Attempted Philosophical Definition of Art

Tiffany Schank

FNA 8317: Examining the Fine Arts

September 5th, 2017

 1

Human beings have immeasurable skills, gifts, and most of all freedoms. It is

through this freedom we have the ability to create, to make, to love, and to appreciate.

We have an innate need to make art, to compose music, photograph subjects, work Commented [1]: Or, desire.

with wood, or appreciate the arts and become a part of them. We allow them to become

part of us through viewing them. The need to create drives a plethora of very important

questions, the most pressing of which is the question of what is art? How do we define

art? We must turn to the many philosophers who tried to answer this question for the

answers.

One must first acknowledge the basic pretenses of art to delve deeper into the Commented [2]: ?

characteristics of art. We must first look at the basic ideas that create distinction

between beauty and science, and art and science; as well as between art and

handiwork, and art and nature. Through this it is possible to look further into art and Commented [3]: Or, teche.

determine what the characteristics of art may be.

The pretense must be made that science cannot be beautiful. It is through Commented [4]: But it can discover beauty: form,
complexity, simplicity, harmony, etc.
Hegel’s exemplary commentary one can see that there is “no such thing as beautiful

science, but only beautiful art.” 1 Beautiful cannot be determined in a scientific manner

for there is also “no science of the beautiful, only critique.” 2 Thus, to determine science

to be of beauty, scientific proof of beautiful must exist. Scientific reason simply cannot

determine beauty; it is only judgement of taste that can determine the beautiful. One

can look at the genes of a human being, or even the photosynthesis of a plant. We can

see the creator and His beauty within the science of it but is the thing itself beautiful? It

cannot be and it cannot be proved through deduction that the photosynthesis of this

1
Hegel, Introductory Letters on Aesthetics: 134
2
Hegel, Introductory Letters on Aesthetics: 134
 2

plant nor the genes of a human being are either beautiful or not beautiful. This gives Commented [5]: Science as a methodology, no, but
scientists can recognize beauty through such
methodology to some extent.
way to the idea that science then, cannot be beautiful in its own respect because it

cannot scientifically prove its beauty.

Art, which is human skill, is then, therefore, not a science. If we look to Kant, we

can see that “art regarded as human skill differs from science.” 3 Kant informs us that it is

different as practice differs from theoretics.4 Science has a logical interpretation; it Commented [6]: and a specific method.

comes from knowledge. The knowledge is then used with a skill to allow the science to

thrive. Although science can be trained into a person with a scientific mind, it also takes

that scientific mind or some talent to create this science. Art is the opposite; according

to Kant, who makes the case that art can be fully taught and does not rely upon native

talent to allow art to flourish. Thus, one can be taught to create art, yet one cannot be

taught science unless they have the talent to learn science. Hegel states “we need only Commented [7]: One may not excel in science, but
one can learn science to some measure.
lay down as essential the view that, though the artist talent and genius contain a natural

element, yet it is essentially in need of cultivation by thought, and of reflection on the

mode in which it produces.”5 We see through this that there is, indeed a learned ability.

Thus, art is not a science because science must require a knowledge coupled with a

skill.

Art is also not a handicraft; it differs from this as handicraft is restricted more

than art. Art is freer; it in itself is enjoyable whereas the handicraft is a labor of kind. Commented [8]: Awkward sentence.

Handicraft is enjoyable only by the end result of the work. Handicrafts then cannot be Commented [9]: Can it not be enjoyed in its process of
making?
art due to this fact. If the artist creates the work of art, he enjoys imagining the piece

within his mind's eye; he enjoys painting the work and when finished he enjoys the

3
Kant, Critique of Judgement: 133
4
Kant, Critique of Judgement: 133
5
Hegel, Introductory Letters on Aesthetics: 32
 3

finished product. The same is untrue of a handicraft. A person who frames a door does Commented [10]: Disagree.

not do so with the same intent as an artist. The person who frames the door does so

with the desire for things to look a certain way; whereas, the artist creates with the intent

to convey or communicate something. Thus, handicraft cannot claim to be art.

Art is also a separate entity from nature as well. Hegel says on page three of

Introductory Lectures on Aesthetics that many times we get into the habit of referring to

nature as beautiful. Yet, the beauty of art is something which is “born — born again, that

is — of the mind.” 6 He makes the claim that art is higher than nature in his text by

saying “by as much as the mind and its products are higher than nature and its

appearances, by so much the beauty of art is higher than the beauty of nature.” 7 It is

created through the artist's mind and imagination, the artist who as a being of the world

has the freedom and ability within the mind to both imagine a work of art and create this

work as well. 8Joseph Wood Krutch said it best when writing Experience and Art, he

informs us that “nor can even the most desperately ‘naturalistic’ art escape from this fact

for it is, at its most literal, nature passed through a human mind, nature probably

distorted by desire and nature certainly modified to whatever extent is necessary in

order that it may be comprehended by a reason which can operate only within its own

limitations.” 9 The mind distorts and changes nature, it views nature differently Commented [11]: But it can also be inspired by
nature.
depending on each person who is viewing the work. Nature draws upon emotions and

experiences, thus each person portrays and exhibits nature different in art. Art mimics

6
Hegel, Introductory Letters on Aesthetics: 3
7
Hegel, Introductory Letters on Aesthetics: 4
8
Hegel, Introductory Letters on Aesthetics: 4
9
Joseph Krutch, Art as Experience (New York, NY: Collier Books, 1962): 23
 4

nature yet, it isn’t a perfect representation of nature so then it is an imperfect, distorted Commented [12]: Not only mimics. Art can also re-
interpret nature and the natural forms and can put them
together in new and creative ways not seen in nature.
view of nature. Thus art is more the mimicry.

A work of art is also distinguished from nature in that the final product of art is a

work, unlike nature whose final project is an effect. We can look upon a piece of nature,

created by nature, and make the claim it is not art; it is a work of nature. It can also be

said that the “beauty of nature is a beautiful thing; beauty of art is a beautiful

representation of a thing.”10 As art mimics nature, it then representing the beauty of

nature. It takes no prior knowledge to judge the beauty of nature; it is something one

can ascertain joy from just the pure judgement with no prior knowledge. However, this is

not the case with art. Art must have prior knowledge; the viewer must know what the

object is intended to be and bring the knowledge of the object that the viewer has prior

to the viewing of the object.

Art mimics nature and it points us to the supreme being; the creator of the world. It

stands on a “the threshold of transcendental. It points beyond this world of accidental

and disconnected things to another realm, in which human life is endowed with and

emotional logic which makes sufferings noble and love worthwhile.” 11 Scruton makes

the claim that no one who is aware of beauty can avoid seeing the God of the universe;

it is impossible to see beauty without acknowledging him. Art mimics his handiwork

thus, points a viewer directly back to the absolute through mimesis of nature.

However, Art supplements nature, Friedrich Nietzsche said it best when he said

“art is not merely an imitation of the reality of nature, but in truth a metaphysical

10
Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgement: 140
11
Scruton, Beauty: 156
 5

supplement to the reality of nature, placed alongside thereof for its conquest.” 12 Art’s

essential “purpose of art consists in imitation, in the sense of a facility in copying natural

forms as they exist in a way that corresponds precisely to them; and the success of

such a representation, exactly corresponding to nature.” 13 One can see good

representation of this in works by Claude Monet such as Water Lilies; when viewed, the

viewer is taken out of their life and places within the reality of nature where Monet

painted the work. Within our mind and eye the viewer is standing looking at the water

lilies and can see the bridge and the colors which Monet carefully placed within his

work. Thus viewing the work, knowing humans are second creators made with a free

spirit, made with imagination to create; we are viewing God’s handiwork viewed by the

human who was created and re-created within his mind.

Yet, art is also set apart from nature by the purposiveness of it. Art is said to

always have “a definite intention of producing something.” 14 Yet, nature does not have

this purposiveness. Nature does nothing on purpose; it cannot. It does not have the Commented [13]: Except the purpose given it by its
creator.
cognitive abilities to reason and think about what it is doing. If a multitude of storms

comes through a town and wears a rock formation down while shaping it to different

shapes, that was not intentional. The storm did not have a cognitive idea or freedom to

make the decision to shape the rock to what it is. However, an artist is able to decide

what they would like to create, the artist can decide to sculpt a work of art based on the

human form. This artist can make the decision to purposefully sculpt the arms of such

work longer, the legs shorter or the head larger. Nature does not have this luxury, it

12
Friedrich Nietzsche, "Friedrich Nietzsche Quotes," BrainyQuote.
13
Hegel, Introductory Letters on Aesthetics: 47
14
Kant, Critique of Judgement: 136
 6

cannot decide in that type of way. Humans being free beings are able to make those

decisions and create art that is purposive instead of coincidence.

Even through a basic representation; though it will not be a perfect

representation we can see nature and the creator in any art form. It is in Richard

Wagner’s Opera and Drama we see a value of the arts due to mimesis; “even the most

unwonted shapes, which the poet has to evoke in this procedure, will never be truly un-

natural; because in them nature's essence is undistorted, but merely her utterances are

gathered into lucid image, such as is alone intelligible to artist-man. 15 Thus even with

“unwonted shapes” we are able to see nature and its beauty through a work of art.

So then there are other small yet interesting characteristics which go into art,

doing a work to create an art. For in “confronting a true work of art it is not my own

reactions that interest me, but the meaning and content of the work of art.” 16 Thus, one

is being shown an experience. Truth and Method by Hans-Georg Gadamer says it best,

in that art is able to bring the meaning and content to the viewer through the experience

of his life; “the power of the work of art suddenly tears the person experiencing it out of

the context of his life, and yet relates him back to the whole of his existence.” 17 Art

brings experience from the artist and yet it always allows for our experience to be in

active play with the work of art as well. Along with this experience they also, bring other

characteristics to the table.

Another such of these is communication; art always communicates. It, “reveals

15
Richard Wagner, Opera & Drama, trans. William Ashton Ellis (Lincoln and London: University
of Nebraska Press, 1995): 216
16
Scruton, Beauty: 85
17
Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and method (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2014):
 7

the absolute in a sensory form. Thus, it expresses a message in a sensory medium.” 18

It may communicate an experience as is the case of Gentileschi’s Judith Slaying

Holofernes, the work which many different artists have indeed recreated within their

time. It is her experience of being enraged at the man who raped her, that we can see

in the painting through Judith’s anger as she slays Holofernes. The work emanates the

feeling of rage, to which a viewer can relate due to the human feeling of rage having

been felt by all living humans. Nevertheless, art communicates. Often times it

communicates emotions and expressions.

Throughout the artist's life, that they experience; this experience brings about

emotions that then become the inspiration for the artist allowing the creation of the work

of art. Two works of art can represent or depict the same things however, no two works

will convey the same emotion within the representation. Leo Tolstoy in his

comprehensive work “What is Art?” informs us, “no school can call up feelings in a man,

and still less can it teach a man what is essence of art: the manifestation of feeling in his

own peculiar fashion.” 19 The way the artist individually portrays an emotion through a

work of art is unique to both the artist and the work of art. It is a “unique form that

identifies their individuality.” 20 So then, artistic ability or art become valuable through

this expression of individuality.

A work of art confronts the viewer with his or her morality. The work of art is

created from a human freedom to choose and think independently of the supreme

being. One is free to imagine nature and re-create nature within a work of art; this ability

18
Hegel, Introductory Letters on Aesthetics: Introduction
19
Leo Tolstoy, What is Art? trans. Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (London: Penguin
Books ): 98
20
Scruton, Beauty: 98
 8

wouldn’t be possible if a person was not a free thinking human being. Humanity also

allows one, to apply “names that seem to rely upon the basis of moral judgements” to

beautiful objects, as well as art.21 Without a free thinking mind one would be unable to

judge the works of art and apply the descriptive names to them. A person would, in fact,

be unable to judge a work at all. They would lack the freedom; which is enabled to them

by the absolute, to think freely enough to judge. So then, art lastly; confronts one with

morality.

So then, how then can we describe art? Art is not a science because it cannot be

scientifically proven to be of beauty. Art is not a handiwork or craft; it is set apart by its Commented [14]: or techne; not decorative nor
purposeful.
freedom within the artist. Although, it mimics nature it is set apart from nature by the Commented [15]: it can do more

artist's intent and purposeful placement of elements within the work. A work of art

always communicates; it communicates emotions, imagination, and experience but it

always communicates through itself something. Lastly, it confronts a person with their

own morality and creator; throwing directly in the supreme being and ability to think

freely directly in the face of the viewer. Art is, put simply; complicated. Yet, it is a simple

beauty to be appreciated.

Though not altogether clear cut, as our readings indicate, there are distinctions to be

made between craft, decoration, art, and fine art. You highlighted some of those

distinctions, but also blurred some of those lines or missed some of the points of

distinction. And again, as I mentioned in my comments, art does more than merely

mimic nature. Grade: B

21
Kant, Critique of Judgement: 181
9
 10

Bibliography

Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and method. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2014.

Hegel, Georg, Introductory Lectures on Aesthetics (Penguin Classics). Ed. Bernard Bosanquet.

Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Judgement. Translated by James Creed Meredith. Compiled by

Nicholas Walker. NY: Oxford University Press, 2007

Krutch, Joseph. Art as Experience. New York, NY: Collier Books, 1962.

Nietzsche, Friedrich . "Friedrich Nietzsche Quotes." BrainyQuote. Accessed September 15,

2017. http://www.brainyquote.com/.

Scruton, Roger. Beauty. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Tolstoy, Leo. What is Art? Translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. London:

Penguin Books .

Wagner, Richard. Opera & Drama. Translated by William Ashton Ellis. Lincoln and London:

University of Nebraska Press, 1995.