Katherine's recent discussion about what art is, inspired me to think of art as fulfilling a social emotional need. I don't think that art is anything some person chooses to call art, so I set about making a definition.
Trying to define art is a convoluted process and it seems that some sort of consensus was reached in the 20th century, that art could be anything. To me this is nonsensical, yet trying to pin down mechanical criteria to define art is impossible, or at best challenging and certainly inefficient because art operates on an emotional level and should behave like a person. Art should be anthropomorphic in essence. If art doesn't speak to you like a person then it is not art.
Humans are designed to communicate primarily with other humans, and each method of communication attempts to transmit the essence of one person to another. Words can move us like people move us, but they exist separate from the person. In that case the words are part of the person, born and preserved for all time (or for as long as the language exists). Different communication methods are differently efficient at expressing the humanity of the creator, but art is ultimately that essence that is born and transmitted from one person to another. The medium of that essence defines the art form.
People form social attachments to objects in the same way that they form social attachments to other people. Perhaps everyone has some objects they love to some extent, be it a car, phone, computer, television or a favourite cup, or pair of slippers. These things are surrogate humans in some way, and art enters this category.
If that is the case, can anything be art? Any label that can be applied to anything is meaningless, so on a logical level, the term art cannot be applied to all objects. But even on a social level, a relationship is not always possible and not the same as communication, and it is that special relationship that defines art. Without that relationship, communication is non-art.
If art is not everything then non-art must be real and tangible, and like art, non-art is different for each person. Generally art is accepted and vetted like our friends. For most people it should be "nice", and relate to us, be similar in outlook and level of understanding. Non-art is what we cannot relate to.
The art we like will reflect the people we like. People who like a wide range of people will like a wide range of art, and vice versa. We will like the artists who make the art we like, providing that that the artist is honestly translating a part of themselves in the art. If we dislike an artist but like his or her work, then the artist is a bad artist, because the art is a sub-standard imitation of humanity. An artist who makes non-art is also a bad artist.
The subject of critique is vital because if as some say anything can be art, then any artist can be as good as any other, no matter what they create. Not only that but any artwork is as good as any other, dependent only on perspective. If the belief in art as label is prevalent then the role of the critic as judge and guide is eliminated and changed into that of commentator or promoter, the crucial difference being that they would possess no greater knowledge or qualification about the or any artwork than anyone else.
So in summary, I'm postulating that art's primary function is to satisfy a human social need, whether that of the artist or the viewer/consumer/collector. Comments anyone?
