All or One: Judging Artistic Status by Work or Form

Since this has and will continue to come up a lot, I am going to make a distinction between two different ways of judging a work's status as art.  So this week isn't too full of specifically game-centric theory, but it's important nonetheless; bear with me.

When deciding whether something is a work of art, there are usually two approaches.  One is to examine the work itself, its composition and its history, and decide whether it is worthy of the status of "art."  The other is to examine a broader category under which the work fits (usually referred to as a "medium") and decide whether it has artistic merit; if the medium is artistic in nature, any example of said medium is a work of art.  Both approaches both have their pros and cons, but often times one tends to be applied where the other is necessary.  Problems ensue.

By-the-work judgement is based on the artistic value of a specific given work.  It is through this type of artistic judgement that one could say, "Okami is art, but Call of Duty is not."  This reasoning is based on the fact that Okami has beautiful visual design, a compelling story steeped in Japanese mythology, an exceptional musical score, and well-designed gameplay largely inspired by (but not entirely lifted from) the tried-and-true Legend of Zelda formula.  Call of Duty, while visually impressive, seems to be designed specifically with multiplayer in mind, making it a competitive game if anything (for the record, I think Call of Duty 4 has one of the best FPS campaigns of the last decade, so this is not actually the position I hold).  One could also argue, especially as the series has progressed, that even the story-based campaign is more about war simulation than telling a war story.  Beyond that, one could argue the problem of intent; perhaps the makers of Call of Duty were not making it as an art, or were designing it for the sole purpose of a paycheck without thought to the meaning of their work, whereas Okami proudly displays exceptional artistic sensibility and intent.  Thus, judging by the work, Okami could be considered art whereas Call of Duty might not.

By-the-form judgement is based on the artistic value of a general category of works.  The idea is that a given medium inherently involves artistic and creative acts; take painting, for instance.  Painting is so generally considered art that most of us focused almost solely on painting and drawing in elementary school art classes; things like literature or photography were barely mentioned, or only studied in the context of their bigger categories (literature in English classes, etc.).  This is because painting requires creative and skillful creation or recreation of imagery.  It is considered an art form, because whether one is designing a monster for a fantasy film or capturing a moment of busy urban life, they are using creativity and skill to do so.  Even those pictures we drew as small children are examples of art; they may not be very good (rainbows and stick figures can only carry an artist's career so far), but they are art, because they belong to a form of creation that fits artistic criteria (creative, skillful, and purposeful). Of course any work that belongs to the form must also fall under that criteria; a spilt bucket of paint, for instance, is entirely accidental, lacking in creativity, skill, and intent.  The simple involvement of paint does not make it a work of art, because it must fulfill the same artistic criteria as the form itself.

Fountain, Marcel Duchamp, 1917

And yes, it's an old urinal.

In both of these methods, there is debate as to the status of some works.  Abstract and post-modern art tends to spark the most debate, as much of it seems to be nothing more than random splatters of paint, or a picture of a messy room, with no real purpose or unifying idea, let alone skill.  However, these criteria are applied regardless of which system of judgement is being used; this ambiguity is not a weakness of either method, but simply an example of the difficulty that is encountered when trying to define and study art.

The problem starts when a by-the-work method is applied to culture and art as a whole.  Studies of things like cinematography, sculpting, drawing, pottery, etc., would be the study of only the few who find it worthy of attention.  Imagine if every art form were generally regarded in the same way as impressionistic art; with a few claiming it as visionary while the rest of the world scoffs at the pretentious fools.

For the purpose of studying art in its various forms, we have decided what artistic pursuits are truly worthy of study so that we might further understand and explore them, united as a culture.  This is why English majors in universities usually have a specific literature track; to study the art form of literature.  It's why film schools have become widespread over the last few decades; to study the art form of film.  It is why art history classes educate students on the history of painting and sculpture; to study the art forms of painting and sculpting.  Certain forms of expression are especially relevant to a given culture, and those art forms are given focus as an area of study.

All that to say, regardless of whether your personal aesthetic recognizes specific works or general forms as artistically viable, it is important to consider which forms of artistic expression are worth attention from the culture, and equally important for said culture to recognize that worth.  If a culture does not regard a given art form as worthy of study, it will not apply itself to the development of said art form.  It will be confined to a small portion of people who attempt to make worthwhile art, and maybe eventually something like this happens.

See you next time.