Michelle Hornick
PH 223
Test 2
Nov. 19, 1996

I. Morawski's Definition of Art

Morawski has a multi-layered definition of art. In one particular aspect of his definition, the point concerning the sensuous quality of art, he includes six juxtaposing thoughts. The six dualities are:

1). Is the structure an enumerable system of parts OR

A definite qualitative system

2). Can the structure be taken in only by an intuitive grasp of the whole OR

Can it be analyzed

3). Is the structure an ideal-homogenous whole OR

Are its particulars more clearly articulated in opposition

4). Is the structure comprehensible only in and through itself OR

Rather in the context of a larger system

5). If there is a more comprehensive system, is it synchronic OR

Is it also diachronic

6). Is the structure logical OR

is it an empirical given

Let us examine the contrasts, one by one. The first contrast is concerned with the nature of the structure. It assumes a "parts-to -whole" equation. By asking if it is enumerable, we are dissecting it into parts: notes, paints, words, materials. When we look at the part/symbol used by the artist, do we determine our definition from there? Can we assume that when one artist uses the word "love" it will signify the same meaning as another artist using the word "love?" Or, do we look at each symbol or part as an expression of the whole? When a work of art is considered as a whole, then we have the ability to group and compare. We can discuss poetry of the Renaissance and poetry of the Romantics. This contrast can be likened to a jigsaw puzzle. Each piece of the puzzle can be individually examined, but it will not relate the whole picture. However, when the whole picture is together, it can be distorted by removing one of the pieces.

The second contrast is concerned with how it (the work of art) is known. The debate is between appreciation and criticism. If we define a work of art by intuition or appreciation, we risk losing control. Individual likes and dislikes would allow everything and nothing to be art. Therefore, we must also use analysis. Analysis alone tends to disrupt a work of art. We cannot discuss the attributes of a work of art in a mathematical theory; it kills art. Yet we can connect it within a larger context. We can use both intuition and analysis to define art. We can say that although we did or did not enjoy John Donne's poem, "Death Be Not Proud," we found the use of personification to be exceptional.

The third contrast refers back to the nature of the structure. Is art simply an ideal-homogeneous whole; is it a symphony of a single, repeated note, in one tempo? Is it possible that art could be a picture of harmonized tension? Is art best expressed when its parts are in opposition, when a dominant allegro theme is followed by a supporting andante theme? A theme is more fully appreciated when it is shown in conjunction with its opposite. A slew of tragic scenes in a play would become static unless varied with comic interlude.

The fourth contrast, again, discusses how it is known. Is a work of art only a work of art in isolation or when it is shown in a larger system. A piece of art must be both. The piece of art must fill certain dictates to be considered a piece of art, or a certain type of art. A sonnet must have 14 lines to be complete. Then, it is self-sufficient, but not independent. There are other sonnets. So, the work of art must extend beyond itself. It must be comparable to others. How does it compare with other sonnets, with other poetry, and with other literature?

The fifth contrast also addresses the nature of the structure. A work of art must exist in many contexts. Is it a structure which is exclusively synchronic, only relevant to contemporary standards, or is it diachronic, able to survive through many periods of history? The work of art must do both. It must hold significance in the period it is created, and it must transcend through time as well. Shakespeare's plays fulfilled certain contemporary expectations; they were appreciated by an Elizabethan audience. However, Shakespeare can be fully understood and appreciated today and probably in future generations as well.

Finally, the sixth contrast, too, describes the nature the structure. Is it a logical construct, a mathematical equation which must be deciphered, or is it an empirical given, something we recognize through experience. A work of art will should show development. Of course the development must be reasonable and plausible for the time period, but the viewer should use his/her own perception to create a meaning. For example, when looking at the Mona Lisa, we should not be so captivated by the portrait that we do not notice the emergence of landscape in the background. The landscape is a completely expected course of action . It was consistent with the trends of painting at that time.

Summary:

Our definition now stands as:

A structure which is qualitative,

must be intuited as well as analyzed,

must display its parts in opposition,

must be self-sufficient, yet comparable to others,

must be contemporarily and historically relevant, and

empirically given within a cultural system.

As stated before, deciding on criteria by which to define art becomes particularly difficult. It can not simply be a checklist with items to cross off. There are circumstances which must be considered. A work of art must give a complete picture. It must lend itself to appreciation and criticism--and stand up under the pressure of both. A work of art must present harmonized tension (make itself interesting), and it must be independent as well as comparable to similar art mediums. Finally, a work of art must be relevant to its own time period and future time periods. It must do all this while generating an aesthetic response from viewers. This is certainly not an easy task. It re-enforces the idea that art is a complex matter. Art is not simply an issue of like or dislike. A creative work is not simply art because one says that it is so. A work of art will be defined by the above conditions, conditions which have been accepted by a community of people.

II. Tradition versus Creativity

"Any reform, however necessary, will be caught by some weak mind and carried into excess. Then, a revolution will have to be had against the revolution."-Coleridge

New art created by the artist must do many things. It must first portray the expression of the artist. Second, it must express the time in which it is created, and finally, it must have an eternally quality which carries it through many time periods. The new art must balance creativity and tradition.

An artist begins creating by imitating what he likes or rebelling against what he doesn't like. Creating art is a multi-faceted task. The artist must fulfill his creative drive while creating something new, otherwise he will simply be reproducing another's work. Take for example a poet of sonnets. Writing sonnets is not a new occurrence. The poet of sonnets today is compared to anyone who has ever written a sonnet and anyone who is currently writing poetry. The artist must re-invent the sonnet, or he will simply be copying Shakespeare of Petrarch. This, however, has its consequences. The artist is not only creating, but re-evaluating tradition. He will create a new standard by which everything that follows is judged. What is also true is that eventually this "new" art, this extreme, will eventually wear down and become the status quo. The new will become the old and something else will have to come along and takes its place.

New mediums of art are also disrupting traditional views of the artist and the viewer of art. Take for example the photograph. Photography has offered us completely new access to art. We are no longer seeing actual works of art, but reproductions of them. We are also seeing more art than was available to earlier audiences. An 18th century critic would have to travel through many countries to see different art museums. Today, we can simply pick up a book, turn on the television, or surf on the Internet to find pictures of works of art. We can easily compare and contrast different works of art at one time. We can now place a Van Gogh and a Rembrandt side by side and discuss them, something that earlier critics could not do. An artist's view of a work of art is now altered, too. He is also seeing more art, in different ways. Lighting, angles, textures, and colors are all subject to misinterpretation in a photograph. Perception of a three dimensional work such as a sculpture is different when viewed in a two dimensional medium such as a photograph.

The artist today is as much part problem solver as he is creator. He must find ways to communicate his creativity without imitating or copying others. He must face a constant onslaught of technologies which is altering the public's (and his own) perception of art. He is forced to balance his ingenuity in a changing present which is constantly evaluated by past standards.