The problem of defining art

The word aesthetics relates to the realm of sensitivity and means

understanding through the senses. In fact, it is because we all have
aesthetic sensitivity that emotionally impresses us
certain objects, which we designate as aesthetic objects.

The human being is affected by a multiplicity of stimuli that it selects,

decodes and configures in different ways. Thus, while many to it
some go unnoticed, while others, due to their beauty and elevation, give rise to
this experiential dimension that we designate as aesthetic experience.

It is, therefore, to contemplate what the senses register and discover what is.
new and irreplaceable that reality offers.
A subject can have an aesthetic experience when contemplating objects.
natural (a landscape, the sunset, a gesture), artistic objects (painting,
sculpture, poem) or during the solitary process of artistic creation. Not
we can reduce the aesthetic object to the work of art. Thus, it follows that also a
an object becomes aesthetic from the moment it is perceived by the subject as
The beautiful is, therefore, the property or the value that gives objects a
aesthetic dimension.
The aesthetic experience does not refer to the realm of logical understanding, but to
or the individual experience of affections, preferences, and rejections of each one. And, by
this, what characterizes this type of experience is disinterested pleasure and
not the usefulness that this person provides.
Although this type of experience has an emotional-affective mark,
appreciation of beauty involves the formulation of a judgment that, for that reason
even, reflects the way human beings perceive the beautiful – the ugly, the
the sublime and the horrible -, whether in natural objects or in those that are
we consider art.
"What is art?" - the answer is not consensual among philosophers. On one hand,
the universe of art includes a great variety, both of manifestations, as
of artistic productions; on the other hand, the term in question has so many meanings
how many moments and art theories have emerged throughout history.
The difficulty that the problem presents is related to the fact that today there are
objects and forms of art so disparate that transformed the question of
definition of art in an impossible mission, since it seems we have reached
a point where anything can be art.

If it is a fact that not everything is art, then it is necessary to assess criteria of

validation. Now, doing so necessarily excludes everything from this denomination.
that does not respect or surpass them. But the truth is that the creative impulse (and
(creative) of the artist, challenges him to free himself from the norms and produce something
innovative and transgressive. And art is characterized by this dynamism. Therefore,
its definition contains a contradiction within itself, as it aims to find the
limits of a concept that, in itself, is open.
The answer to the question continues to be the subject of reflection in Philosophy. In
In reality, what is intended to be known is whether there are common elements or marks.
to the different forms of art or criteria that allow us to distinguish the
artistic objects made from any other objects.
The human being mobilizes knowledge and techniques so that they can
respond to the need you feel to translate the experiences and emotions that the
the world offers you. Every time it does so in a new, unique way
original, recreating meanings, produces art. It is through art that the human being creates.
a space of transfiguration of reality and discovers a new dimension of
possible leaving your mark on the world.
Art translates the human need to understand and give new meanings.
to reality and to express experiences, feelings, and desires that arise from
a peculiar way of being, seeing, and being in the world. There are countless productions
which throughout history have been considered art. Were they justified? And
according to which precepts?

For a long time, creations that differed from what was considered nature were designated as art.
remaining objects by their intrinsic properties. It was based on this
criterion that the different essentialist theories defined art as imitation,
significant expression or form. This approach has been contested by
part of various thinkers: whether those who considered art a concept
indefinable, whether from those who resorted to extrinsic elements to the work (context
institutional or the history of art) to classify it as art.
Essentialist theories are distinguished from non-essentialist ones by designating
as art the creations that, by their essential capabilities (imitation,
expression of feelings or significant form) differ from the others
objects.
Essentialist theories of art

Art as representation
A work is art if and only if it is produced by man and imitates something.

- Classical Antiquity
- Imitation was the most used criterion to classify art.
- It was always applied when, through a creation, an artist reproduced the
reality
- If he did not portray her adequately, his work would not be considered.
artistic
- It was a necessary condition of art that it imitated/copy on a canvas or
in a block of marble what reality suggested
- Although we currently know that this criterion is not linear, many
works of art effectively imitate something
- Often, in front of a work of art, we try to find its
we sense and evaluate the mastery of the artist based on the reality that
reproduced.
But can it be considered that everything that imitates something is art?
The answer is no. There are imitations that, even if performed perfectly, will never
they can be considered art. This happens, for example, when, in a
social situation, someone imitates a commendable or condemnable behavior of
in other. In this case, we are certain that it is not art and that its author is not
is an artist. It's not enough to imitate to be art.

To conceive of art as imitation means to reduce creative activity to

a neutral reproduction technique
Because what one wants to transpose into the work is subjected to the artist's gaze,
art would be unable to encompass the complexity inherent to reality itself,
making its capture difficult as it is
If art were mere imitation, could music be considered art? No.
It also raises the question of how to access the original reality that
motivated the work, in order to determine the accuracy and perfection of the copy.
it does not seem possible, whether because of the time gap that separates the moment of creation
of contemplation, whether due to difficulty in accessing or retrieving the object
original.
It was to address these objections that some authors proposed to
it used the designation of 'art as representation'. Thus it becomes
it is possible to classify as art not only what imitates, but also what
represents/symbolizes and requires interpretation.
However, this approach is not without its critics, as there continues to be
works that represent nothing that are not designed to represent
nothing, but to create interesting visual effects that receive the
denomination of art.

Main thesis: A work is art if, and only if, it is produced by man and imitates
something.
A characteristic of the theory: A work to be art must imitate something.
For Plato and Aristotle, art was a form of imitation of nature. Plato
he despised it, but Aristotle acknowledged its pedagogical function. The
Plato's contempt arises from his philosophical conceptions about reality and
of knowledge. For him, the realities we perceive in the sensible world
they are mere imperfect copies of ideas and an artist just imitates these copies. A
art resumes to the copying of a copy. Aristotle considers that all of his
forms are imitations that are distinguished from each other by the means they use and by the
that portray.
Strengths of the theory:
It adapts to the undeniable fact of many paintings, sculptures, and others
works of art imitate something from nature
It offers a rather rigorous classification criterion for works of art.
that allows us to easily distinguish an object that is a work of
art of another that is not.
Critiques:
We found works of art that do not imitate anything, for example in painting.
or in sculpture, and even more notably in literature or music.
The perspective is reductive, both in terms of the conception of the aesthetic object,
as far as the perception of the complexity of the creative act is concerned, for there is
works that, although they imitate nothing, are considered art
If the criterion for validating art were imitation, it would apply to a
reduced number of productions and it would be impossible to determine the value
aesthetic due to the difficulty of accessing the realities that motivated it.

Art as expression

A work is art if, and only if, it expresses the feelings and emotions of the artist.

Starting from the 19th century, the answer to the question 'What is art?' began to
to settle from the point of view of the creator subject who, through art, expresses their
inner world.
According to expressionist art:
Only human production is capable of expressing and communicating emotions.
feelings experienced by the artist during the creation of the work can be
considered art
The artwork should be able to awaken in the viewer the same
emotions felt by the artist at the moment of creation
The criterion that allows us to distinguish art from non-art is not what is imitated or
represents, cultural emotions and the feelings that a certain work expresses.
When the artist displays an object or a landscape in a work, he is not
reproduce or imitate the exterior, but imprint in the work your experience
emotional.
The aesthetic value of the work depends on its ability to communicate the
intention of the creator.

Tolstoy:
 At the moment of creation, the artist has the purpose of conveying to others
people a feeling that he experienced once, for which, in the act
from creation, seeks to evoke it again and express it through certain signs
exteriors.
He argues that the artist must be able to make the spectator relive the
the same feelings you experienced and to infect him with the same ones
emotions.
The artwork is a vehicle for transmitting emotions.

Collingwood:
Before producing the work, the artist is unaware of the nature of their
emotions, as it has only a diffuse and undefined set of
feelings.
It is only by using imagination and thought to prepare your work.
that this emotional excitement is clarified to be later
articulated with the objects that the artist produces.
The aesthetic experience of the spectator must provide them access to the
individual feelings and emotions of the author of the work.

Critiques:
To be considered art, a work must be the clarifying expression and
intentional of the individual emotions that the artist shares with the
spectator. However, art does not always fulfill this purpose as there are works
recognized as art that does not express any emotion and because there is
art forms, such as theater or cinema, in which the artist does not express
your emotions, but represents/pretense those of the character they interpret.
It is not always possible to know the emotions that the artist wanted to convey.
At the moment of creation, nor ensure that this had the intention of
express emotions.

Valuation criterion: a work is only as good as it can achieve better.

express the feelings of the artist who created it.
Art as a significant form

A work is art if, and only if, it provokes aesthetic emotions, and these
result from the relationship that the observer establishes with the work of art.

Some of the main difficulties raised by art theories such as

imitation and expressivist were linked to the fact that they did not offer a
sufficiently comprehensive classification criterion, ultimately resulting in removal
of artistic value many works that are considered art. The question
it remains: what separates art from non-art?
Clive Bell:
Starting point for your reflection: belief that art has a
essence and that the existence of a rigorous definition of this
the concept would be fundamental not only to identify, but also to
appreciate art
Consider that the aesthetic sensitivity of a subject (the ability to
to be moved in front of a work of art) and its capacity for reasoning
(provided by an organized and logical thought) are the conditions
necessary for the development of a theory that formalizes, based on the
essential qualities common to all works, the concept of art.
The characteristic of provoking aesthetic emotions constitutes the condition
necessary and sufficient for an object to be a work of art.

Bell's formalist theory: it considers that it is the ability to provoke emotions.

aesthetics in viewers that allows to mark the art from non-art. It is the subject
that has the ability to discover art, based on the aesthetic emotion it brings to you
wake up.
The recognition of the value of a work also depends on the existence of
structural attributes (significant form) inherent to the objects subject to
appreciation.
Bell tells us that there is a common characteristic in all works: form.
significant. Such quality requires from the critic or viewer a certain
sensitivity, so that it can be captured.

It is not a matter of asserting, as in expressivism, that a work expresses emotions.

but to not recognize in a work the ability to awaken them. Thus, it is the
presence or absence of the significant form in a work that will determine its
artistic statute.
For Bell, art is a value-laden concept, which means that, for ...
for a work to be recognized as art, it is not enough to have been classified as such, it is
It is necessary to have someone who attributes value to you and recognizes your status.

Criticism:
Not all viewers are able to recognize a work of art.
for not understanding its significant form or for not experiencing
any aesthetic emotion.
-Bell does not clarify the concepts that underpin his theory, incurring a
circularity: the aesthetic emotion is what arises from the significant form and
this is what makes aesthetic emotion possible.
It becomes impossible to refute this theory because doing so would imply presupposing
the same that the theory intends to demonstrate: that the enjoyment of a work of
genuine art produces an aesthetic emotion in the sensitive observer.

Non-essentialist theories

Institutional theory of art

George Dickie began by distinguishing between what is aesthetic and what is artistic.
referring the first to the realm of an individual experience and the second
for a collective social practice. It is in this second aspect that Dickie
understands art: as an institutionalized and systemic practice that
It presupposes a relationship between the public and artists.

For Dickie, it is the cultural context in which a work develops and presents.
that make it recognized as art. Contrary to what it defended
Bell, for Dickie, the concept of art does not have a evaluative meaning, but
classifier. In other words, it is not about evaluating whether a certain work is good or
but, more to find the criteria that allow to separate art from non-art.
The theory proposed by Dickie is an attempt to define art not by the
specific properties it has, but by the way it is produced.
Therefore, more than assessing the quality of the works, it is important to know what they
check the art statute.
It is perfectly acceptable for an object to be considered art without having
any associated value. This means that what makes something a work of art is
the satisfaction of certain conditions that allow it to be classified as such.
Conditions:
Being an artifact is the first condition for something to be art. It happens that
this concept is too broad, as it includes everything that has been manipulated–
totally or partially - by the human being. Only artefacts are art
that acquired a status within a framework
institutional.
The term 'art world' is used by the author to refer to nature.
from art and the institutional context in which artistic practices are
they develop and prepare a presentation for the audience. It is the way
how this insertion is made in the world that makes something art. It is not a
a formally organized body of authorities that determines what is art,
but the whole that serves as a backdrop for artists in moments of
creation.

For Dickie, there is no solemn moment when a work is

officially referred to as a work of art. To be art, it is just
it is necessary for the artifact to be treated as such, that is, placed in a
gallery, published, represented or produced, in such a way that it can be
appreciated.

Criticism:
Inability to distinguish between good and bad art since Dickie's theory only
classifies an object as art or not, refraining from evaluating it. There is
who considers it a poor theory, as it avoids this assessment,
ultimately legitimizes that any object as long as it is integrated into the context
adequate may be recognized as art.
 By stating that what the 'art world' calls art is indeed art, without
indicate the reasons why this status is attributed to an artifact and not to
Otherwise, the institutional theory of art seems to become circular and empty.
The fragility of not recognizing as artists those who create theirs
works on the margin of institutional circuits.

Historical Theory of Art

Levinson will seek to clarify the concept of art based on the framing of
a given work in the history of art. For Levinson, art is a phenomenon
absolutely dependent on its history, so, as an activity
humanity cannot be seen as merely a succession of events
presented or recognized in specific contexts.
What makes an object art is not the historical context in which it occurs, but the
specific connection established with other works of the past. It is up to
artist to make this bridge, because this is the intention of meeting with the
past (with what has been considered art throughout history) that confers
to an object a certain statute.
In clear opposition to institutional theory, Levinson argues that art is
necessarily retrospective, as it is not enough for an object to be a candidate
the appreciation in the art world to deserve this designation. It is necessary that
the conditions that make it historically possible for it to be
recognized as such.
Conditions:
The artist must possess appropriate ownership (right to
ownership) over the object under analysis or being duly authorized
by its owner to act upon it. An artist can only designate
as your work produced from your materials and resources or
two that were used with the explicit consent of their owner. It is not
Is it possible for someone to turn an object that is not theirs into art.
The art cannot arise from a momentary impulse. For Levinson, only
there is art if there is, on the part of the author, a non-temporary intention to
relate the art of the representative (his work) with that of the past (the one that...
so it has been recognized). This implies that the artist makes use of their
knowledge of art history or someone who knows enough about the
objects and of the auditoriums in order to reference what art has already
 was. The artist's purpose is for their work to be historically
perspective seen as art, just as the works of the past were or are.

Even if the artist does not know the history of art, the fact is that it exists and
It was always under your light and guidance that the works were envisioned.
as art. For the author, only the connection to the past makes it possible
to recognize a work as art.

Criticism:
Levinson leaves us unsure about what changes in an object when it
transform it into a work of art.
Make the right to property a necessary condition for there to be art,
-Assumes as a condition for art the existence of an intention on the part of
by an author. There are works that have been published without that being necessary.
there has been a clear intention from its author.
It did not clarify how the first ones affirmed themselves as art.
works. If only what relates to history is art, how can the
primordial works are art if, before them, there is no art with which they can be.
related? If the primordial works are not art, will it be possible that the
subsequent or can they be?