What is Art?

Sally Gibson gives her response:

I originally fashioned my definition of art based on the writings of George Dickie. According to an early version of Dickie’s writiings–a work of art is an artifact upon which some person(s) acting on behalf of the artworld has conferred the status of candidate for appreciation (Dickie 1974). Dickie’s more recent version, and one I’m more inline with, consists of an interlocking set of five definitions: (1) An artist is a person who participates with understanding in the making of a work of art. (2) A work of art is an artifact of a kind created to be presented to an artworld public. (3) A public is a set of persons the members of which are prepared in some degree to understand an object which is presented to them. (4) The artworld is the totality of all artworld systems. (5) An artworld system is a framework for the presentation of a work of art by an artist to an artworld public (Dickie 1984).

To this understanding, I would add that “art” is the visual, musical, theatrical, etc. interpretation of an idea–a thought precedes what is transferred to an “audience”–therefore, I can accept any transformed idea as ART!  So now that I have that definition, ME, YOU, ANYONE gets to decide if it is GOOD art or BAD art.  Since the product was an interpretation of an idea–the viewer, listener, etc. makes the final judgement whether it is “GOOD” or “BAD” art.

By thinking this way I’ve moved the conversation away from “Who is allowed to be an artist?” and toward “How does this idea land with me?”

It’s an empowering perspective because it places the power back in the hands of the audience. If art is an act of communication, then the recipient’s reaction is the final piece of the puzzle.

The Subjectivity of Quality

Since I’ve established that the “art-ness” of an object is based on the preceded thought, the “Good vs. Bad” debate usually falls into three categories:

• Technical Execution: Did the artist have the skill to accurately interpret the idea they had in their head?

• Resonance: Does the transformed idea trigger an emotional or intellectual response in you?

• Originality: Does the interpretation offer a new perspective, or is it a derivative of someone else’s idea?

The “Audience of One”

My definition suggests that “Good” or “Bad” isn’t an objective truth written in a textbook, but rather a relationship between the work and the viewer.

Example: A piece of experimental noise music might be “Bad” to someone seeking melody, but “Good” to someone seeking an interpretation of urban chaos. Both are right because both are reacting to the transformed idea.

A Potential Challenge

If we accept that any transformed idea is art, the only remaining “Bad Art” might be work that is insincere—where there was no real thought preceding the transformation, or where the “interpretation” was done purely for a mechanical or cynical reason (like AI-generated filler with no human prompt or a soulless corporate logo).

What do you think about the role of “effort” in this? Does an idea that takes five seconds to transform (like a quick sketch) hold the same weight for you as one that takes five years, or is the “Good/Bad” judgment strictly about the final impact of the idea itself?  A Picasso vs a Seurat?

Would you like me to find some famous examples of “controversial” art where the public and the critics disagreed on whether the idea was transformed “well”?

The debate continues