The Borders Of Art

An analysis of Daniel Albright's "Panaesthetics" introduction.

Some may consider everyone to be an artist, like the German artist Joseph Beuys, who quotes, “TU ES AUS LIEBE,” which means “DO IT WITH LOVE.” In his poem explaining “How to Be an Artist,”

However, I would like to start this essay by asking the question we discussed at the start of this class: What is the meaning of art?

The word “art” comes from the Greek word Artis, which means “acquired skill.” However, can we call all acquired skills art? And what defines the borders of each art form, differentiating one from another?

In Charles Baudelaire’s poem Echoes, he writes,

“The scents and colors to each other respond.”

which, to me, is the basis of art and our topic today: combining the senses.

In Daniel Albright’s book, he explains how the Romantics liked to believe that there is a single Art that refracts itself into separate arts, like light through a prism. In this particular context, I think our senses may be this so-called art prism; the way we see colors, shapes, and forms understand paintings, our ears understand music through the harmonies in our soul, and our tongue understands the play in words turning into poetry. This brings me to Merleau Ponty Maurıce’s Cézanne’s Doubt article.

Cezanne always made it a point to learn from the nature around him; he didn’t just want to paint what he saw but what he felt. He painted in new tones and colors, abandoning outlines just in hopes of fully capturing what his senses were experiencing when looking at nature; he wanted to make nature and art the same; in this way, he connected all art to the body, like a light through a prism.

Some have tried to diversify the arts, almost turning them against each other; however, what makes poetry different from song? If the only difference we can see is the harmony, then I wouldn’t call this a particular difference but a transformation, like mixing the colors red and yellow to make orange.

However, I agree with Daniel Albright’s view: “The arts themselves have no power to aggregate or to separate — they are neither one nor many but will gladly assume the poses of unity or diversity according to the desire of the thinker.” I think the only true separation in the arts can only be done with our intention.

Is it the artist’s intent to write poetry or lyrics, music or song? The intention of the artist or thinker is what can make a difference.

The thing that can separate the arts is our (the viewer’s) intentions and perception.

We can observe poems, paintings, sonnets, and sculptures all about the same topic but perceive them very differently due to our past experiences and knowledge about the topic, maybe even deriving completely different meanings from the same works.

The first of the four theses Albright discusses in his introduction is: “Anything is an artwork to the extent that it looks made.”

He writes that the Matterhorn (the mountain of the Alps) is as much an artwork as the Mona Lisa.

This leaves me with a fairly juxtaposed opinion on the matter; if you believe in a God or a creator of the universe, then yes, the Matterhorn and the whole universe, in fact, can be seen as a piece of art, just like the Mona Lisa. However, even if you don’t believe in a creator, our whole life, memories, and the way we experience the world shape what we perceive as art or aesthetically pleasing. Albright also quotes from Nietzsche:

“Meaning is generated from the interaction of our minds with the intention that we imagine to have created the object we scrutinize.”

To put it simply, we create meaning (meaning is generated) based on what we believe the artist’s intention was (with the intention that we imagine to have created the object). Therefore, this all ties back to what I have mentioned previously: even if we are just guessing, our understanding of a certain piece of art all leads back to us.

Before moving on to the next thesis, I would like to briefly talk about Robert Rauschenberg, who is mentioned in Albright’s introduction.

Rauschenberg was an American Artist who revolutionized the “collage” as an art form, breaking the borders of the 2D world and introducing the collage as a work of art that can also be part of the 3D world. He combined painting, sculpture, and real-life objects, turning them into art. For example, his work “Monogram,” in my opinion, was ahead of his time; he made people (and me) question what we consider art and challenged what was considered museum-worthy.

The second thesis Albright mentioned, Art is a Voodoo Doll, talks about how artwork exercises influence on the mind. He writes that art is neither expressive nor non-expressive, an opinion with which I fully agree. A specific work of art is only special to me if I find something in it of myself. When an artwork makes me recall a forgotten memory, ignites passion or inspiration in me, or reminds me of myself or the me that I envision becoming, that is when I am drawn in. When we see pieces of ourselves in an artwork that transcends its form and almost becomes human, we see the life and blood rushing through.

,

“You must let it change your life.”

For example, Rainer Maria Rilke, being inspired by Apollo’s sculpture, turned it into a poem (an artwork) of his own. We must let the artwork transform us and arouse certain emotions, even ones we have tried desperately to block off.

The third thesis mentioned is: Art is about art, art history, and history.

It is my belief that no artwork is utterly original. I think that as humans, it is in our nature to be inspired, take, change, and alter everything around us. Therefore, the search for originality is pointless from where I see it. No artwork is of less value because it is a transformation of what has come before.

For example, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, one of the most famous directors in Turkey, references and takes inspiration from Dostoyevsky. Nuri Bilge likes to create alienated, lonely, and emotionally distant lead male characters who take a lot of inspiration from Dostoyevsky’s novels. His films also deal with inner conflict and guilt; most of his films have a sort of fight to the truth theme, which is reminiscent of Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment. Therefore, Nuri Bilge Ceylan’s films aren’t of less valuable just because they are inspired by Dostoyevsky.

“There is no painting, however abstract or random, that does not gesture toward the Lascaux caves and toward the creation of the universe,” Albright sees this as a tragic occurrence, the fact that every artwork presupposes its own destruction, however, in my opinion, this so-called gesturing to the past makes the past live longer, making us forever looking and finding pieces of the world in everything that comes our way.

Lastly, we have come to the fourth thesis: Art is both a language and a not-language. This notion ties in with the previous mentions of art. It is only our understanding of it, but what this last discussion adds is the language factor. Language is what ultimately intertwines all art mediums together.

“Every artwork can be located in the domain of language, where everything is so relatable to everything else”

Humans are collected by language, not speech, which is an important factor to differentiate. Speech does not stay up in the air for long, but language is not speech, it is the tool for which humans have communicated and been able to understand each other for centuries. We compare and analyze all arts through language, our language however, as Albright says, there has to be another space where these artworks have no meaning, where meaning has no meaning.

He says, “Every artistic medium is a language, but I can say this only because language understands everything as language.” We have a habit of saying that art forms are a language, music is a language, dance speaks, and film has a certain grammar. However, we can only call art a language because we are using language. We can only look and talk about things through the lens of language.

I’d like to end this essay with this quote from Cezanne:

“They created pictures; we are attempting a piece of nature”

So maybe, just for a moment, we can look at nature as art, natura naturans.