When a good piece of art is consumed, some intuitive yet objective phenomenon tends to occur, namely an experience that doesn't call for any fancy rhetoric.
To give an ironically serious example of what we mean by this, imagine how you might feel watching the film Ratatouille with friends. That's right. You all know damn well that what you are consuming is a good piece of art.
Generally speaking, art comes in many forms; good art, even less. Whether it be a beautiful melody, Ratatouille, or even an ingenious TV series, to deny that good art matters is to overlook the reality that without it, most of modern life would be depressing - or worse, totally boring.
Most people acknowledge this.
So it seems pointless to defend the significance of understanding what it means to truly appreciate good art, especially since discussions of what art even is are usually ambiguous. Given that most of us enjoy promoting our own aesthetic preferences and arguing while we're drunk, these conversations don’t typically involve any legitimate dialogue motivated toward finding any explicit definition.
Luckily definitions and theories don't seem to matter much when it comes to appreciating what is already recognized as art in the modern world. A simple “like” on Instagram may very well suffice.
But perhaps we’re speaking too harshly. Like, who cares if an alleged artwork is being mistakenly understood as good? If art is subjective, isn't the only shocking thing about an arguably "bad" piece of art the fact that some people like it? And are we really so pretentious to assume that people should care to have a decent understanding of what bad art is, and why being able to recognize it isn't a totally frivolous act?
In order to properly introduce some answers to these questions, it's best to ask some more questions, and the first one has something to do with the essence of art. That is, how might we come to that reasonably objective phenomenon that is felt when looking at an almost sure piece of artwork, no matter good or bad?
The Presence or Absence of Functionality in Art
To revive a simple observation that has been repeated by many philosophers and anthropologists alike, let us accept the claim that art pieces are non-functional artifacts.
Is this to say that artworks necessarily cannot also be functional? Indeed, a flower pot can be covered in paint, thrown into an art museum and labeled as art while still proving to be functional insofar as it has the ability to contain soil and protect the roots of a homeless plant.
Yes, art can be functional.
But what makes the flower pot a piece of art is not that it was initially or potentially functional. It is that it has been turned into something that need not prove to be essentially so.
In other words, remove the functionality altogether, and the essence of the artwork may prevail.
Does this mean that the essence of an alleged artwork is determined by human intent? By presenting the flower pot as an artwork, thus intentionally "removing" its functionality - is this what makes it acceptable?
Here we can begin to understand why it is so useful to consider the significance of functionality. If we remind ourselves that the essence of art is not dependent on it, we can begin to seriously assess whether or not the intent behind an alleged artwork affects its status to any similar degree.
When might this intention be validated? To continue with the same example, if the potter who made the pot deems it nothing but a functional artifact, even though it has been coated with several layers of remarkably detailed paint that catches the eye to then lure in the soul, do we follow their wishes and dismiss it as art?
Of course not! That is because the essence, the phenomenon that exudes from the pot precedes any former statement that has been asserted about it. There is something about that pot that makes it art. It is something that can be entirely removed from the fact that it was initially a functional object. Perhaps not easily defined, but at least easily distinguishable.
Then a new problem arises.
Consider a beautiful house. It is an essentially functional thing that has the potential to possess that same essence which helps us determine whether or not something is an artwork. So if an elaborate architectural design is constructed and the architect, contrary to the potter, deems that the house is also an artwork, might we accept her wishes?
The honest response that most of us feel the urge to fight is that we should not accept this definition, despite the fact that for the sake of the argument the house is almost identical to the pot.
Why? "Because," as the great anthropologist expert Jean-Luc Jucker puts it, "that's just not the way our instincts flow."
The house, though beautiful and arguably artistic, was made to be a house, and houses are utterly functional. They are also not typically considered to be "artifacts". Therefore, no matter how hard we might try to remove it - even if no one ever lives in it - it's functionality (according to our guts) can't help but surpass whatever it is that might let us truly consider it a genuine artwork.
What an arduous philosophical argument! All of this to allude to the point that true artworks are (big surprise) often mistaken as not, and vice versa.
Still, although our urge to carefully include functionality in the process of unanimously calling an artifact “art” might actually complicate things, it can at least help us recognize when something rightfully carries the essence of an artwork.
The main point is that the essence of an artwork which happens to be functional, a functional artwork, does not come from its functionality. Rather, it comes from its artistic value that no matter how seemingly coextensive is ultimately separate from this factor.
This means that humans can make functional artifacts with the intent of including a certain essence that therefore also allows it to exist as an artwork, or in some special cases, as something that is to be seriously considered as art.
Using Functionality to Determine the Status of an Alleged Artwork
While this “essence” we speak of almost always reveals if something is an artwork, how can we trust the additional consideration of functionality to help us with those less certain circumstances of evaluation?
In order to find out, let us finally reflect on a modern art form that is becoming more and more popular each year: digital art. Whether using procreate or adobe illustrator, thousands of artists are learning new ways to create artworks with the magic of adjustable layers and simulated brush sets.
As a result of these countless programs and resources becoming so widely accessible, many people have been using their spare time to explore their own creativity. For the most part, this has been a very good thing since numerous artists have been born with the purchase of painting apps.
On the other hand, it isn’t all that great, since not all artists can be talented.
Nevertheless, we are acting as philosophers here, considering art by only a few criteria. Therefore we must stay on track and not let our emotivist tendencies get in the way of our hypothesis! We must seriously consider those who have taken advantage of the means to create digital art in a less admirable fashion than the pros.
We are talking about one of the most recent trends in digital art and especially popular on Etsy: "Faceless Portraits".
This trend has become somewhat of a light-hearted matter of sarcastic debate within the online art community. That is to say, the appeal of commissioning one of these faceless portraits might be confusing to some, which brings us to the first part of testing our suggestion that functionality can be trusted to help evaluate the state of nearly any alleged artwork.
The Alleged Artwork in Question: A Faceless Portrait
If you can imagine a faceless portrait that you might have seen on your Instagram feed, perhaps you can recall your natural reaction to it.
If not, take a look at the following example.
It's probably not anything close to that feeling you get from looking at something by Vigee Le Brun. Rather, you consume the piece and simply notice how the portrait is being shared as it was commissioned with the purpose of existing as a quick and easy gift; an oversimplified depiction of a private memory or pop culture reference.
This is a harsh generalization, but let us assume that most people do not think "art!" when their eyes are met with a similar digitally coloured portrait meant to symbolize one or more subjects without any grand detail beyond evident features such as hair and clothing.
By judging this particular art form to be something viewed mainly through its accused functionality, we may then assess whether or not it shall be considered genuine art.
The assumed functionality of the artifact - the fact that it has been created with the intent of being given as a gift or especially a sort of symbol - is what initially catches our attention. There is no story being told that isn't either totally personal or perhaps only recognizable by a certain cult following. More importantly, there are no special artistic elements to be instantly admired, nothing that triggers that special objective phenomenon.
However, by taking away the element of functionality from this example piece altogether, we begin to see how the portrait does in fact retain that essence that oozes art. The most apprehensive factor of its evaluation is that - well - it's slightly cringey.
Now obviously the presence of cringe is not enough to hinder the artistic value of an artifact. We should even remind ourselves that the current value of modern art is measured considerably by the deeper meaning behind it as opposed to the technical art skills used to create it.
What this proves about faceless portraits is that a huge part of what makes this art form art is the fact that it has the ability to convey emotion without the features or techniques typically needed to do so. There is a mood that can be produced with the choice of a limited amount of colours and shapes that mimic the photo it is meant to represent.
Additionally, there is even a formalistic component of these works that can be appreciated separate from their assumed purpose. Perhaps the use of colours and shapes are not totally conceptual, but they’re definitely there.
Therefore, faceless portraits are indeed art.
Mostly bad art, but art nonetheless.
In Defence of Bad Art That Can Sometimes Be Good
When we say "mostly", we are defending the other faceless portraits that don’t have any indications of functionality.
Here are some examples of faceless portraits done by an artist named Anastasi Holubchyk, whose artwork is instantly admirable and can easily be considered good.
Holubchyk uses a soft colour palette to successfully convey a particular mood throughout her works, playing with textures and layers that help add depth to a cohesively calm and wonderful setting for her subjects to exist in.
Her choice of detail is both aesthetically and formalistically appealing, allowing her works to succeed as not only good but great pieces of art. As such, we could even skip the descriptions and simply contend that the experience of that special essence is ever so present while consuming them.
Still, after all that has been said, art is indeed subjective and therefore not always so implicit.
Regardless, like all fine arts, there is an objective standard that should be respected insofar as we care about the integrity and skills of the visual artists like Holuubchyk who have earned rightful positions as masters or at least reputable representatives in their fields.
That is in part why it is so important to be able to identify bad art. Having a deeper understanding of bad art can help us appreciate the special creative genius that is often required to produce good art.
It’s Still Art! But It’s Still Bad...
It seems appropriate to say that most of us are baffled by the current standards set by the world of contemporary art. This consensus then leads us to our final question: If meaning regardless of skill or formal aesthetic worth can successfully help determine the value of an artwork, should we therefore be less critical of that artwork?
A subjective answer to consider: Hell no.
Let average digital faceless portraits be deemed art. As has been shown, there are some decent qualities that can go into making a personalized digital faceless portrait that is meant to evoke feelings of nostalgia and a shared sense of joy. This seemingly functional aspect of such artworks, however, shall not be confused with what allows them to be appreciated. For it is only after evaluation, unlike the formidable work of some, that they can even be considered good or bad.
In other words, they ain’t no Ratatouille.
Comments