R.G. Loc: Scotland

"Art is in the eye of the beholder" implies that art is what each individual wants to make it. If I perceive something as being art, as far as I'm concerned, it is art, and nobody has the right to tell me I'm wrong.

Not everybody agrees with that idea, but what does it mean to reject the statement "Art is in the eye of the beholder" and its implications?

I believe that such people want to apply their own personal filter on what is and isn't "art" so that they can exclude what they consider to be rubbish that doesn't deserve to be credited with the title "art".

When we refer to the luminosity spectrum we're referring to a complete spectrum. The luminosity spectrum doesn't just go from dark to bright - it goes from pure black at the dark end to pure white at the bright end. My suggestion is that in a similar sense we should see the title "art" as applying to a whole spectrum of creative endeavours. For example, if a child produces a crude drawing or painting, does anybody have the right to say it's absolutely not art? Nobody is going to be claiming that it's good art, but should the title "art" be applied only to the good stuff? And who is going to be the arbiter?

There's no shortage of self-appointed arbiters in the world, but should they be allowed to define what is and isn't art?

Feel free to agree or disagree with or comment on any of the above.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

I feel like I have just read an essay question for Philosophy 102 or Logic 101.

If art is not in the eye of the beholder that implies that art is an absolute and quantifiable value. It also implies there exists an absolute arbiter, an omni-everything Art God, who establishes what constitutes art.

Absent the above, art must be a subjective value and therefore exists only in the eye of the beholder.

Since I do not believe there exists an Art God, I must therefore conclude the concept of art is subjective, not objective, and can exist only in the eye of the beholder.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Instead of essay question, how about discussion topic? Concerning your above statement I would say that the concept of art belongs in the world of concepts where it can exist independently of any perceivers or conceivers. Concepts exist whether there's anybody to think them or not. Maybe the same is true about art. Maybe it exists whether there's anybody there to perceive it or not. That is a commonly held belief.

Is there art in a random swirl of mist? Some would say so. If art does indeed have that independent existence, it's out there waiting to be perceived and identified.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Very interesting comments on a very interesting topic. As a side note my wife and I were thinking about you just last night. We were watching a film - Her Majesty, Mrs. Brown - with many scenes filmed in Scotland. I said "beautiful scenes, but I think R.G. at UHH does them better."

I agree that art applies to a whole spectrum of creative endeavors. It only because the European aristocracy sponsored creative endeavors as an expression of their wealth and power, much like they could have great expanses of lawn just to show that they could afford to maintain land that was unproductive that we have this strange concept of art being separate from life, to be expressed, controlled and owned by the few. Those few were those who had more wealth.

But the common people around the world throughout the existence of the human race have been creating art; in music, in dance, in graphical representations of all kinds, in clothing, pottery and on and on. To be human is to be an artist.

TonyP Loc: New Zealand

Logic, or something tells me, art can 'only' be in the eye of 'a beholder'.
If a tree falls in a forest, and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Does the light in a refrigerator turn off when the door is shut?
Reality vs perceptions vs expectations.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

In all the discussions and definitions of art I have found, there seems to be only one common thread and that is that art must be perceived to exist. A concept on the other hand is at its simplest, an idea.

Let us take the swirling mist example. I visualize gray mist swirling through the top of the redwood trees. At this time that is nothing more than an concept. It has no existence.

Now you are walking the shore and the fog is coming in obscuring some of the boats in the water. You decide that is artistic and not a meteorological event unworthy of notice. You have defined art. You raise your camera and take the shot. You have immortalized art. Good art or bad art is immaterial at this moment. Others will define that.

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

This "discussion" should prove to be most enlightening. It'll no doubt be replete with hogsters (the 'h' of 'hogsters' not being capitalized for a purpose) expressing the (their) opinions of who can and who should not determine whether or not something is Art (or is trash? I dunno....), digressions into unrelated analogies (which in the 'who-done-it wing' of the literature biz would be thought of as being a 'red herring' [which in the real world of fishes and things would stink worse than a three-week-old herring that slipped behind the fridge] that confuses and/or intentionally obfuscates the issue, or --as time and replies will likely show-- a wholesale reduction of centuries/millennia of human endeavor into a mindless absurdity. In other words, it'll be as telling as it being another day that ends with a 'y'.

Cur (see: cur's reply above) came close, but not close enough. What he read would not have passed muster in either a Philosophy 102 or in a Logic 101 class, not even in a non-accredited fly-over college deep in the hinterlands of where ever. Proof by analogy (there's a range in luminousity? there's grays and other such subtleties? stuff isn't all black or isn't all white??? whaaa? Who'd'a guessed!) is not proof, and whatever prof (or grad assistant?) it was who had the task of teaching that that Phil 102 or that Logic 101 session would've pelted any unedumacated grade school dropout College freshman (or freshlady) with a piece of chalk, or in lieu of that, would've suggested/required the 'I'm the only one who know's what's what, and I'm the only one who matters' analogy maker/logic offender to exit the class by the door right over there.

The reply you wrote to Cur, R.G., expresses a view that was written about somewhat more extensively by somebody named Leo Tolstoy. No, not to the extent that he figured works of art swirl around in banks of mist or anything quite that flimsey, but instead that a woa' (i.e., a work of art) can exist solely in the mind of it's maker, and may be independent of either a physical manifestation (say, a print, or even --I suppose-- a picture somebody posted digitally on UHH, though Tolstoy, of course, knew nothing of the intertubes) or of any sort of observer of either the post or even the thought.

I have a very long list of people whose works on the subject (aesthetics specifically and/or art in general) I could recommend, and for the life of me I can't recall a single one of them who ever used the phrase 'beauty is in teh eye of teh beholdout', but that's only because most of those were academics, or were, in some instances, actual artists. Some of those names you (or others) might recognize (Aristotle, Edmund Burke, John Locke, etc, but others maybe not so much because they're (for the most part) dead and they didn't post opinions on UHH.

I, for my part, know in advance that I'm going to kick myself for having posted this response.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

First, name is Jack and my screen name is Curmudgeon.

Second, the tone of your response is almost guaranteed to elicit the response you are going to kick yourself for, it's just a little more polished than most.

Third, I'm not going to respond that way.

I fail to see the argument by analogy reference. I did not even imply that if A and B then C. If you think I did then please tell me in detail how you reached that conclusion. My final statement is one of personal belief not of deductive reasoning.

I think ad hominem remarks negate your entire argument, making it one of personal animus rather than rational thinking.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

I cannot argue the tenant that art is in the eye of the beholder; however, I can question the tastes of the beholder.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

My response may not be exactly to the point, but I'm going to make it anyway. Art, and specifically FINE ART by definition is any work created as an original purely for the enjoyment of the finished piece with no "usefulness" intended. That said, then anything that is "useful" may be art, but not fine art. Therefore, a child's drawing would be classified as fine art, while a masterfully woven blanket would not. It would technically be defined as "craft."
That doesn't sit well with most of us. However, both fine art and craft are included in the broad sense as ART.

We want to define ART by its value, when in reality there is good fine art and bad fine art. Therefore it is the VALUE of that art that is in the eye of the beholder, not the classification.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

I will readily agree that art is whatever anyone wants to call it. But where the discrepancy comes in is whether or not anyone LIKES whatever we are talking about as an art form. Leaves can become a beautiful art form because of their color, shape, architectural design regarding the veins in the particular leaf and so on. But that may only be an art form for that one particular leaf on a particular day and time. Five minutes later after a snow storm or when it has been caught in a mud slide and now looks ugly and disheveled it may no longer be recognized as an art form. Therefore some subject that may be art may not be in a couple of seconds. Art can be a fleeting positive and turn negative in an Edinburg minute.

Dennis

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Thanks everybody for your replies. I apologise for the intermittent nature of my postings. It's due to a combination of time zone differences an me having to get to bed early when I'm working.

To get up to speed quickly I'll try to answer everybody at once, which is fine because you've all made valid points.

I knew that other concepts like beauty and aesthetics would creep into the discussion, which is fair enough because they are similarly subject to the same kind of analysis. To say that art/beauty/aesthetics are not in the eye of the beholder implies that they have an absolute existence outside of human perception, recognition, assessment or definition. That idea has been around for quite some time. I don't see any basis for rejecting that idea if that's how someone wants to think about those concepts.

But that absolute and purely objective way of thinking about those concepts comes with a whole raft of implications and lifts those subjects to a level where they exist beyond personal assessment. If something is "art" it will be so regardless of who thinks it is or isn't, and regardless of how anyone rates it.

That might seem like an OK thing to do but it does remove humans from the equation. And it does nothing to satisfy our need for practical definitions. Most of us would be more comfortable with a definition that includes at least an element of human involvement, but of course that also comes with a whole raft of implications. It means having to consider the purely subjective aspects of art (and beauty, aesthetics etc).

I'll put together a short list of the sort of questions that arise when we consider the subjective aspects of art:-

To be considered art, does something have to be a result of human endeavour or action? Does that action have to be intentional? Can nature or some other non-human entity provide us with art, or does it require human manipulation of some sort? Who or what determines how art should be rated? Who, if anybody, determines what is or isn't art? Does art have to be a product of human attempts to be creative? Does artistic endeavour have to include an attempt to inspire or evoke thoughts or feelings? Does art have to be a form of communication?

Of course there's still room for general questions like:-

Are "documentary" and "art" mutually exclusive categories? Are there any things that should not ever be seen as art?

Anybody who believes that art is in the eye of the beholder will say "Any of the above - if I perceive it as such".

Any good discussion raises at least as many questions as it answers .

That's enough from me for the time being. Does anybody want to add to or query anything that's been said up to this point?

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Thank you Mike. Nice to know somebody's thinking of me . I consider what you said quite a compliment because videographers and filmmakers in general need to have a good eye for composition and the like.

srg

Bats are mammals just like us. They have poor eyesight, and rely more on echolocation. As a thought exercise, what if humans were unable to perceive photons, what would the concept of "art" be then? (I know music, but I'm referring to the visual arts here)

R.G. Loc: Scotland

If humans were sightless the visual arts would mean nothing to them, unless they were able to get elaborate verbal descriptions of the visual arts. But I think I know what you're pointing at. That scenario is roughly what it was like pre-television when the main media that we had in our homes were radios and telephones. Radio was purely auditory and had its own distinct characteristics.