Rough thoughts on the definition and secularization of art

Sunday, February 21, 2010 at 2:37pm

Is art essentially communicative?

If so, its value as art is based upon the communicative efficacy of it.
So, if the content of the communication is information, the highest form of art would be some kind of “Matrix” artificial experience - and prose would be better art than painting or music.

If the content of artistic communication is emotion, the most artistic action might be calling someone a name or giving them a kiss. Emotions are personal responses to stimuli, based upon our own psychology and most readily elicited through relationships.

If the content of artistic expression is an experience of the Sacred, then both problems are avoided, because an encounter with the Sacred is not an internal event (see Otto) nor can it be easily communicated through prose.

Other problems with defining art include the fact that it can only be defined with reference to what art exists (graham). In some sense then, art is subjective. But it is not entirely so. There is good and bad art. This must be related to aesthetic value. (why?)

Also, the issue of intention is important. It is largely held that there must be intention for there to be art. (demonstrate) however, this is problematized when the intention of the artist is missed or unknown or possibly absent. Thus, the intention may be attributed to the communicator of the Sacred. Or to God. This is all very mysterious, which seems appropriate here. Art without mystery is no art at all. Art under the complete control of the artist is no art at all. Art fully understood is no art at all.

So, we might define art as an aesthetic communication of the Sacred. Its value is dependent upon how effectively the Sacred is experienced by the observer, hearer, reader, ect. Natural phenomena may be understood as art if they are aesthetically communicative of the sacred. Non-aesthetic experiences of the sacred (do they exist -perhaps mysticism?) are not art. Hieroglyphic philosophy (aesthetic expression of information) is not art.

The origins of art -( Language and myth - Cassirer) the numinous experience (or the Sacred) is expressed or emulated through artifice. This expression of a primary experience then becomes a vehicle of such an experience. This is the shift from language to art. It is related to ritual/religion/coupling.

But it has a half-life. As soon as the Sacred is contained in a from, it loses some of its potency. As the culture changes the form becomes more rigid. The extent to which the form is elevated and treated as inherently sacred is the extent to which it ceases to be an effective vehicle of the sacred. It becomes uncoupled. This uncoupling of aesthetic expression of the sacred from the sacred itself led to mere decoration and the conscious divorcing of “fine arts” from “craft.” But “fine art” itself lost touch with the sacred and became a culturally elite form of decoration. Duchamp exploded it with his fountain. But it has yet to be replaced.

Once everything was art, the situation was akin to what Weber observed as the protestant work ethic - all things are expressive of the sacred, and so none are. “the laity of all priests.”