Shriner 1

Mary Shriner
Dr. Amy Lynch-Biniek
English 023
12 April 2016
What Should Be Considered Art?
We have all been there: going to an art gallery or museum, examining the walls, and
finding pieces that wrack your brain for explanation. For instance, imagine a canvas that is
painted one solid color and considered a high achievement and something of praise in the fine
arts community. Who decided that something like that should be considered a work of art? And is
their opinion enough to make me believe it is a work of fine art?

Human-kind has been creating things for thousands of years, but only in the last century has the
meaning of art been pushed to the limits. People like Marcel Duchamp, who autographed a urinal
and set it in a gallery naming it art, and Damien Hirst, who cut up animals and displayed them in
glass tanks as his art, have especially begged the question, what even is art anymore?
Throughout history, there have been many arguments and even legal battles over what
should be considered art. Gallery owners, artists, critics, and the general public will always have
conflicting views on the subject. There are many different definitions for art, but none of them
seem to be able to fully capture art as a whole. This is why I believe the viewing public should be
able to judge for themselves if something is considered art or not. If it is aesthetically pleasing
and holds value for you, then it can be considered art by you. As they say, beauty is in the eye of
the beholder.
Over the course of human history, the opinions of those beholders on art have changed
dramatically. The article What is Art? The Problem of Definition Today, written by Wladyslaw

Shriner 2
Tatarkiewicz, is a valuable source for discussing how art through the ages was defined.
According to Tatarkiewicz, the ancient Greeks and Romans used to define art as the ability to
make things according to rules. This means that any fine art, craft, or science that was created
using a set of rules was covered under the terminological umbrella, art (Tatarkiewicz 134).
This definition has of course been modified drastically over the centuries, and has also become
more vague and less universally accepted.
In his article, Tatarkiewicz continues by describing how this general idea of art remained,
but the elements of the definition changed. For example, music and writing were added to the
category art, while anything of science was removed. He also writes that the mechanical
arts, like carpentry, tailoring, etcetera, are considered crafts today. This information proves
how ever-changing some elements of art can be. To the ancients, the sciences were considered
art. That seems highly unusual in this day in age, but maybe in a thousand years, something that
would be displayed in a fine arts gallery would be considered something totally different from a
work of art. If definitions of art continue to change in the future the way they have changed over
the course of history, then it will be impossible to lock down a universal definition.
Another problem in creating a universal definition for art is when people attempt to label
something as art only if it fits certain preconceived ideas of art. Later in the article, Tatarkiewicz
discusses the concept of art in the way he is going to analyze it. He says, It is easier to proceed
intuitively, i.e. to consider typical instances of art and describe their properties
(Tatarkiewicz137). He wants to call things art if they fit into the norms, or typical instances, of
other art. Through the ages, this has been a common view of the art world. When there is a new
movement, or something innovative is presented, its credibility as true art is often contested by
those commanding the art world at the time. An example of this is the impressionist movement.

Shriner 3
When Claude Monets brushstroke-y paintings were revealed to the art world, they were harshly
criticized by the art community. However, impressionist paintings are highly valued today, and
popular enough to be recognized by almost anyone. If they remained true to Tatarkiewiczs idea
that something is art if it displays typical conventions of art, impressionist paintings would never
have gained the value they have today, and they would not be so widely adored and appreciated.
Like in the emergence of impressionism, the artistic value of works has always
been debated in a social context. But another interesting area in which definition of the arts is a
necessary conversation is in the law. The article What is Art? A Brief Review of International
Judicial Interpretations of Art in the Light of the UK Supreme Courts 2011 Judgment in the Star
Wars Case: Lucasfilm Limited V. Ainsworth, written by the arts lawyer Henry Lydiate, is
helpful in describing arts-related law topics. In the article, he expresses his own definition of the
arts in saying, Art is a symbolic language, which human beings create to structure and shape
their understanding of reality; and is a medium of visual communication between artist and
spectator (Lydiate). This definition is interesting because Lydiate includes the viewer of the art
in it. It is vague, but because of that, it is all-encompassing. And including the phrase visual
communication between artist and spectator brings up a good point about what should be
considered art. If there is visual communication, then the viewer may consider it art, even if
someone else does not.
Later in the article, Lydiate quotes the legal definition of art determined by the Berne
Convention (an international agreement on copyright laws.) He writes:
the Berne Convention initially describes artistic works as follows: every
production in the artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its
expression such as works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture,

Shriner 4
engraving and lithography; photographic works to which are assimilated works
expressed by a process analogous to photography; works of applied art;
illustrations, maps, plans, sketches and three-dimensional works relative to
geography, topography, architecture or science It shall, however, be a matter for
legislation in the countries of the Union to prescribe that works in general or any
specified categories of works shall not be protected unless they have been fixed in
some material form (Lydiate).
So in law, art is in need of a much more concrete and refined definition; vague concepts are not
enough. It is interesting to compare decisions on what art is based on the purpose behind the
definition. The authors own definition was vague, and felt personal. The legal copyright
definition for art is very textbook: wordy and informational.
Controversies in art exist in the past from legal and copyright standpoints, but more
commonly discussed are controversies regarding aesthetics and morals of the art or artists
themselves. An example of this is shock art, or art that is created solely to shock and surprise
the audience, often with little care for general art conventions or aesthetics. The show Sensation
at the Brooklyn Museum in 1999 is one of the most discussed controversies in shock art. Just a
few things exhibited at the show include a painting of the virgin Mary surrounded by elephant
dung and pornography, a portrait of a serial killer made up of childrens handprints, and cut-up
animals displayed in glass tanks. These works, and other unnoted offensive pieces, were
displayed in a gallery in an art museum. However, I do not believe that should automatically give
them the title art, just because of their location.
Roger Kimball, a prominent art critic, wrote an article in 1999 called, The Elephant in
the Gallery, or the Lessons of Sensation, describing the controversies surrounding the show. In

Shriner 5
his article, Kimball writes, Without exception, the objects in Sensation are banal, repulsive, or
both (Kimball). He uses the word objects, not works or pieces, or anything that would
suggest he is referring to a work of art. Kimball clearly was not a fan of Sensation, and appears
to have decided for himself that the objects displayed at the show are not works of art, and
should not be described as such. I think this is where we can learn a lesson from Sensation and
Roger Kimball. Kimball, an art critic, was not compelled to discuss the works from Sensation
as if they were art, even though they were displayed in such a prominent place as the Brooklyn
Museum. He stuck to his gut and conveyed his own opinions about what he considers art. With
all the vague definitions of art that have changed and been modified over hundreds of years,
combined with the conflicting views of those who dominate the art world, (artists, critics, gallery
and museum curators and coordinators, etcetera), its nearly impossible to create a concrete
category that is art. Therefore, it is up to you to decide for yourself what you consider art, and
be confident in your own moral and aesthetic artistic opinions. If you should decide that shock
art appeals to you, has meaning to you, or is aesthetically pleasing to you, then it can be art to
you.
The museum/ gallery curators/ coordinators of the Brooklyn Museum are the ones who
were responsible for displaying and exhibiting the works in Sensation. If it wasnt for the
people of the Brooklyn Museum, those works might not have caused a stir in America like they
did. This brings an important new view to the conversation of what is art: the fact that museum
and gallery coordinators dictate what kinds of art is available for the general public to view. The
article, Less than Friends, More than Acquaintances: Artists, Markets, and Gallery Openings in
New York, by Martin G. Fuller, examines this further. In this article, Martin Fuller, a professor
of sociology at the University of Cambridge, walks around the Chelsea area in New York City,

Shriner 6
attending gallery openings to further insight into the world of these artists. He describes how,
despite what you would think, artists do not create portfolios to show to gallery owners in the
hopes of being chosen for a show. As the title describes, artists who are shown in these galleries
are less than friends, but more than acquaintances with people in charge of coordinating
shows. Fuller describes how artists will attend gallery openings in order to create mild
friendships and acquaintances with people who can eventually help to boost their artistic career
by providing them with gallery showings and getting their name out to the public (Fuller). This
ends up limiting the modern art that the general public visiting galleries is exposed to. If the art
displayed in the easily-accessible and well-known Chelsea galleries isnt there necessarily
because of universally accepted artistic talent, but because of being acquainted with the gallery
owner, then how can the general public have a good perception of what modern art is like by
looking through these galleries? There is probably an artist with work for every eye and taste of
the general public, who isnt being displayed and bumped up in the art world due solely to a lack
of connections. This selective friendship-based gallery displaying is yet another reason why
deciding what art in your eyes is, is important. Because what you see through the windows in a
gallery isnt total modern art representation.
The way people generally react to modern art does differ from the way people generally
react to more traditional, classical, textbook art. A crucial voice in the conversation what is art
that is generally left out is that of the general public not associated with the art world. This is
where the article A Study of Visitors Musings in the Traditional and Contemporary Art
Galleries of the National Gallery of Canada by Anne-Marie mond comes in handy. mond, a
professor at the University of Montreal, conducted this study involve[ing] an investigation of
the verbal comments of 30 adult participants reacting to the moments of conflict they

Shriner 7
experienced while viewing traditional and contemporary art (mond). Though this is a
relatively small study, and it only involves art from Canada, it is one of the only articles I could
find where the primary focus was opinions of general people not related to the art field at all.
This article was interesting because she focused on their opinions based on four main categories:
the participants prior knowledge, their expectations, the artwork itself, and the viewers personal
taste (mond). I would think most people would predict that the viewers would have more
conflicts with modern art than traditional art, but the results of the study found the opposite to be
true. The study found that participants looking at traditional art were likely to associate what was
happening in the painting with their own prior knowledge. If what the viewer thought the
painting should be differed from what they were seeing, then they felt conflict with that painting.
On the other hand, when viewers looked at modern art, they were likely to assign their own
meanings to the pieces, and make up their own knowledge and stories for the art. Therefore, they
had fewer conflicts (mond). This study shows that the traditional way of creating art is not all
that art can be, and its not the only thing people can appreciate. It is a great example of people
finding their own meaning in art, and forming their own opinions of what can be art.
Again, mankind has been creating for thousands of years, but our modern society is really
pushing the boundaries of art. With the innovations of todays artists in their choice of medium,
subject matter, and taste level, art has become a totally different idea from what it was in, say,
ancient Greek and Roman times. The growing amount and variety of art makes it incredibly
difficult, if not impossible, to create a definition to encompass art entirely. Despite previous
attempts create precise definitions for historical or legal purposes, the next wave of art, such as
the shock show, will keep washing in and cause viewers to rethink what they know about art. The
fact that some art is only displayed to the public due to personal preference of gallery owners,

Shriner 8
plus the fact that the art we do see can be so personally interpretive, also contributes to the
difficulty in solidly defining art.
This leaves one simple answer: the viewer decides. You, as the viewer, are allowed to
decide what you like, and what speaks to you. Just because something is displayed in a gallery
doesnt mean youre obligated to appreciate it as a work of awe-inspiring art. Just because
something isnt put up in a gallery for the general public to adore, it doesnt mean it isnt a work
of art. Everyone has their own opinions and their own tastes that they are entitled to. So go to a
prominent art history museum, go to a modern gallery, or go to a small-town art show. Decide
what you like for yourself, and feel confident in enjoying the art that you enjoy. After all, beauty
is in the eye of the beholder.

Shriner 9
Works Cited
mond, Anne-Marie. "A Study of Visitors' Musings in the Traditional and Contemporary Art
Galleries of the National Gallery of Canada." Canadian Review Of Art Education:
Research & Issues 33.1 (2006): 75-99. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 March 2016.
Fuller, Martin G. Less than Friends, More than Acquaintances: Artists, Markets and Gallery
Openings in New York. International Review of Social Research 5.2 (2015): 120-129.
Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 March 2016.
Kimball, Roger. The Elephant in the Gallery, or the Lessons of Sensation. New Criterion
18.3 (1999): 4. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 March 2016.
Lydiate, Henry. What is Art? A Brief Review of International Judicial Interpretations of Art in
the Light of the UK Supreme Courts 2011 Judgment in the Star Wars Case: Lucasfilm
Limited V. Ainsworth. Journal of International Entertainment & Media Law 4.2 (2012):
111-147. Academic Search Complete. Web. 20 March 2016.
Tatarkiewicz, Wadysaw. "What is Art? The Problem of Definition Today." British Journal Of
Aesthetics 11.2 (1971): 134-153. Art Source. Web. 20 March 2016.