One of the first topics that we tackled in class was the quintessential first question of any study of creative works: what is literature? Do we consider The Hobbit to be literature? What about Ulysses? Or a screenplay of an episode of SpongeBob?
Upon attempting to slaughter this particular dragon, I must admit that I ended up wandering into a somewhat different lair. Namely-- what is art?
Merriam-Webster has two definitions of art as a noun:
- decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter
- the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also works so produced
The second definition is less clear. Art is anything that is produced with advanced ability and the intent to create something new, though it doesn't have to be attractive visually. There is some ambiguity here-- what about 'found art'? If an artist takes an object out of its original setting and creates a new purpose for it, does it become a piece of art? Photography is generally considered art, after all.
And, perhaps more importantly, where is the line denoting the "conscious use of skill and creative imagination"? What if I were to show you an image, and ask you whether it came from a modern artist or a computer program?
Take, for example, the following two images. One is computer-generated, the other a piece of geometric modern art; do you know which is which?
.png "Is this one computer-generated?")
Perhaps this is not a truly fair test, as those who have studied art history may recognize the work on the right as a composition by Piet Mondrian. The image on the left is untitled, as it was generated by a genetic algorithm known as Evograph (all credit for Evograph goes to Adam Smith). Evograph aims to use analysis of the elements of art and data on the attractiveness, or lack thereof, of images to create images that are aesthetically pleasing.
A quick overview of genetic algorithms-- most such algorithms involve the creation of individual solutions to a problem based on building blocks. Building blocks are selected for fitness, and the most fit building blocks have the chance to pass their 'genes' on to the next generation of building blocks. Over many generations, the algorithm optimizes and usually surpasses traditional solutions. In the case of Evograph, users are effectively able to remove ugly images from the breeding pool and leave pretty ones, with the result that the images grow more pleasing over time.
As such images are not directly created by an artist who is using creative intent and skill, are they still art? I selected the image from a pool of potential images; by recognizing its potential to be art, did I make it art?
I believe that if an experiment were conducted asking people to select which images were created by computer programs and which by modern artists, no significant difference would be found. If we assume this to be true, does it even matter what we define as art? If we cannot tell the difference, is there a difference?
We could continue this sort of reaching around in the dark for pages and pages, but at this point I think that further speculation is superfluous. Art is not something that is easily defined, and perhaps everyone has their own definition of it. To some people, a Renaissance painting is the epitome of art, with nothing but decline since; some fiercely deny that modern art is art, while others prefer the simple aesthetic of Rothko works. Many people do not think of website design as art, and even more have never considered the writing of html code to be art; I would beg to differ. Both are art to me.
What is art to you?
