The universe, or what is art?

Did you also used to try to imagine how infinite the universe is? It always made me a bit dizzy, and no matter how hard I tried, I soon realized that infinity is incomprehensible to our finite brain. Sometimes I cheated: I would secretly think that the universe actually ended somewhere. Unfortunately, that didn't solve anything, because what is there outside the universe then? Nothing? And where does that end? And so on, and so forth, and then I would get a bit dizzy again.

Searching for a definition of art

I get that same feeling now when I try to find a conclusive definition of what ‘art’ actually is. Not so much whether a particular object is a work of art or not, but what art is as a whole, as a concept. Of course, I am not the first to think about this, and I certainly won't be the last. Yet, I cannot not think about it. The question comes up regularly in conversations, and in books, articles, or online, there is occasionally a smart aleck who declares with great aplomb that art is this or that.

I, however, cannot figure it out myself; to me, art feels like the universe, infinite in form and meaning and impossible to capture in a single definition. There are too many parameters: do you define the appearance, the purpose, the role, the meaning, or perhaps the process of art? Are you talking about Western art or African art? Contemporary or old art? Sculpture or textile art? I feel the dizziness coming on again.

Does the process determine whether something is art?

I look closer to home. As a weaver and an artist, I wonder: why does sticking pieces of paper and smearing paint feel like making art, while weaving does not? I have been thinking about this for quite some time, and honestly, I still don't know why that is. Weaving can absolutely be art, but to me, most of what I weave falls not under art but under craft: I conceive what I am going to make, calculate what I need for it, and then perform the actions necessary to make it. When it is finished, it is truly finished, and it is a product that can be used.

The process of making art is (for me, at least) much more adventurous; I discover what emerges as I go along, in a kind of action and reaction. Is that the difference, then? Yes, and no, because the process of making art can also be more systematic, working based on a thought, mapping out certain data, developing, transforming, or taking a concept out of context. So, this does not provide a definitive answer either.

Does the object determine whether something is art?

When is a thing (or a performance, or music) art? If you strip it down to the bone, this remains: 'art is something made by someone that is intended to be looked at or listened to'. But what a bloodless definition; it is missing a great deal.

Responses to my newsletter on this subject showed that people prefer to see a lot of emotion in a work of art, the expression of the artist's feelings and experiences. Some even went so far as to say they only wanted to call something 'art' if it touched them personally. For Expressionist art, feelings and emotions are indeed important. However, there are many types of art that have nothing to do with feelings, and yet are clearly art.

Does meaning then determine whether something is art?

I am still trying to find a definition that is as generally applicable as possible, and I think that 'meaning' will be the keyword. An artistic expression always carries a meaning within it, something the creator wants to convey to the viewer or listener. Religious art aims to make us believe in something. Old paintings and art objects showed how rich and powerful their owners were. More modern and contemporary art can carry a political message, be an expression of experiences, feelings, or identity, raise questions about diverse subjects, or attempt to make us, the viewers, look at the world differently.

Art is not an object, but a language

Although I was initially looking for a definition of art as a concept, I nevertheless got bogged down in an attempt to determine when something is or is not an art object or artistic expression. I only realized this when I read a quote from the well-known art critic Jerry Saltz: "...it is a visual language (...) a way of expressing primal feelings such as loneliness, silence, pain, the whole spectrum of human emotion can be conveyed. (...) Art is also a survival strategy. For many artists, creating their work is just as important, spiritually speaking, as breathing or eating."

Art as a Conversation

When Jerry Saltz writes about art, it concerns the creative process and the artist's need to make something in which he or she can express something. When the artwork is 'finished,' however, the viewer can give it his or her own meaning. In that sense, art is a kind of conversation-at-a-distance between the artist and the viewer, with the artwork as the means. The fact that the viewer's interpretation can be completely different from the maker's intention does not detract from the importance of the artwork for both the artist and the viewer.

So... what is art?

Art is all of the above, and probably even more. A friend wrote to me: "Make what you have to make—And stop thinking about what art is." But I still enjoy thinking about it, not to set boundaries on what is or isn't art, or to pit art against non-art, but simply because it is a fascinating phenomenon. In the meantime, I will happily keep 'making what I have to make,' whether that becomes art or not. Finally, one of the most beautiful quotes about art I know, by Anni Albers: ‘Art is something that makes you breathe with a different kind of happiness’.

What are your thoughts and ideas about what art is? I enjoy exchanging ideas with you about this, so if you write a comment below, I promise to read it and respond!