetry where sense impressions bypass the symbol reading mechanisms. Generally in art the more symbolism there is the easier it is to talk about, like for example literature, or even painting. Sensory information is troublesome because not being symbolic it can't easily be rendered in symbolic terms. So people are forced into talk about essences.* There aren't any essences, they aren't hiding, they are not there. What happens in art happens in people who have art reactions to certain stimuli and investigating the stimuli will not help. It's the experience of art that should be investigated, and if we do that we may come to understand why some kinds of events trigger it. It will be something more primitive than symbolism.

      _{* Or "qualia", usually defined as the "phenomenal properties of experience", such as the property of redness whereby colors appear to be incorrigible. Does red appear to you the way it does to me? If there are essences then the answer is yes. I think there is no meaning to the question, because no amount of investigation could ever reveal anything about "red in the head" beyond the ability to discriminate it. If I see red and you do, too, there is no fact of the matter beyond that to red appearing the same.}

     

[Elgarian]

I would say you could at least do comparisons, although it would still eventually get a bit difficult.

Yes, you could do comparisons, but you'd be unlikely to get the kind of consensus of opinion necessary before a formal definition could be arrived at, because these things seem to wriggle out of our grasp when we try to pin them down - and I think that's because 'art' doesn't mean one thing. The word 'art' is a pointer to a mixture of sensual, intellectual, emotional, imaginative, and (some might say) spiritual or moral experiences all muddled together in proportions that vary not only from work to work, but also from one receiver to another.

This is why I drew the comparison with Reynolds number. When we start looking at the detail, it all seems too vague to be strictly definable - yet still we seem to find the term is useful as a rough and ready indicator about what kind of activity might be involved. If we try to make the word do more than this, we're bound to hit unresolvable problems.

[Elgarian]

While music can and often does operate symbolically it primarily does not.

I think Langer would disagree with you: she talks extensively about music in Feeling and Form, but it's a good long time since I last read her book, and I now discover, frustratingly, that it isn't on the shelf where it's supposed to be, so I can't refer to it at the moment. I'm not in a position to embark on a defence of her position myself, partly because I have only a limited understanding of it, and partly because (as I indicated earlier) I'm not entirely won over by it; I just find it a useful tool of thought quite often - another of those things like Reynolds numbers.

It's the experience of art that should be investigated

I agree entirely, though I suspect I agree in a way that you'd disagree with. The really, really interesting thing is not the Rembrandt etching but the process 'person-experiencing-Rembrandt-etching'. We have to be careful though. We mustn't suppose that by conducting a thorough investigation of the postal service, we'll discover what the letters are about. To do that, we have actually to read the letters.

It will be something more primitive than symbolism.

It depends on what kind of answer you're wanting. If you're wanting a reductive, physico-chemical answer, then yes, it will naturally be at a lower level than symbolism. But then, I wouldn't call that an answer at all, myself. On a psychological level, I really don't know enough to comment.

However, I need to find Langer's book. If I find it, and can extract something useful, I'll come back.

[drogulus]

You can still make general comparisons, like:
Smooth Jazz is closer to High Art than Rap ( i feel uncomfortable saying it, but it just seems true)
Progressive Rock is closer to High Art than Mainstream Rock (obviously)
Avant-garde Metal is closer to High Art than Nu Metal (then again, being avant-garde, it may arguably be high art)

etc., and these generally work. Being more specific is a bit harder, of course.

      Wouldn't the best rap be closer to high art than mediocre smooth jazz?

      Another question: what's the purpose of introducing these subcategories into the evaluation?

       My own reaction is that how to categorize a work, though interesting for other reasons, plays no role at all in the art experience, none. The sensation that something is really good or powerful or attractive or compelling has zero to do with these categories except in the form of rough correlations. Most of the music that produce the effects associated with high art for me is classical. That's not surprising to me since I've been training myself to react that way for many decades ever since I was stricken by a piece of music in the 8th grade. Fairly quickly I arrived at an interpretaion of this event involving me liking classical music (not, I realize now, good music) but as with all such hasty decisions I found it confusing that actual liking didn't follow a formula.

It's the experience of art that should be investigated

I agree entirely, though I suspect I agree in a way that you'd disagree with. The really, really interesting thing is not the Rembrandt etching but the process 'person-experiencing-Rembrandt-etching'. We have to be careful though. We mustn't suppose that by conducting a thorough investigation of the postal service, we'll discover what the letters are about. To do that, we have actually to read the letters.

      I think you can't study emergence without reduction. If zillions of particles flying around has syntactic significance, which everyone agrees on, then the stumbling block, where we apparently really disagree is over the process by which structure becomes meaning, which is a story of emergent properties, and therefore reduction is relevant. Otherwise your stuck at the "process can't produce meaning and consciousness" level and that stops the investigation just when it should get interesting. The story must be a reduction/emergence story which goes up and goes down. So lets follow where it leads, all the way up to emotions and conscious qualitative judgments and all the way down to the whizzing particles. They have to be part of the story so lets not be squeamish about "mere" matter. Later on we can choose which level of explanation is the most efficient, which will probably not include reference to electrons, just as there's no reason to refer to such basic entities to describe a baseball game, though nothing in baseball contradicts physics in the slightest. But with mental phenomena it's just good practice to follow the paths both ways because the science is new and the mystic fog must be dispelled.

      The lesson here, I think, is that when investigating the creation of meaning in evolved systems like us there's less hardware/software distinction or Post Office/letter distinction, and syntax/semantics is intertwined. That's what you'd expect anyway, isn't it with a system where everything is blended into everything else 'cause they growed together!