art
Last night I was looking at ways to falsify my own definition of art, which basically says
Visual Art: The modification of an object or body through the use of color, line, pattern, or form that is done solely to attract attention to to a body, object, or message. Visual art is a mechanism to attract attention to things. As it is used in association with something, it thereby attracts attention to that something. That “something” may be a message to which visual art draws attention. The proximate aim of visual art is to attract attention, perhaps by provoking emotions. To the extent that visual art is an adaptation then its ultimate function is to influence social behavior in ways that promote if not reproductive success then success in leaving descendants.
I realized that by this definition a fence is a form of art, as is a tattoo, as is intentional cranial deformation, as is dental modification as are a great many things - as I argue in a publication on "art the replicable unit."
All of these are forms of communication. In the past, color (red ochre - was used in burials; dental decoration communicated one's clan or tribe; intentional cranial deformation communicated one's ancestry and social status; tattoos communicated one's ancestry. Today, some of these are no longer seen; others now communicate something new: "I am an iconoclast, I am a member of Hell's Angels, or whatever. A fence communicates ownership. This pretty much leads me to the position that art is merely a form of communication, but such a vital one that we pay a considerable amount of attention to it -- it is a form of communication that - just a as color, form, and pattern do in other species - attracts and holds our attention.
So, to get on my soapbox, in ending this -- Yes, perhaps we all should define our terms and attempt to falsify them -- a task that can and probably should be done - at least if we want to call ourselves a science. At the very least, it forces us to think outside the box we have built in our own minds and perhaps to recognize that we realized this all along - looking back over the papers I have written since my first years of graduate school. The first paper that I wrote during my masters program was for an animal behavior class taught by John Alcock. In it I look at the use of color, form, and pattern across non human species.
All of these are forms of communication. In the past, color (red ochre - was used in burials; dental decoration communicated one's clan or tribe; intentional cranial deformation communicated one's ancestry and social status; tattoos communicated one's ancestry. Today, some of these are no longer seen; others now communicate something new: "I am an iconoclast, I am a member of Hell's Angels, or whatever. A fence communicates ownership. This pretty much leads me to the position that art is merely a form of communication, but such a vital one that we pay a considerable amount of attention to it -- it is a form of communication that - just a as color, form, and pattern do in other species - attracts and holds our attention.
So, to get on my soapbox, in ending this -- Yes, perhaps we all should define our terms and attempt to falsify them -- a task that can and probably should be done - at least if we want to call ourselves a science. At the very least, it forces us to think outside the box we have built in our own minds and perhaps to recognize that we realized this all along - looking back over the papers I have written since my first years of graduate school. The first paper that I wrote during my masters program was for an animal behavior class taught by John Alcock. In it I look at the use of color, form, and pattern across non human species.
To be continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment