I think of another great quote, Wordsworth's definition of poetry as "the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings" originating in "emotion recollected in tranquility."
And Keats' definition of poetry as that which strips away "the veil of familiarity from the world."
The Romantic conception of art and what it can do is closest to my heart.
As for an exact definition of what art is, I have to go to the institutional definition -- art is what the art world defines as art. I think this definition, which has stayed with me since my art history undergraduate days, helps us get beyond two potential conceptual issues:
* the porous boundary between art, entertainment, kitsch, etc. and the way in which a Mozart opera or a Dickens novel can, over time, ascend from popular entertainment into art; and
* the way in which, say, a museumgoer can aesthetically enjoy things that were originally created not as works of art but as objects with a specific purpose, such as coins, ikons, amphorae.
In researching for this essay I came across the institutional definition and had a reaction more visceral than expected.
Something about handing the reigns of art to an institution felt sad to me, so I avoided it in the essay, for better or worse.
But that cognitive dissonance I felt is likely evidence it’s a theory worthy of more consideration
Sorry, didn't see your reply until now.
Do you see any kind of boundary between the fine arts and entertainment?
That’s a tough question.
I instinctually think there is, but there’s been so many instances of something morphing from entertainment into fine art by no other means than time.
The thing itself hasn’t changed, just the way it’s being perceived.
In the same way the dividing line between literature vs genre fiction is blurry in many places.
What do you think? I’m interested to hear ideas that more clearly define this
I'm really not sure there is. I want to say that an aesthetic experience is an aesthetic experience, whether we perceive it as highbrow or lowbrow.
I think of another great quote, Wordsworth's definition of poetry as "the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings" originating in "emotion recollected in tranquility."
And Keats' definition of poetry as that which strips away "the veil of familiarity from the world."
The Romantic conception of art and what it can do is closest to my heart.
As for an exact definition of what art is, I have to go to the institutional definition -- art is what the art world defines as art. I think this definition, which has stayed with me since my art history undergraduate days, helps us get beyond two potential conceptual issues:
* the porous boundary between art, entertainment, kitsch, etc. and the way in which a Mozart opera or a Dickens novel can, over time, ascend from popular entertainment into art; and
* the way in which, say, a museumgoer can aesthetically enjoy things that were originally created not as works of art but as objects with a specific purpose, such as coins, ikons, amphorae.