fine art definition essay

What is Fine Art? Learn About the Definition and the Different Types of Fine Art

This post may contain affiliate links. If you make a purchase, My Modern Met may earn an affiliate commission. Please read our disclosure for more info.

If you've ever taken an art course or visited a gallery, you've likely come across the term “fine art.” Though it may sound like this describes the quality or value of the art, it actually relates to the purity of the artistic pursuit. Unlike crafts or decorative works, fine art is created solely for aesthetic and intellectual purposes.

When thinking of examples of fine art, famous paintings like the Girl with a Pearl Earring or sculptures like Michelangelo's David usually come to mind. However, this phrase actually encompasses several different disciplines: painting, sculpture, drawing, installation, architecture, and fine art photography. And the list continues to develop.

Here we will learn about the different types of fine art and take a look at some examples.

What is Fine Art?

Théodore Géricault, “The Raft of The Medusa,” 1818–9 (Photo: Louvre via Wikimedia Commons , Public domain)

Fine art traditionally refers to types of art that primarily serve an aesthetic or intellectual purpose. This usually applies to visual arts, such as painting and sculpture, but has also been used to describe other creative disciplines including music, architecture, poetry, and performing arts. In this case, the use of the word “fine” refers to the integrity of the artistic pursuit.

The definition of fine art excludes arts that serve functional purposes, most notably crafts and applied arts.

Types of Fine Art

Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres, “Portrait of Victor Baltard's Wife (born Adeline Lequeu) and their Daughter Paule,” c. 1800s (Photo: Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons )

With a history tracing back to Paleolithic times, drawing is one of the oldest forms of human communication and creativity. It denotes the practice of making marks on two-dimensional surfaces like paper or board with the aid of a utensil, such as a pencil, pen, charcoal, etc.

Drawing is one of the fundamental elements of art, serving a variety of purposes for creatives. While it can be an art form in itself, it is also used by artists to explore ideas and concepts and to prepare for final artworks in another medium, like painting.

Édouard Manet, “A Bar at the Folies-Bergère,” 1882 (Photo: The Courtauld Institute of Art via Wikimedia Commons , Public domain)

Painting is perhaps the most well-known form of fine art that can be viewed in museums around the world. It describes the act of applying paint or pigment to a hard surface, usually through means of another device, such as a brush or palette knife.

Like drawing, painting has roots dating back thousands of years, making it another age-old form of human expression. Its evolution from cave decorations to depictions on canvas can be credited to developments in painting materials .

In Western art, painting has evolved through numerous art movements —using the medium to explore different aesthetics and ideas triggered by the historical context. Additionally, some of the most famous works of fine art are also paintings, including The Mona Lisa and The Starry Night .

Printmaking

Albrecht Dürer, “Melencolia I,” 1511 (Photo: Wikimedia Commons , Public domain)

Printmaking is a practice that transfers ink from a matrix onto material—typically paper—making multiple impressions of the same image. Matrixes can be made of different materials, including wood, metal plates, linoleum, aluminum, or fabric. While there are different printmaking techniques (each having its own distinct characteristics), the end result is the ability to make several impressions of a single image.

In modern times, prints are issued in editions. Each edition will have a limited number of impressions, though artists sometimes issue open editions. Once the edition is done being printed, the matrix is destroyed and every single impression is considered an original work of art. Traditionally, once printmaking took off, prints were also often used to illustrate books or were sold in small bound collections.

Michelangelo, “David,” 1501–1504 (Photo: Jörg Bittner Unna via Wikimedia Commons , CC BY-SA 3.0 )

A sculpture is a three-dimensional work of art created from an additive or subtractive process of the material. In this discipline, artists usually carve or assemble a form from stone, marble, wood, clay, metal, and ceramics, among other materials.

The practice of sculpture has existed for centuries. In fact, one of the oldest known works of art, titled The Venus of Willendorf , is a miniature statuette carved from limestone between 30,000 and 25,000 BCE. Western sculpture as we know it now, however, first blossomed in ancient Greece, when artists captured the human figure with anatomical realism. Since then, it has developed over the course of different art movements, encompassing a range of styles and approaches.

Installation

Robert Smithson, “Spiral Jetty,” 1970 (Photo: Wikimedia Commons , CC BY-SA 2.5 )

Installation art is a modern movement characterized by immersive, larger-than-life works of art. Usually, installation artists create these pieces for specific locations, enabling them to expertly transform any space into a customized, interactive environment.

Fine Art Photography

Alfred Stieglitz, “Old and New New York,” 1910 (Photo: Wikimedia Commons , Public domain)

Fine art photography runs contrary to what most of us think about when thinking about how we use a camera. Most amateur photographers use their cameras to document important events and capture memories without artistic motivation. Instead, a distinguishing feature of fine art photography is that recording a subject is not the main purpose. These artists use photography as a means to express their vision and make an artistic statement.

Examples of Famous Fine Art Paintings

Jan van eyck, the arnolfini portrait , 1434.

Jan Van Eyck, “The Arnolfini Portrait,” 1434 (Photo: National Gallery via Wikimedia Commons , Public domain)

Sandro Botticelli, The Birth of Venus , c. 1484–6

Sandro Botticelli, “The Birth of Venus,” c. 1484–1486 (Photo: Uffizi via Wikimedia Commons , Public domain)

Leonardo da Vinci, The Mona Lisa , c. 1503–1506

Leonardo da Vinci, “The Mona Lisa,” c. 1503–1506 (Photo: Louvre via Wikimedia Commons , Public Domain)

Raphael, The School of Athens , 1509–1511

Raphael, “The School of Athens,” 1509–11 (Photo: Wikimedia Commons , Public domain)

Diego Velázquez, Las Meninas , 1656–7

Diego Velázquez, “Las Meninas,” 1656–1657 (Photo: Museo del Prado via Wikimedia Commons , Public domain)

Rembrandt van Rijn, The Night Watch , 1642

Rembrandt, “The Nightwatch,” 1642 (Photo: Rijksmuseum via Wikimedia Commons , Public domain)

Johannes Vermeer, Girl With a Pearl Earring , c. 1665

Johannes Vermeer, “Girl with a Pearl Earring,” c. 1665 (Photo: Mauritshuis via Wikimedia Commons , Public domain)

Eugène Delacroix, Liberty Leading the People , 1830

Eugène Delacroix, “Liberty Leading the People,” 1830 (Photo: Louvre via Wikimedia Commons , Public domain)

Édouard Manet, Le Déjeuner sur l'Herbe , 1863

Édouard Manet, “Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe,” 1863 (Photo: Musée d'Orsay via Wikimedia Commons , Public domain)

Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Bal du moulin de la Galette , 1876

Pierre-Auguste Renoir, “Bal du moulin de la Galette,” 1876 (Photo: Musée d'Orsay via Wikimedia Commons , Public domain)

Georges Seurat, A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte , 1884–6

Georges Seurat, “A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte,” 1884–6 (Photo: Art Institute of Chicago via Wikimedia Commons , Public domain)

Vincent van Gogh, The Starry Night , 1889

Vincent van Gogh , “The Starry Night ,” 1889 (Photo: MoMA via Wikimedia Commons , Public domain)

Edvard Munch, The Scream , 1893

Edvard Munch, “The Scream,” 1893 (Photo: National Gallery of Norway via Wikimedia Commons , Public domain)

Gustav Klimt, The Kiss , 1907–8

Gustav Klimt, “The Kiss,” oil and gold leaf on canvas, 1907–1908 (Photo: Belvedere via Wikimedia Commons , Public domain)

Pablo Picasso, Les Demoiselles d'Avignon , 1907

Pablo Picasso, “Les Demoiselles d'Avignon,” 1907 (Photo: MoMA via Wikimedia Commons , Fair use)

Salvador Dalí, The Persistence of Memory , 1931

Grant Wood, American Gothic , 1930

Grant Wood, “American Gothic,” 1930 (Photo: Art Institute of Chicago via Wikimedia Commons , Public domain)

Edward Hopper, Nighthawks , 1942 

Edward Hopper, “Nighthawks,” 1942 (Photo: Art Institute of Chicago via Wikipedia , Public domain)

Check out our full list of famous paintings .

Books about fine art, frequently asked questions, what is fine art, what arts are considered fine arts.

Today, fine arts is usually applied to visual arts like painting, drawing, sculpture, printmaking, installation, and fine art photography.

Related Articles:

13 of Art History’s Most Horrifying Masterpieces

Why Rembrandt Is Considered One of Art History’s Most Important Old Masters

30 Famous Paintings From Western Art History Any Art Lover Should Know

Set Sail on a Journey Through 9 of Art History’s Most Important Seascape Paintings

Get Our Weekly Newsletter

Learn from top artists.

Related Articles

Sponsored Content

More on my modern met.

My Modern Met

Celebrating creativity and promoting a positive culture by spotlighting the best sides of humanity—from the lighthearted and fun to the thought-provoking and enlightening.

• Photography
• Architecture
• Environment

Fine Art: Definition, History and Examples

In the realms of creativity and expression, various disciplines stand out, one of which is fine art. This form of art, steeped in history and culture, has evolved considerably over the centuries. This article delves into the definition of fine art, its evolution, the distinction between fine art, digital art, and craft. It also explores the range of mediums used in fine art, and the various art movements that have influenced it over time. Join us as we embark on this fascinating exploration of fine art—a remarkable testament to human creativity and imagination.

Fine Art Definition

Fine art is an expression of creativity and imagination that takes the form of visual works. It is created primarily for its aesthetic content, rather than practical or commercial purposes. Fine art is usually made to achieve a particular aesthetic, intellectual or emotional effect on the viewer. However, it can also be used as a means of communication. It is defined as being different from decorative arts and applied arts, as these focus on making practical objects more aesthetically pleasing. Fine art has been around for centuries, evolving in technique and style over this time.

How Has Fine Art Evolved?

The journey of fine art began with the earliest societies. They used visual expression as a means of communication and representation . Cave paintings, stone carvings, and sculptures from these early periods of human history are some of the first examples of art. These artworks served both aesthetic and functional purposes. They often depicted the daily life, religious beliefs, and societal structures of their creators.

The Ancient Greeks’ focus on humanism, observed in their sculptures and architecture, laid the foundation for Western art. Their pursuit of realism, coupled with their profound understanding of human anatomy and proportion, elevated art to a higher level of refinement. This spirit of humanistic and aesthetic exploration reached its pinnacle during the Renaissance .

The art of the High Renaissance , characterised by its astonishing realism, depth and perspective, is often considered a testament to the peak of artistic ability. The Renaissance also saw a distinct shift in the perception of the artist—from artisans as craftsmen to esteemed intellectuals.

The evolution of fine art accelerated with the introduction of the printing press in the 15th century. This then led to wider dissemination and scrutiny of artistic works. Over time, art moved from being predominantly representative to being more expressive and abstract. The 20th century, in particular, saw an explosion of non-representational art movements . These movements challenged traditional notions of aesthetics and meaning in art.

The shifts in style and subject that we see in each art movement were influenced by various factors, including socioeconomic conditions, patrons’ preferences, religious beliefs, and mythical narratives. The evolution of fine art continues to this day, shaped by technology, globalisation, and a constantly changing world.

What is the Purpose of Fine Art?

Fine art serves multiple purposes, both for the individual artist and society as a whole. One of its most significant roles is the preservation of our transient existence—an idea beautifully embodied in the ancient handprints found on cave walls. These prehistoric imprints are a potent reminder that our ancestors sought to leave a lasting trace of their existence. This desire for individual legacy continues to inspire artists today.

Art documents the course of human history

Beyond personal legacy, fine art also serves as a powerful tool for documenting history. Artists often reflect and respond to the societal and cultural shifts of their time. There works, therefore serve as visual records of historical events, societal norms, philosophical ideologies, and cultural trends. For instance, the dramatic changes in art styles throughout history often mirror the tumultuous societal upheavals of the times, from the religious turmoil of the Reformation to the political instability of the French Revolution.

Art is an importance means for expression

Fine art is a powerful medium for expressing perspectives, intellectual ideas, and a spectrum of human emotions. Whether it’s a haunting portrait that captures the human condition or an abstract piece that challenges conventional thought, each work of art encourages viewers to contemplate, empathise, or question, thereby broadening their understanding of the world around them.

Lastly, one cannot overlook the aesthetic purpose of fine art. Artists strive to create works that are visually pleasing or intriguing, using a variety of techniques to manipulate line, colour, shape, and texture to achieve desired effects. This aspect of fine art, despite its subjectivity, is often what draws viewers in, inviting them to appreciate the inherent beauty and complexity of the artwork, whether it’s the mesmerising brush strokes of an Impressionist painting or the striking simplicity of a minimalist sculpture.

Nowadays there is a large collector’s market for fine art. The value of art can be seen in its monetary value. Historically significant pieces and pieces by famous artists are often sold to buyers for hundreds of thousands, sometimes even millions of dollars. This is a testament to the importance of art in our society, and its value to us as individuals.

What Is the Difference Between Digital and Fine Art?

Digital art is the term used to describe art that has been created or modified using technology. Whereas fine art refers to art that has been traditionally made by hand. Digital art can provide a platform for experimentation and exploration of new ideas. However, it does not necessarily capture the same essence as traditional works.

The practice of digital art can have applications in decorative, or applied arts. However, digital art created purely for aesthetic purposes can be considered as fine art. Digital art can now closely emulate traditional mediums. Artists can create brushes that appear to mix like oil paints, with the illusion of texture.

Art Mediums in Fine Art

Fine art encompasses a broad range of mediums, each offering its distinct texture, colour intensity, and artistic nuances.

• Oil : Known for their rich, vibrant colours, oil paints are widely used in fine art for their blending capabilities and long drying time.
• Watercolour: Watercolour paints are praised for their transparency and ability to create delicate, light washes of colour. They are typically used on paper mediums.
• Acrylic: Versatile and fast-drying, acrylic paints can mimic oil effects, and can be used on a variety of surfaces.
• Pastel: Pastels, available in stick form, provide artists with the ability to create soft, vibrant colours and work exceptionally well for capturing light.
• Gouache: Known for its opacity, gouache is a unique type of watercolour that can be used to create bold, bright works of art.
• Sculpture: This three-dimensional form of art can be made from a variety of materials, including stone, metal, glass, wood, and clay.
• Charcoal: Charcoal is an excellent medium for creating high contrast and detailed sketches.
• Graphite: Commonly used for preliminary sketches, graphite is known for its various levels of hardness that can create different shades and depths.
• Ink: Inks can be used for drawing, often with a pen or brush, or for creating washes of colour.
• Textiles: Textile art includes art that uses plant, animal, or synthetic fibers to construct practical or decorative objects.
• Ceramics: This involves creating art forms from clay which are then hardened by heat.

Different Art Movements

Throughout the centuries, different art movements have emerged and changed how we view and create art. From the Renaissance to Surrealism, each movement has had its own particular style and purpose. Each of these styles has helped shape modern-day fine art as it is today, inspiring many artists to create artworks of their own.

What is Fine Art and Why Realism? by Fred Ross

Home / Articles

What is Fine Art and Why Realism?

by Fred Ross

Chairman and Founder of the Art Renewal Center Keynote Address delivered at The Realist Art Conference November 3, 2015 Ventura CA.

Click the above video to watch the recording of the Keynote Address.

Hello, I'm Fred Ross, founder and Chairman of the ARC which stands for the Art Renewal Center. In 1974 I earned my Masters of Art Education at Columbia University, and came away deeply disillusioned in what the art world had become. Three years later, in 1977 I visited the Clark Art Institute in Williamstown, MA. and saw for the first time a painting by William Bouguereau titled Nymphs and Satyr painted in 1873, and the power and beauty in that one work led me to investigate what had actually occurred in the 19 th Century which soon led to the realization that the art history of that period was nothing but a series of distortions and lies. And this fiction was being taught as art history in virtually every college and university art department in the world. I have spent the last 40 years unraveling what occurred and seeking out the truth.

It is indeed an honor and a real treat to be speaking at this year's TRAC conference and to be able to share my thoughts just what exactly is fine art and why an accurate understanding of the meaning and purpose of fine art leads inexorably to concluding that only Realism, that is, images based on the real world in which we live, play and work, are capable of meeting the definition of fine art and able to meet the highest and most advanced goals to which fine art aspires. To properly explain this, we need to go back to foundational basics.

What is Fine Art: What is Fine Art!

Artists create things which have meaning to them and which they hope will have meaning to others. The artist wishes to communicate meaning of one sort or another to those who view their work.

Therefore it seems very clear that: the purpose of fine art is communication. Not just any communication, but in particular those things which give expression to those moments in life that all people have which are experienced as meaningful and emotionally charged.

Fine art fills a basic human need in its ability to communicate and capture and express ideas about life and living which people care about after their basic biological needs are filled. People need to share their lives and feelings with other people and this is done through communication which helps give meaning to our lives.

Most communication is in spoken and written language. Fine art also communicates, which it does best when it successfully captures, depicts, and expresses our shared humanity: how we feel about ourselves, other people and the world around us. It may be seeking to capture an emotional state of mind like reverie, jealousy, joy, sadness, fear, etc., or it may attempt to tell a story like Ghiberti's famous scenes from the Old Testament on the doors of the Baptistery in Piazza Duomo in Florence or Norman Rockwell's Home from War . If someone with little skill attempts a work of fine art it will likely be unsuccessful or awkward and fail, but an attempt at fine art was still made as opposed to an attempt at fine craft. Failure to achieve doesn't turn fine art into craft or vice versa. All of the other crafts and sciences have a utilitarian purpose or a purely decorative purpose, but in fine art, human beings endeavor to look at themselves and others, to contemplate the nature of living as a human being, and to find ways of capturing, expressing and communicating with empathy, passion and compassion the road we all must take between birth and death. So, the purpose of fine art is similar in its goal to the purpose of poetry, fine literature or theatre.

Based on the above, I posit:

The visual fine arts of drawing, painting and sculpture are best understood as a language... a visual language. Very much like spoken and written languages, it was developed and preserved as a means of communication. And very much like language it is successful if communication takes place and unsuccessful if it does not.

This simultaneously helps define the term "Fine Art." So fine art is one important way that human beings can communicate.

This realization conversely poses the question:

Can it be fine art if it does not communicate or does not even attempt to do so?

Communication can only occur if the language of the speaker is understood by those who are listening. An absolute necessity for communication is that the language employed has vocabulary and grammar shared by speaker and listener or by writer and reader and therefore logically by painter and viewer. The earliest forms of written languages used simple drawings of real objects to represent those objects as observed in Hieroglyphics and the earliest cave drawings. The origins of written language and the origins of fine art overlap in this nearly identical way. Without a common language there is no communication and no understanding, whether in writing, speaking or fine art. All three have the uniquely human purpose of describing the world in which we live, and how we feel about every aspect of life and living. As a language, fine art is like all of the hundreds of the spoken and written languages that are capable of expressing the enormous, limitless scope of human thoughts, ideas, beliefs, values and especially our feelings, passions, dreams, and fantasies; all the varied experiences and stories of humanity.

The vocabulary of fine art are the realistic images which we see everywhere throughout our lives. The grammar is made up of the rules and skills needed to successfully and believably render the images and ideas and seamlessly connect them together.

Here are some of the rules or grammar which hold together the real objects or vocabulary of the visual language of fine art: finding contours, modeling, manipulating paint to create shadows and highlights with the use of glazing and scumbling which enhances the form through layers of pigment, use of selective focus, perspective, foreshortening, compositional balance, balancing warm and cool color, lost and found shapes and lines, etc.

Now ponder this self-evident truth: Even our dreams and fantasies as well as all stories of fiction, which are not real, are expressed in our conscious and subconscious minds by using real images, none which look like modern art . Therefore non-objective abstract painting does not reflect the subconscious mind . Dreams and fantasies do that and artwork can also do that; but only by using real images and assembling them in ways that feel like fantasies or dreams.

Compare these now to two artists who are considered amongst the greatest Abstract Expressionists: William De Kooning and Jackson Pollock.

What is being communicated in these two Modernist paintings and which method of working is more successful way to communicate, realism or abstract?

Universality

Furthermore, the vocabulary of traditional realism in fine art has something which makes it unique, in one important way... the language of traditional realism cuts across all those other languages and can be understood by all people everywhere on earth regardless of what language it is they speak or write. Thus Realism is a universal language that enables communication with all people, past... present... and future. Modernist and abstract art is the opposite of language because it represents the destruction of the language of fine art and is therefore the absence of language. The absence of language means the loss of communication; it takes away from mankind perhaps our most important characteristic... that which makes us human... the ability to communicate in great depth, detail and sophistication; and in the case of fine art, the Modernist paradigm banished the only universal language that exists: realistic imagery, with the techniques and skills required to achieve it. This knowledge had grown, developed, and was carefully documented and preserved as it was passed down for centuries from masters to students.

The artist tries to express his or her feelings about life and to communicate with others through their art. The artist has found a constructive way to deal with the truth of human existence, the knowledge that we all die. Instead of shaking their fist at eternity and being overcome by sadness, hate and depression, the artist "rages at the dying of the light" (to quote Dylan Thomas) seeking to overcome for themselves and their audience the basic loneliness of existence. They strive not to be engulfed by despairing the brevity of life, or the absence of meaning that we face in the wake of the certainty of death and the certainty of loss. Focusing on those negatives leads to an absence of meaning, which is the central belief of Existential Nihilism. It's no wonder then that Existentialism would espouse Modern art or that Modern artists would associate their work to Existentialism.

Fine art finds meaning instead, by using the infinite creativity of the human soul, and the limitless brilliance within the human brain to find endless ways of communicating with each other about our difficult and differing journeys and odysseys that can and do occur through life. The essence of fine art had always been to express things which people find as meaningful whether religious paintings of the early and High Renaissance or genre paintings of the 17th and 19 th centuries.

We all are born helpless, utterly dependent and profoundly ignorant about who we are and what lies ahead. We all yearn to be loved, to be understood, and we all need and want mentors. We want them to be kind and patient and to teach us what we need to know about life and navigating society. We want to be respected. During adolescence we invariably explore paths to happiness which can be dangerous and destructive. We all want to find work that inspires us and is fulfilling. We want families and if we have children we want to be good parents and to offer better lives to them. We all must endure sickness and the eventual pain of death and witness those we love suffering. Human beings all have universal and shared characteristics as well as an infinite variety of unique and different traits which constitute our differing personalities. We all want and need love and companionship, warmth and friendship. We also have pride and are vulnerable to having our feelings hurt or to being ridiculed, or feeling envy or jealousy.

Fine art can deal with all or any of the seemingly endless arrays of feelings and experiences that benefit, excite, terrorize or plague humanity. This is the broader definition of "beauty" and the fundamental aesthetics that defines fine art. The artist is said to be successful who can communicate some portion of human experience and do so with beauty, poetry and grace. As with prose, poetry or theatre, there are subtle and nuanced ways to express ideas and feelings and to captivate and inspire one's audience, or there are blatant, self-conscious, awkward, inane, childish attempts which fail as works of fine art, as well as en endless continuum of degrees of success or failure.

Often people ask how sad or negative subject matter can be beautiful. The beauty is achieved by poetically communicating some aspect of the human condition with empathy so that the viewer/audience can relate to how it might feel to actually live through some unhappy or horrible experience. Or perhaps they have already lived through such an experience which evokes similar emotions. The artist is telling a story that has strong meaning due to some aspect of their personal history. The viewer says to themselves either consciously or subconsciously, "I know how you feel." Fine art helps people connect with one another and can even act as a pressure valve releasing tensions and can reduce the likelihood of conflict. Uncomfortable or unpleasant subjects may not be pretty but they can be very beautiful and we can learn from them. Modern works with their indecipherable meanings can do the opposite: alienate and agitate us. Often Modernist works are praised for doing just that. Their stated goals are often to shock or insult.

Often when criticizing a movie or show or a work of art we hear people say "It doesn't speak to me" or "It doesn't do anything for me". What they're saying is it doesn't communicate to them or at least not about something they care about. Most people who view abstract Minimalist or other Modern art forms you will hear say that. Those in the Modernist movement will say they are ignorant and not sophisticated enough to see what's there. In other words, it's not the fault of the artists that their labors have produced something that doesn't communicate, it's the fault of the viewers for not having learned the Modernist rationale for making objects without meaning. But when it comes to great theatre, poetry or prose, most people can understand what is being said and intuitively find the beauty that does "speak" to them.

Academically trained realist artists of the 19 th Century were accused of being elitist. But what could be more elitist than saying "only we enlightened" can understand what Rothko, Warhol, de Kooning and Pollock were saying. If we don't like it, they say: "You all are too ignorant, tasteless and clueless to get it." They call realist art simple and less sophisticated, because its meaning is too obvious and easy to understand. In other words if a work succeeds in the primary purpose for which it was created, human communication, that very success becomes the reason it is denigrated. The living realists of today as well as all realist artists of the past were expressing universal themes and reaching out to all people of all time. What could be elitist about that? Realist paintings of the past as well as those today are intended to bring humanity closer together.

Let us once and for all put a spike through the heart of the Modernist argument that Realism is trite, petty, inane and devoid of meaning. For if that is true of technically skilled Realism, then it would equally have to be true of all poetry and literature which also uses a vocabulary and structure which are recognizable by writer and reader, speaker and listener; as it is too by painter and viewer.

In theatre the task at hand is whether the playwright, director and actors can enable the audience to "suspend disbelief." They endeavor to create a world in which the storyline of their play, or movie takes place. For this to work, the things that happen "the business" and the dialogue need to seamlessly work together in a manner that feels logical and believable. Even in magical realism, science fiction, and fantasy the goal is to make it all feel possible.

We all know that the movie or live show has been carefully written and orchestrated. Each word that is said, every movement the actors make, and each element of the set design, backdrops, and props that appear and are seen or used, have all been planned, usually down to the smallest detail. The actors need to make it seem like they are saying their lines as if they were spontaneous responses to things that might be said in the situation or circumstance being portrayed. Indeed, some directors allow ad-libbing and extemporaneity from their actors to enhance believability. But, careful planning is the underlying "truth" of what is going on. For a theatrical performance to succeed as a work of art, it all must seem to be happening spontaneously as it would in real life. In that context, the writer can explore ideas about life that he or she chooses; whether it is about poverty caused by an indifferent or malevolent government or corporations, as seen in Grapes of Wrath , or the waste of life and the ennui and indolence that accompanies inherited wealth in The Great Gatsby , or the injustices and corrupt society and its effect on otherwise good people portrayed in Les Miserables . All these books have been made into successful theatrical productions and films that can be said to have reached a level of fine art through the language of theater with its similar vocabulary and grammar of realism. They have culminated in productions that suspend the audience's disbelief and they have each created their own unique forms of beauty.

In poetry, two good examples would be Omar Khayyam's Rubaiyat , or Robert Frost's Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening , both poems are about confronting death and characterize how to live one's life, knowing that the grim reaper lies just over the horizon. These two poems use the language of words to deal with difficult subject matter in a beautiful way and all the images conjured are ones from our experiences in reality.

If the structure of the work of art is awkward or self-conscious, so that the details of how it is has been constructed is evident to the listener or viewer, the artist or author is thought to have failed. In theater, if the writing is fine, but the acting is terrible, then we might blame the actors or the director. But in every case you have the work of art constructed from elemental parts and assembled by the writer, director, composer, musician, actor, singer, dancer, painter or sculptor in a work that is highly organized and embedded with a level of sophistication only found in human beings.

The importance in understanding this underlying process becomes very evident if we now look at the debate that has occurred between Modern art vs. Traditional art. The Modernist artists who are credited with the origins of Modernism are celebrated for pointing directly at the underlying reality of what fine art is constructed from. Cezanne, Manet and Matisse we are told showed us the "truth" that a painting is really just colored paint applied to a flat canvas, paper or surface.

Modernism claimed traditional art, as taught in the art academies throughout the 19 th Century, was engaged in lying to the public, trying to make the flat canvas look three dimensional; trying to use drawing, modeling and perspective to create illusions of space; trying to make you believe that you are perhaps looking into a room where people are doing something or at a landscape outdoors, etc. ... all deceptions and lies. The job of the artist then, during Modernism's 20th century ascendancy, was to make painting have value by focusing on the one aspect of what a painting was that no other art form had, which was the flatness of the picture plane. Focusing on the formal, underlying, fundamental components of art, became more important than focusing on why art existed in the first place, which was to communicate ideas, feelings, values and beliefs and all human experience.

Art's purpose was to justify itself, which ironically pretty much cancelled out all of its purpose and value. Here is a quote from Clement Greenburg that makes this point:

1 Clement Greenberg, 1960. . Greenburg, according to many Modernists "... was probably the single most influential art critic in the twentieth century. Although he is most closely associated with his support for Abstract Expressionism, and in particular Jackson Pollock," From The Art Story . It was the stressing of the ineluctable flatness of the surface that remained, however, more fundamental than anything else to the processes by which pictorial art criticized and defined itself under Modernism. For flatness alone was unique and exclusive to pictorial art. Because flatness was the only condition painting shared with no other art, Modernist painting oriented itself to flatness as it did to nothing else. 1

The truth was that there were no people, no landscape, no real objects to paint other than the concrete reality of the paint and the canvas. The artist, endlessly pointing directly to his underlying materials was the birth of Modern art. Cezanne flattened the landscape, Matisse flattened our homes and families and the so called abstract artists after them, like De Kooning, Stella and Pollock, put it all in a blender and threw it at the canvas, thus making flat color design the end goal of the artist. Expressing and communicating human emotions was not a worthy purpose for art, and so all human emotions were denigrated as petty sentimentality.

The equivalent of this system of thought applied to written languages would be to say that all writing is untruthful and finding the truth can only be discovered by pointing directly to the underlying materials and structure of written words. All that is really there on the page are different shapes of straight or curved or squiggly lines. Since that is closer to the truth than placing meaning in those shapes and lines... than using them to make words and the words to form ideas... that too must be a lie and an unworthy purpose for the writer. Therefore, to bring the analogy full circle... the best book would be one that demonstrates this "truth" with page after page of meaningless shapes and squiggles...thus showing us the modernist's profound definition of truth. How many books and poems would be purchased and read in which all that could be found between the covers were meaningless shapes on every page? Modernism endows the meaningless with meaning. Each of us must decide for ourselves whether there is meaning to be found and if that meaning has great value.

Isn't it just as much a part of the truth that the artist who wishes to express a shared human emotion needs to hide the flatness of the picture plane in order to enable the viewers to suspend disbelief the same way that works in theatre? The truth of fine art is not that it's just a flat plane with colors on it, but that the artist, using the flat plane and colored paints, needs to overcome that major limitation of their materials by creating a scene in which the three dimensions of the real world are mimicked sufficiently well so that he can design and compose a painting on a 2 dimensional surface that can communicate the complexities of a moment in life? Since all such moments occur in a three dimensional world, the artist needs to mimic that world to bring their ideas to life.

Is it petty and banal to show romantic or familial love and caring? Or is it petty banality to spend one's career insisting that the only paintings that have value are those which demonstrate that they are flat?

What then is fine art? And for that matter, what is fine literature, music, poetry, or theatre? In every case human beings use materials supplied by nature (the clay, colors and materials of the earth and the movements and sounds of life) and creatively combine or mold them into something else which is capable of communication and meaning. It is that ability to communicate, whether subtle or blatant, complex or nuanced wherein the value of art lies and makes it worthy of the term "fine art". Modernists like to say "why waste your time doing realism? It's all been done already." That would be exactly like saying "Why waste your time writing anything? It's already all been written. There is nothing left to say."

Illustration

Illustration is often thought of as a lesser form of art. Often we hear people say something like: "That's only an illustration; it's not fine art"

However, given the clear description of what fine art is, that no longer makes any sense. All fine art is illustration. What is different is what is being illustrated and then how well it has been accomplished.

If you look at illustrations in young children's books, often those illustrations are done quickly and the cost and time involved in creating them plays a big role when writer's or publishers choose them.

However, there are illustrations for books and poems which have been created by some of the greatest of artists. Gustave Doré illustrated Dante's Inferno and Edgar Allen Poe's The Raven . Edmund Dulac illustrated Edward Fitzgerald's translation of the Rubaiyat by Omar Khayyam, and Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel ceiling with illustrations inspired by the Bible. All of the early and High Renaissance artists illustrated scenes from the Old and New Testaments. 19 th Century artists illustrated Shakespeare, poetry and myths and legends.

The attempt to pigeonhole images that tell a story as illustration which has been separated in many art schools as a lesser form of art is strictly a tactic to degrade all realistic fine art and to further entrench Modernist ideology.

Since, all fine art is representational and since only realistic objects, figures and settings are capable of complex communication, one is drawn to the logical conclusion that all illustration belongs in the category of fine art. The differences are all qualitative: a difference in degree not a difference in kind.

Once we recognize that, we can see that variation in quality can be enormous and it may even be useful but problematic, to make an attempt to create categories along a continuum of some sort based on quality, purpose, and success or failure of the art and artist to communicate or illustrate what was intended.

There also can be qualitative differences in subjects and themes. Some themes are about more powerful emotions or moments during life that therefore have greater potential for achieving the beautiful. For example a painting illustrating wartime wives in 1944 listening to a radio broadcast for the names of the men who were killed, has vastly more potential than a bowl of fruit or a painting of a can of soup. Therefore, illustration and fine art are one and the same and all fine art illustrates something.

Based on these truths, the artwork in this year's ARC Salon competition and by the artists who have joined together at this TRAC conference can now be readily viewed and interpreted without the prejudicial tenets of Modernism ready to denigrate any works constructed by images from the real world. Many of the best works exhibited are sure to generate compelling discussions, and analysis and a vast array of differing opinions as to what has been said and accomplished. It is very much our goal to break through the restraints placed on artistic thought over the past century and open up the limitless source of innovative subjects, ideas and compositions that are available throughout the real world. And by so doing encourage a vast rebirth of creativity for artists and to enable unshackled critical thought and analysis for those who love, seek out and acquire fine art.

Originality

Let us talk now about modernism's obsession with "being original". In fine art the claim that "it's all been done before" places an impenetrable wall of hopelessness in front of any creative pursuit. Imagine becoming a doctor and not being required to learn what is already known? Knowing doesn't stop you from doing something new but it keeps you from wasting your time on searching for knowledge that already exists and is readily available. It also decreases the chance of making very serious mistakes. The refusal to learn from the past will inevitably prevent anything new from actually being discovered, as breakthroughs are always built on the discoveries of those who came before. In the arts, the fear of doing what has been done before places a ball and chain on your mind and on the joy of creativity, one of the greatest joys in life. Only someone who has learned what is already known can strive to create fearlessly and will have any chance of actually creating something new. For invariably, humankind has a history of creative accomplishments going back thousands of years, so someone who is creative will surely stumble upon many things that have been thought of and done before in advance of achieving the truly original. And if we are honest, the most favored subjects are as old as humanity itself and there are unlimited and original ways in which they can be expressed again and again.

Modernism in its need to banish anything seeming unoriginal, has banished all of the tools and skills with which original work was accomplished and then tells their artists without skills and without tools to go and create worthwhile works of fine art. Since there is no meaningful language in their art, a thousand words are needed to imbue it with meaning. Actually the words have to be incredibly creative and shrewd to convince otherwise educated and intelligent people that something of value is present when little or nothing is there.

Modernists create art that is about art: "art about art," whereas all the great art of the past was "art about life".

A painting should no more attempt to make the viewer conscious of the paint and canvas than the writer should make the reader conscious of the ink or type of paper being used, or for that matter than the film maker should make the audience endlessly aware of the kind of cameras being used or that the movie is actually composed of a fast moving series of still images.

The resurgent realist artists whose ranks are rapidly expanding in the 21 st century, consider their materials and skills as a vital means of communicating artistic subjects and ideas. Modernism banished the real world from the tools they could use. Of course, without the full vocabulary of the real world to draw and to draw from, there is no way for artists to express complex or subtle ideas After all, any three-year-old who is taken to a museum knows that the canvases are all flat. How great then was it that Cezanne and Matisse spent the rest of their careers saying it over and over again? Is there any need in these abstract works to suspend disbelief? Or is "belief" instead compelled, not by the acting, writing, drawing or painting, but instead by the intimidation of power and position?

Prestige Suggestion

Do students believe in this new inheritor of Western Art? Or does not believing in it threaten their grades and positions (and the wallets of those invested in such art)? It is amazing how the need to avow one's belief repeatedly in something that was previously difficult or impossible to believe, will become increasingly easier when supported by figures of authority. A useful term for this phenomenon is " prestige suggestion ".

What Modernists have done has been to aid and abet the destruction of the only universal language by which artists can communicate our humanity to the rest of, well, ... humanity. They then have built up a labyrinth of justifications and blocked all other viewpoints. If the history of what actually took place is not to be lost due to the transitory prejudice and taste of a single era, then we must question any practice that deliberately suppresses documented evidence. Art history must not be reduced to little more than propaganda directed towards market enhancement for valuable collections passed down as wealth conserving stores of value. Successful dealers, who derived great wealth by selling works created in hours instead of weeks, had little trouble lining up articulate, eloquent and persuasive masters of our language to build complex portrayals presented everywhere as brilliant analysis to justify what are really very uncomplicated, unsophisticated and simplistic works; creations which arguably should have and would have been rejected out-of-hand but for their disingenuous and cunning sophistry.

There is a difference between value due to prestige suggestion and value due to intrinsic quality. Surely, in the search to define beauty, we need to understand that difference. We should be able to see through prestige and determine when we are in the presence of the truly beautiful, versus a work that's greatest quality is the prestige attached to the name of the artist or the movement. In this way a canvas with little intrinsic value that has the signature of De Kooning, Pollock, Rothko or Mondrian on it, are assigned high values because people with a PhD or the title of Professor or Museum Director next to their names have told us what to think about their worth. Then, major dealers or auction houses have assigned estimates of millions of dollars to their work. Most people do not feel themselves knowledgeable enough to know what has or does not have value and rely on what "authorities" tell them. This is "prestige-suggestion". Even if their instincts are to reject something, they keep silent lest they expose themselves to ridicule for being considered ignorant, tasteless or out-of-touch, succumbing to "social pressure".

Along with "prestige suggestion", there is a second very useful expression that aids us in understanding what has occurred and how Modernism, after gaining ascendance, has been able to maintain its position. That term is called " Art-speak ". Art-speak is a contrived form of language, which uses self-consciously complex and convoluted combinations of words to impress, mesmerize and silence opposition. Art-speak attributes to Modernist works glorious positive qualities which are just not there at all . "Art-speak" is generally used by people in positions of power and authority and in combination with "prestige suggestion" is ultimately employed to silence contrary instincts and ideas to prevent people from identifying honestly what has been paraded before them.

Art-speak, a way by which complex sounding words and concepts are used to create the illusion of something being more than it is as a method to create value, meaning and importance that drastically outweighs what is actually there. Sotheby's Contemporary Department said that "Cy Twombly's epic 1964 canvas 'Untitled (Rome)' is one of the highlights of our Contemporary Art Evening Auction on 12 February 2014." But what is even more amusing is the video created about the piece for the sale. If one looks at it objectively we can see that the painting really looks like the type of doodling that many peoples' two year old children do. At one point the video flashes to a scribble with pencil and say's it shows the artist's "growing confidence". Evidently there are many in the art world who think adults scribbling like children is something people should be willing to pay big bucks for. Although the piece does look like one a child would do, this doodle sold for 12,178,500 British pounds, over 20,000,000 US dollars.

Watch the video above to view this incredible example of art speak. Everything about it from the word choice to the British accent to the dramatic music oozes value, when really the work is nothing but scribbles.

Art Speak Examples

The first: It's from the curator of Contemporary Art at the National Gallery in Ottawa speaking about the work of a young 'conceptualist' she regards highly. (The work itself was nothing but a device that blew out smoke intermittently.)

I think that certain issues being foregrounded in it [the art in question], such as its modesty and its involvement with everyday activities--as opposed to a sequestered studio practice--are probably quite indicative of current directions in art. You could say that this work is riding the crest of a wave, in its emphasis on communication, in its engagement with the everyday, in its involvement with ephemeral experiences.

Secondly: I have a quote from Catherine Perret describing current trends in Modern and Post Modern art.

Catherine Perret is associate professor of modern and contemporary aesthetics and theory at Nanterre University in Paris.

She's widely published and accepted as an authority on modern and post-modern art.

Catherine: "Take Marsilio Fiscino and/or Giovanni Pico as examples. Their thinking typically placed the reign of significance in-between the vast remoteness of spiritual infinity and the baseness of present materialism - therefore concentrating on the zone of transformational actions of humans that lead to a natural magical alchemy. This noology is about knowledge that can transform things and states of the system. In that sense I am maintaining that we are leaving the age of sterile reductive analysis and entering into one of fecund synthesis; much like the poetic-mythic-scientific age of the early Renaissance. The binding force of this synthesis is certainly inter-subjective pleasure (art) and a lust for yeasty comprehensions out of which new possibilities grow. These comprehensions are obtained by experiment/chance/inner-risk - though need not be verified, nor repeated. Indeed they should not be. It is about a search for originality in that sense. The new noology's validity is obtained through the force of its correspondences and its breath of connectivity. The resulting pan-panoramas will luxuriate this era and be the counter-attack to fundamentalist repression as its imminence will supercede our mistrust of irrationality and lead us into a qualitative approach by escaping locked down definitions. In some ways it is a development of Nietzsche's Gay Science."

And there it is. I must tell you un-categorically and without any equivocation: There is no idea, concept or thought which cannot be expressed with direct and fairly simple language. But simple language would not work as well to be confusing. If the words could be readily understood opposition would be far more likely.

2 These letters have been written to the organization for which I am Chairman, The Art Renewal Center, which is a not-for-profit educational foundation. Many of these letter have been published in ARC Letters on the ARC website. The "authority" of high positions, and the "authority" of books and publications, and the "authority" of certificates of accreditation, all work in combination to impress and humble and silence those whose common sense would otherwise rise up in opposition. Without a doubt, people otherwise would clearly see this art for what it is — evident nonsense — if it's supposed value had not emanated from the pretentious mouths and pens of those with such a preponderance of "authority" to back them up. Many students and even teachers have come forward to report how traditional realism has been virtually or actually banned from their art departments. They want to share their sufferings at the hands of Modernist educators, and ask what they can do. 2

Banning of ideas and not permitting free and open debate has been a problem throughout history. Most often relating to religion or politics, it rears rear its ugliness in other fields as well. John Stuart Mill's remarks on speech suppression are as alive and accurate today as they were two hundred years ago:

3 John Stuart Mill's essay On Liberty (From Great Political Thinkers by Wm. Bernstein p.569) Where there is a tacit convention that principles are not to be disputed; where the discussion of the greatest questions, which can occupy humanity, is considered to be closed, we cannot hope to find that generally high scale of mental activity, which has made some periods of history so remarkable. However unwillingly a person who has a strong opinion may admit the possibility that his opinion may be false, he ought to be moved by the consideration that true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth. 3

Without a dynamic living network of experts teaching technical knowledge in drawing and painting, it will never be possible for college and university art departments to have students who are able to enrich the debate and the academic environment for all students by producing works of art that are capable of expressing complex, vital and spirited ideas. To forbid these skills to be taught on campus in any real depth is as ridiculous as having a music department that refuses to teach the circle of fifths or only teaches three or four notes from which they insist all music must be composed. It is as absurd as having an English department in which all words that had recognizable meanings were forbidden and only writing without words or sentence structure would be admissible.

If there was nothing to be ashamed in their teaching methods and in their results, they would welcome the chance to confront the ideas that they should be well equipped to refute. They have a solemn duty to maintain the integrity of thought made possible by what has been handed down to them by those artists, writers and thinkers before us, who established a vast, complex and rich system of training with which to teach and pass on a wealth of knowledge. Deliberately preventing access to this information is crippling to the goals of education and a severe obstruction to insuring a society based on freedom of thought without which progress is impossible. Where is it more important to vouchsafe these principles than at our nation's colleges and universities who have a duty to expose their students to responsible opposing views in all fields of study?

Traditional skill-based art in recent decades has had very few proponents, ceding nearly a century to an ascendant modernist leviathan. Ironically, that century has seen the greatest strides forward in every other field of human endeavor. If the proponents of realism are as correct as it seems, the art world is woefully behind our times and will need to do a lot of catching up.

The new Realism movement now has thousands of artists. That is a staggering turn-around from the handful who were working 30 years ago. There are over 70 ARC Approved Atelier based schools today and several waiting to be vetted. And there are dozens of organizations helping to support their efforts of these artists. There are many upscale art galleries in major cities throughout the world who concentrate on art with images from the real world. You have all taken great strides forward in reclaiming our century's long heritage in Realist fine art. We are now seeing solid indications of the rich creativity developing at the heart of the 21 st Century art world. The exhilaration and optimism which flows forward from here could not be more thrilling or more exciting. I can't wait to see the magic and beauty that is in store for us as these artists are inspired by an avalanche of original perspectives, innovative methods, and brilliant game-changing subject matter of a rapidly growing Realist movement... as artists share their ideas together seeding and cross pollenating a landslide of creative and innovative thinking that will lead us to ever more poetic, inspirational and beautiful artwork in the studios, salons and exhibitions in the years that lie ahead. Just half way through the second decade of the first century of this the third millennia, we are truly at the very beginning of a new era that celebrates the beauty and poetry of the human soul. Thank you.

Clement Greenberg, 1960. . Greenburg, according to many Modernists "... was probably the single most influential art critic in the twentieth century. Although he is most closely associated with his support for Abstract Expressionism, and in particular Jackson Pollock," From The Art Story .

These letters have been written to the organization for which I am Chairman, The Art Renewal Center, which is a not-for-profit educational foundation. Many of these letter have been published in ARC Letters on the ARC website.

John Stuart Mill's essay On Liberty (From Great Political Thinkers by Wm. Bernstein p.569)

Founder and Chairman of the Art Renewal Center, Ross is the leading authority on William Bouguereau and co author of the recently published Catalogue Raisonné  William Bouguereau: His Life and Works .

Further Reading

Abstract Art Is Not Art and Definitely Not Abstract

ARC Chairman Speaks at the Ducret School of Art

Oppressors Accuse Their Victims of Oppression

by Brian Yoder

Oil Painters of America Keynote Address

The Great 20th Century Art Scam

The Philosophy of ARC

A blog by Saatchi Art

• The Other Art Fair
• Artist Tips

November 17, 2016

Evangelyn Delacare

About Art History 101

Learn about the artists, movements, and trends behind your favorite styles of art—from Classical to Contemporary, and hitting everything in between, including Street Art, Pop Art, Impressionism, and Abstract Expressionism.

• Art History 101

What is Fine Art?

November 17, 2016 Posted by Evangelyn Delacare

Have you ever wondered what the term “Fine Art” really means? While contemporary semantics may differ, read on to discover the historical origin of this phrase.

The notion “art for art’s sake” arose at the turn of the 19th century, when artists grew increasingly more inclined to use art as a freedom of expression, rather than to document and represent historical and cultural events. Complementing this notion, the term  “fine art” was used to differentiate works by artists who were the sole agent of creative expression from works that were created by commission, or objects with utilitarian functions that fall into the category of craft or decorative art.

Read on to learn more about the history of Fine Art and its contemporary usage…  

Historically, fine art encompassed painting, sculpture, architecture, music, and poetry. Especially concerning painting and sculpture, works considered to be fine art are created primarily for aesthetics and from the innate desire for artistic expression. Some of the most famous and prominent works of art – “The Statue of David” by Michelangelo, “Mona Lisa” by Leonardo da Vinci, “Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer” by Gustav Klimt – are not technically considered to be fine art , as they are all commissioned works by patrons.

Stemming from the rise of Romanticism, a 19th century art movement focusing on beauty and the sublime rather than classical structures of the past, artists and artworks sought to detach themselves from creating utilitarian works. One of the first artworks considered to be fine art is “Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket” by American artist James Abbott McNeil Whistler, who used color and mood to convey abstraction of the scene, a practice not widely accepted in art circles at the time.

With the advent of modernism, fine art became less about aesthetics and a marker for refined taste, and shifted focus to challenging broader notions of art. Amidst this shift, the avant-garde movement also emerged, which prioritized concept and intellectual purpose over aesthetics . Modern works such as “The Fountain” by Marcel Duchamp and “Starry Night” by Vincent van Gogh are in accordance with the definition of fine art as they express the true intentions of the artists without restriction placed by a patron.

Today, the definition of fine art has expanded to include several more categories such as film, photography, conceptual art, and printmaking.

Love reading about all things art? You can have articles from Canvas, curated collections, and stories about emerging artists delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for the Saatchi Art Newsletter .

Browse Fine Art Paintings

About the Author

Evangelyn Delacare is the Associate Curator at Saatchi Art. Need help finding art? Contact her via our free Art Advisory service at saatchiart.com/artadvisory.

Select Works for Sale

Sparks of palms 2,950

Ana Beltrá View artwork

broken mug 880

Brittany Loar View artwork

Close To The Edge Of A Romantic Thought 760

Elena Erickson View artwork

Composition (the lovers) 2,300

Bruno Varatojo View artwork

Orange Boy 2 340

Patricia Derks View artwork

interior 9,850

Tasos Chonias View artwork

Still Happy - Tiger 880

Rusudan Khizanishvili View artwork

Untitled 1,640

Anya Enot View artwork

You Might Like

One to Watch

Ecaterina vorona’s enchanting figures.

Moldovan painter Ecaterina Vorona focuses her work on expressive, colorful …

Art We Love

Collector favorites: bestselling artists of july.

Ever wondered what other people are buying for their personal art collections? …

Jürgen Katzenberger: Color and Shape

German painter Jürgen Katzenberger’s geometric and abstract works are …

Collector Favorites: Bestselling Artists of June

Seonmi Kang Finds Rest Beneath the Moon

Korean artist Seonmi Kang uses traditional Korean materials to create her …

Balcones Artist in Residence at The Other Art Fair Dallas: Dora Reynosa

The Other Art Fair has partnered with the award-winning Balcones Distilling to …

You are already subscribed

Congratulations!

You successfully signed up

Sign up for our email list

Find out about new art and collections added weekly

Fine Art Definition – Explore the Meaning of the Types of Fine Art

The meaning of the term “fine art” has evolved and transformed over time. Fine art is generally understood as something that appeals to our visual or auditory senses and is produced through a creative process. This short article will take a closer look at how we define and understand the term “fine art”.

Table of Contents

• 1.1 Types of Fine Art
• 1.2 Fine Arts vs. Crafts
• 2 A Shift in the Fine Art Definition
• 3 Famous Fine Art Paintings
• 4.1 Who’s Afraid of Contemporary Art? (2020) by Jessica Cerasi
• 4.2 How Photography Became Contemporary Art: Inside an Artistic Revolution from Pop to the Digital Age (2021) by Andy Grundberg
• 5.1 Is Graffiti Art?
• 5.2 What Is the Most Expensive Work of Art?
• 5.3 Why Are There So Few Famous Female Artists?

What Is Fine Art?

Fine art, sometimes also called high art, commonly refers to a form of art that is aesthetically pleasing and that takes a certain set of skills to achieve. Examples typically included painting and sculpture. This understanding of fine art is often also called “art for art’s sake” and it is generally seen as being superior to functional art , such as decorative vases.

Fine art is also generally seen as superior to “applied art” or “craft”, which are commonly also seen as utilitarian activities. This understanding of fine art is, however, quite limited and has been challenged and extended as new philosophies and technologies emerge.

Because of the ever-evolving nature of art, it is nearly impossible to provide a fixed fine art meaning or definition.

Types of Fine Art

Just as the definition of fine art is blurred and ever-changing, so are the lists of mediums used by fine artists. The list below of fine art examples is thus sure to change over time as technology changes and with the emergence of new artistic inventions. However, based on our current understanding of fine art, we can include the following fine art examples in our fine art definition:

• Printmaking
• Installation
• Fine art photography
• Conceptual art
• Textile arts
• Performing arts
• Digital art
• Mixed media arts

Fine Arts vs. Crafts

There used to be a quite rigid understanding between fine art, which was seen as purely aesthetic, and craft, which was seen as functional. In the 20th century, when the term “visual art” became more prolific, the lines between fine art and craft became blurred. Mediums like silkscreen printing, which was predominantly a functional medium used for advertising are now also considered a medium of fine art.

Ceramics is another example of a medium that used to fit exclusively as a craft but can now also be considered fine art.

A Shift in the Fine Art Definition

The biggest shift in our understanding of fine art happened in the 20th century. One of the seminal moments that challenged our understanding of the meaning of art is when Marcel Duchamp submitted a porcelain urinal as his artwork to an exhibition in New York City in 1917.

The artwork, titled “Fountain”, asked the public to consider what we define as art. Duchamp made a statement saying that anything can be seen as art when it is placed in the right venue.

With this, Duchamp not only challenged the dominant fine art definition, but also the power that art institutions have to determine what is considered art. Artists continued this kind of intellectual experimentation in movements such as minimalism and conceptual art .

By the 21st century, there were many more mediums that were included in the fine art definition.

Famous Fine Art Paintings

Below is a list of some of the most famous fine art paintings. This list includes fine art painting examples from the enlightenment era to modern art and the avant-garde. Below are 30 of the most famous paintings from western art history.  

Reading Recommendations

The book recommendations below are chosen to broaden our understanding of the meaning of fine art. These books introduce different types of fine art and show how the definition of fine art has changed over time.

Who’s Afraid of Contemporary Art? (2020) by Jessica Cerasi

This book gives the reader a delightful and logical insight into the art world today. While decoding “artspeak”, the author explains and demystifies conceptual art. The book aims to make the sometimes-daunting scene of contemporary art more accessible for a wider audience to enjoy.

• Contains 40 color illustrations of artworks
• A playful introduction to the world of contemporary art
• The perfect go-to guide for looking at contemporary artworks

How Photography Became Contemporary Art: Inside an Artistic Revolution from Pop to the Digital Age (2021) by Andy Grundberg

In this book, Andy Grundberg, who used to work as a critic for the  New York Times , unpacks the development of photography as an art medium through the years. Grundberg knew many of the artists he wrote about personally, including Cindy Sherman and Gordon Matta-Clark, making his writing even more personal and engaging. Grunberg writes about his own experiences while he tells us about the 70s and 80s through the medium of photography.

• Part memoir and part history
• This perspective is given by one of the period’s leading critics
• Tells a larger story about the crucial decades of the 70s and 80s

This article aimed to answer the question “what are fine arts?”. While there is no clear fine art definition, we can look at what is historically considered fine art and expect that definition to change over time. Artists and thinkers are constantly challenging our ideas around art and shifting the boundaries of what should be considered fine art. Art enriches our lives and we should try to be open-minded and enjoy the development of art through the years.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is graffiti art.

Graffiti is often accused of being vandalism, but it has a very complicated relationship with art. While some graffiti artists are jailed, others, like Banksy , have received record sales. This is a difficult question that has no clear answer. It might be necessary to consider each piece of graffiti separately by looking at the intention and quality of the work. 

What Is the Most Expensive Work of Art?

Many pieces of important art can be found in the permanent collections of museums worldwide, making them, in some way, priceless. Of these works that were sold in the past, the most expensive one was Salvator Mundi by Leonardo da Vinci , painted between 1499 and 1510, which was sold for 450.3 million dollars.

Why Are There So Few Famous Female Artists?

You might have noticed that our list of famous fine art paintings included no female artists. Most people can likely count the number of female artists they know of on one hand. These artists might include Frida Kahlo , Georgia O’Keeffe, Louise Bourgeois, Cindy Sherman, Marina Abramovic, or Yayoi Kusama. And all of these are artists that emerged only during the modern era. Part of the reason for this is that female artists were often overlooked in the past and they were also not allowed in art guilds and academies. This has started to change drastically in the 21st century, and for the first time ever, in 2022, the Venice Biennale has more female artists being represented than male artists in their main exhibitions.

Chrisél Attewell (b. 1994) is a multidisciplinary artist from South Africa. Her work is research-driven and experimental. Inspired by current socio-ecological concerns, Attewell’s work explores the nuances in people’s connection to the Earth, to other species, and to each other. She works with various mediums, including installation, sculpture, photography, and painting, and prefers natural materials, such as hemp canvas, oil paint, glass, clay, and stone.

She received her BAFA (Fine Arts, Cum Laude) from the University of Pretoria in 2016 and is currently pursuing her MA in Visual Arts at the University of Johannesburg. Her work has been represented locally and internationally in numerous exhibitions, residencies, and art fairs. Attewell was selected as a Sasol New Signatures finalist (2016, 2017) and a Top 100 finalist for the ABSA L’Atelier (2018). Attewell was selected as a 2018 recipient of the Young Female Residency Award, founded by Benon Lutaaya.

Her work was showcased at the 2019 and 2022 Contemporary Istanbul with Berman Contemporary and her latest solo exhibition, titled Sociogenesis: Resilience under Fire, curated by Els van Mourik, was exhibited in 2020 at Berman Contemporary in Johannesburg. Attewell also exhibited at the main section of the 2022 Investec Cape Town Art Fair.

Learn more about Chrisél Attwell and the Art in Context Team .

Cite this Article

Chrisél, Attewell, “Fine Art Definition – Explore the Meaning of the Types of Fine Art.” Art in Context. July 26, 2022. URL: https://artincontext.org/fine-art-definition/

Attewell, C. (2022, 26 July). Fine Art Definition – Explore the Meaning of the Types of Fine Art. Art in Context. https://artincontext.org/fine-art-definition/

Attewell, Chrisél. “Fine Art Definition – Explore the Meaning of the Types of Fine Art.” Art in Context , July 26, 2022. https://artincontext.org/fine-art-definition/ .

Similar Posts

Dutch Baroque – The Golden Age of Dutch Art

Roman Art – A Brief Study of the History of Ancient Roman Art

Art Deco vs. Art Nouveau – Distinguishing Between the Two Styles

Gesamtkunstwerk – Explore Gesamtkunstwerk in Architecture and Art

Artist Statement Examples – A Look at Famous Artist Statements

Post-Minimalism – A Detailed Movement Overview

One comment.

that was really helpful

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

The Most Famous Artists and Artworks

Discover the most famous artists, paintings, sculptors…in all of history! 

MOST FAMOUS ARTISTS AND ARTWORKS

Discover the most famous artists, paintings, sculptors!

Fine Art: Definition, Meaning, And Its Importance

Written by:

Date Post – Updated:

The world of art is a realm of boundless creativity and diverse expressions. At the heart of this vast landscape lies the concept of fine art—a term that encapsulates artwork created for its aesthetic value and intrinsic beauty rather than for practical or utilitarian purposes

Fine art encompasses many forms, including painting, sculpture, printmaking, photography, and architecture. Read on as we will explore the definition and meaning of fine art , examine its historical significance, and discuss the ten compelling reasons why understanding fine art is essential for artists and art enthusiasts alike.

Table of Contents

Defining fine art, a historical journey with fine art, appreciation of aesthetic beauty in art, emotional connection with fine art, cultural understanding of fine art, personal expression and growth and art, artistic inspiration and fine art, critical thinking and analysis of art, cultural dialogue and language of fine art, historical perspective and fine art, art market and collecting, artistic legacy and cultural preservation, frequently asked questions, what is the difference between fine arts and visual arts, is procreate easier than photoshop what should an artist learn, where did art come from, fine art: definition, meaning, and its importance for artists and art enthusiasts.

Fine art encompasses a vast array of artistic forms, spanning from the captivating strokes of paint to the intricacies of sculpture, the intricate techniques of printmaking, the captivating lens of photography, and even the imaginative world of architecture.

Read on as we embark on an enlightening exploration of fine art’s definition and essence. We will delve into its profound historical significance, tracing its roots through the annals of time.

Furthermore, we will unravel ten compelling reasons why a deep understanding of fine art is paramount for artists and art enthusiasts passionate about the boundless realm of creativity.

Fine art can be understood as a visual representation or expression of human imagination, skill, and creativity. It serves as a means of exploring beauty, emotion, and intellectual concepts.

Unlike applied arts, which have functional or practical aspects, fine art primarily involves evoking a sensory and emotional response, provoking thought, and stimulating the viewer’s imagination.

Fine art encompasses various mediums, techniques, and styles, allowing artists to convey their ideas and visions in a way that transcends mere representation.

The history of fine art is a tapestry woven with the threads of human civilization, reflecting the cultural, social, and artistic paradigms of different eras. From the cave paintings of Lascaux to the classical sculptures of ancient Greece , from the masterpieces of the Renaissance to the avant-garde movements of the 20th century, fine art has evolved alongside human progress, shaping and being shaped by the societies in which it flourished.

That is why when you understand art, you can also start to understand history, people, and cultures.

Reasons For Understanding Fine Art

There are many reasons why artists and art lovers need to understand the definition of fine art. Below are some of our top reasons .

Fine art invites us to engage with our senses and experience the sheer beauty and visual delight skilled artists offer. By understanding fine art, we develop an appreciation for the aesthetics and technical mastery displayed in artworks, enhancing our ability to derive pleasure from their visual qualities.

Art has the power to evoke profound emotions within us. Fine art, with its capacity to express a wide range of human experiences and sentiments, allows us to connect on a deeper level.

Understanding fine art enables us to decode the visual language of artists , helping us navigate the emotional landscapes they convey and fostering a personal and meaningful connection with their work.

Fine art serves as a visual representation of cultural heritage and societal values. By studying different artistic movements and styles across various periods and civilizations, we gain insight into the beliefs, customs, and historical contexts that shaped these creations.

Understanding fine art broadens our cultural horizons, fostering empathy and promoting cross-cultural appreciation.

For artists, understanding fine art is crucial for personal growth and self-expression. By studying the works of great masters and exploring various artistic techniques, styles, and mediums, artists can broaden their creative repertoire and develop their unique artistic voice.

Understanding the evolution of fine art empowers artists to build upon the foundations laid by those who came before them, pushing the boundaries of their artistic endeavors.

Fine art acts as a wellspring of inspiration for artists. By immersing themselves in the works of renowned artists, they can learn from their techniques, concepts, and creative processes.

This exposure to diverse artistic expressions fuels the imagination and encourages innovative approaches to their artistic practice.

Understanding fine art cultivates critical thinking skills , enabling viewers to analyze and interpret artworks. Through careful observation and analysis, individuals can uncover the artistic choices, symbolism, and deeper meanings embedded within artworks.

This ability to deconstruct and evaluate artistic elements fosters a deeper understanding and appreciation of the art form.

Fine art serves as a language that transcends barriers of language and geography. It facilitates cultural dialogue by providing a platform for exchanging ideas, perspectives, and experiences.

Understanding fine art allows individuals from different cultures to engage in meaningful conversations, fostering mutual understanding and promoting a global appreciation of artistic diversity.

Fine art offers a unique window into history, allowing us to observe the evolution of artistic techniques, themes, and ideas over time. Studying artworks from different periods gives us a broader understanding of our shared human history.

Fine art acts as a visual chronicle, reflecting the social, political, and cultural contexts in which it was created, thus providing valuable insights into the past.

Understanding fine art is essential for collectors and enthusiasts navigating the art market. It equips them with the knowledge and discernment to assess artworks’ value, authenticity, and significance.

By understanding fine art, collectors can make informed decisions when acquiring pieces for their collections, ensuring that they support artists and contribute to preserving artistic legacies.

Fine art is an integral part of our cultural heritage. Understanding and appreciating fine art helps preserve and celebrate the artistic legacies of past and contemporary artists. By recognizing the contributions of artists, we contribute to the ongoing legacy of artistic expression, ensuring that future generations can continue to be inspired by the rich tapestry of human creativity.

Fine art holds a profound significance in creativity and human expression. Its definition may be fluid and interpretation subjective, but its impact on individuals and societies is undeniable. Understanding fine art allows us to appreciate its aesthetic beauty, forge emotional connections, and gain insights into diverse cultures and historical periods.

For artists, it provides a foundation for personal growth, inspiration, and developing a unique artistic voice.

For art enthusiasts, it fosters a deeper appreciation of art and encourages critical thinking and analysis. By understanding fine art, we become active participants in the artistic dialogue that transcends boundaries and connects us to the collective human experience.

Understanding fine art becomes increasingly important in a world filled with visual stimuli and artistic innovation. It enables us to navigate the ever-changing landscape of artistic expression, fostering cultural understanding, personal enrichment, and the preservation of artistic legacies.

So let us embrace the world of fine art , immerse ourselves in its beauty, and allow it to ignite our imagination, broaden our horizons, and enrich our lives in immeasurable ways.

Anita Louise Art is dedicated to art education, great artists, and inspiring others to find and create their art. We love art that uplifts and inspires. #ArtToMakeYouSmile! #ArtToMakeYouHappy!

If you want to see any of my art,  you can find out more by clicking here . If you are interested in what inspires me and my paintings, you can  discover more by clicking here .

We have a free newsletter and would love you to be part of our community;  you can subscribe to the newsletter by clicking here. I would be happy to talk to you if you have any questions . You can reach me, Anita, by clicking here . Subscribe to our Anita Louise Art YouTube Channel  filled with great videos and information by  clicking here.

Join us for our podcast  “ 5 Minutes With Art. ”  Spend 5 minutes a week with us to discover and learn about great art and artists. You can find out more about our podcast by   clicking here.

What is Fine Art, and how is it defined?

Fine art refers to artistic works created primarily for their aesthetic appeal and emotional expression, rather than functional or utilitarian purposes. It encompasses a wide range of visual and conceptual forms, such as painting, sculpture, photography, printmaking, and architecture.

What distinguishes Fine Art from other forms of art?

Fine art is distinguished by its emphasis on aesthetics and the artist’s personal expression, setting it apart from applied arts or crafts that prioritize functionality. Fine art often elicits an emotional or intellectual response, provoking thought and contemplation.

How has Fine Art evolved throughout history?

Fine art has a rich and diverse history, evolving through various movements and styles. From the Renaissance to modern and contemporary art, each era has contributed to the development of fine art, reflecting cultural, social, and political changes.

Why is Fine Art important in society?

Fine art plays a crucial role in enriching culture and fostering creativity. It serves as a visual language that transcends boundaries, allowing individuals to connect with diverse perspectives, challenge societal norms, and communicate complex ideas.

What is the significance of artistic expression in Fine Art?

Artistic expression in fine art allows artists to convey emotions, ideas, and narratives uniquely. This personal and subjective element contributes to the depth and diversity of artistic experiences, fostering a deeper connection between the artwork and the viewer.

How does Fine Art contribute to individual and collective identity?

Fine art helps shape and define individual and collective identities by reflecting cultural, historical, and societal values. Through visual representation, fine art becomes a mirror that reflects the essence of a community, allowing individuals to relate to and understand their own identity.

Can Fine Art serve as a form of social commentary?

Yes, fine art often serves as a powerful tool for social commentary. Artists use their work to address and critique societal issues, sparking conversations and inspiring change. This ability to provoke thought makes fine art an influential force in shaping public discourse.

What role does Fine Art play in inspiring creativity and innovation?

Fine art stimulates creativity by encouraging unconventional thinking and pushing the boundaries of conventional norms. It inspires innovation by challenging artists and viewers to explore new perspectives, fostering a culture of continuous creative growth.

How does Fine Art contribute to the economy?

The art industry, including the buying and selling of fine art, contributes significantly to the global economy. Galleries, museums, art fairs, and auctions generate economic activity, supporting artists, curators, dealers, and various other professionals within the art ecosystem.

Is understanding Fine Art essential for artists and art enthusiasts?

Understanding fine art is crucial for artists and enthusiasts alike. It provides a foundation for appreciating artistic techniques, historical context, and cultural influences. This knowledge enhances the ability to engage with art on a deeper level, fostering a more meaningful and informed artistic experience.

Related Questions

Fine art is a broad term used to describe many different types of art; one of the  arts under the umbrella of fine  art is visual arts. Fine arts can include arts such as music, theatre, dance, literature, and art forms. In contrast, Visual art is about only visual arts such as painting, sculpture, or filmmaking.

By  clicking here , you can discover more by reading  What Is The Difference Between Fine Arts and Visual Arts?

Procreate is a much easier computer program to learn than Photoshop, especially if you are new to the Adobe program. The Procreate program is a great computer program to lay out your artwork before painting on the canvas. Photoshop can also design your artwork, but as it is a more robust program than Procreate, it will take much longer to master.

You can discover more by reading  Is Procreate Easier Than Photoshop? What One Should An Artist Learn?  by  clicking here .

Many historians believe art started first in Africa; many ancient art forms have been found worldwide. Cavemen art is one of the earliest forms of art. Many cultures put art on their bodies through tattooing and other art forms.

By  clicking here , you can discover more by reading  Where Did Art Come From?

• Latest Posts

In my blog, I delve into the realms of art and business, provide tips on Procreate, and celebrate the artists who inspire me. My goal is to connect with fellow art enthusiasts, offering a blend of expertise, experience, and a genuine love for art history. Join me in this journey as we explore the fascinating world of art together.

• Titian: The Master of the Venetian Renaissance – August 9, 2024
• Resurrecting Hope: Lifting Others With Love By Anita Louise Hummel – August 9, 2024
• Humanism and Leonardo Da Vinci: A Deep Dive into Renaissance Thought and Art – July 18, 2024

Share Our Blog

Anita Louise Hummel

• Campus Library Info.
• ARC Homepage
• Library Resources
• Articles & Databases
• Books & Ebooks

Baker College Research Guides

• Research Guides
• General Education

HUM 3610: Art Appreciation

• What is Art?
• Who Decides What Art Means? - Hayley Levitt

Art Glossaries

• Essay and Exhibition Resources
• Michigan Museums & Festivals

The arts, also called fine arts, modes of expression that use skill or imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others.

Traditional categories within the arts include literature (including poetry, drama, story, and so on), the visual arts (painting, drawing, sculpture, etc.), the graphic arts (painting, drawing, design, and other forms expressed on flat surfaces), the plastic arts (sculpture, modeling), the decorative arts (enamelwork, furniture design, mosaic, etc.), the performing arts (theatre, dance, music), music (as composition), and architecture (often including interior design).

Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2018, February 15). The arts. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/the-arts

• Cleveland Institute of Art Glossary of Art Terms
• KET Education Visual Arts Glossary
• The Museum of Modern Art Glossary of Art Terms
• Next: Essay and Exhibition Resources >>
• Last Updated: May 29, 2024 12:16 PM
• URL: https://guides.baker.edu/HUM3610
• Search this Guide Search

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

The Definition of Art

The definition of art is controversial in contemporary philosophy. Whether art can be defined has also been a matter of controversy. The philosophical usefulness of a definition of art has also been debated.

There is also disagreement, at a second-order level, about how to classify definitions of art. [ 1 ] For present purposes, contemporary definitions can be classified with respect to the dimensions of art they emphasize. One distinctively modern, conventionalist, sort of definition focuses on art’s institutional features, emphasizing the way art changes over time, modern works that appear to break radically with all traditional art, the relational properties of artworks that depend on works’ relations to art history, art genres, etc. – more broadly, on the undeniable heterogeneity of the class of artworks. The more traditional, less conventionalist sort of definition defended in contemporary philosophy makes use of a broader, more traditional concept of aesthetic properties that includes more than art-relational ones, and puts more emphasis on art’s pan-cultural and trans-historical characteristics – in sum, on commonalities across the class of artworks. Hybrid definitions aim to do justice to both the traditional aesthetic dimension as well as to the institutional and art-historical dimensions of art, while privileging neither.

1. Constraints on Definitions of Art

2.1 some examples, 3.1 skepticisms inspired by views of concepts, history, marxism, feminism, 3.2 some descendants of skepticism, 4.1 conventionalist definitions: institutional and historical, 4.2 institutional definitions, 4.3 historical definitions.

• 4.4 Functional (mainly aesthetic) definitions

4.5 Hybrid (Disjunctive) Definitions

• 4.6 Evolutionary Approaches

5. Conclusion

Other internet resources, related entries.

Any definition of art has to square with the following uncontroversial facts: (i) entities (artifacts or performances) intentionally endowed by their makers with a significant degree of aesthetic interest, often greatly surpassing that of most everyday objects, first appeared hundreds of thousands of years ago and exist in virtually every known human culture (Davies 2012); (ii) such entities are partially comprehensible to cultural outsiders – they are neither opaque nor completely transparent; (iii) such entities sometimes have non-aesthetic – ceremonial or religious or propagandistic – functions, and sometimes do not; (iv) such entities might conceivably be produced by non-human species, terrestrial or otherwise; and it seems at least in principle possible that they be extraspecifically recognizable as such; (v) traditionally, artworks are intentionally endowed by their makers with properties, often sensory, having a significant degree of aesthetic interest, usually surpassing that of most everyday objects; (vi) art’s normative dimension – the high value placed on making and consuming art – appears to be essential to it, and artworks can have considerable moral and political as well as aesthetic power; (vii) the arts are always changing, just as the rest of culture is: as artists experiment creatively, new genres, art-forms, and styles develop; standards of taste and sensibilities evolve; understandings of aesthetic properties, aesthetic experience, and the nature of art evolve; (viii) there are institutions in some but not all cultures which involve a focus on artifacts and performances that have a high degree of aesthetic interest but lack any practical, ceremonial, or religious use; (ix) entities seemingly lacking aesthetic interest, and entities having a high degree of aesthetic interest, are not infrequently grouped together as artworks by such institutions; (x) lots of things besides artworks – for example, natural entities (sunsets, landscapes, flowers, shadows), human beings, and abstract entities (theories, proofs, mathematical entities) – have interesting aesthetic properties.

Of these facts, those having to do with art’s contingent cultural and historical features are emphasized by some definitions of art. Other definitions of art give priority to explaining those facts that reflect art’s universality and continuity with other aesthetic phenomena. Still other definitions attempt to explain both art’s contingent characteristics and its more abiding ones while giving priority to neither.

Two general constraints on definitions are particularly relevant to definitions of art. First, given that accepting that something is inexplicable is generally a philosophical last resort, and granting the importance of extensional adequacy, list-like or enumerative definitions are if possible to be avoided. Enumerative definitions, lacking principles that explain why what is on the list is on the list, don’t, notoriously, apply to definienda that evolve, and provide no clue to the next or general case (Tarski’s definition of truth, for example, is standardly criticized as unenlightening because it rests on a list-like definition of primitive denotation; see Field 1972; Devitt 2001; Davidson 2005). Corollary: when everything else is equal (and it is controversial whether and when that condition is satisfied in the case of definitions of art), non-disjunctive definitions are preferable to disjunctive ones. Second, given that most classes outside of mathematics are vague, and that the existence of borderline cases is characteristic of vague classes, definitions that take the class of artworks to have borderline cases are preferable to definitions that don’t (Davies 1991 and 2006; Stecker 2005).

Whether any definition of art does account for these facts and satisfy these constraints, or could account for these facts and satisfy these constraints, are key questions for aesthetics and the philosophy of art.

2. Definitions From the History of Philosophy

Classical definitions, at least as they are portrayed in contemporary discussions of the definition of art, take artworks to be characterized by a single type of property. The standard candidates are representational properties, expressive properties, and formal properties. So there are representational or mimetic definitions, expressive definitions, and formalist definitions, which hold that artworks are characterized by their possession of, respectively, representational, expressive, and formal properties. It is not difficult to find fault with these simple definitions. For example, possessing representational, expressive, and formal properties cannot be sufficient conditions, since, obviously, instructional manuals are representations, but not typically artworks, human faces and gestures have expressive properties without being works of art, and both natural objects and artifacts produced solely for homely utilitarian purposes have formal properties but are not artworks.

The ease of these dismissals, though, serves as a reminder of the fact that classical definitions of art are significantly less philosophically self-contained or freestanding than are most contemporary definitions of art. Each classical definition stands in close and complicated relationships to its system’s other complexly interwoven parts – epistemology, ontology, value theory, philosophy of mind, etc. Relatedly, great philosophers characteristically analyze the key theoretical components of their definitions of art in distinctive and subtle ways. For these reasons, understanding such definitions in isolation from the systems or corpuses of which they are parts is difficult, and brief summaries are invariably somewhat misleading. Nevertheless, some representative examples of historically influential definitions of art offered by major figures in the history of philosophy should be mentioned.

Plato holds in the Republic and elsewhere that the arts are representational, or mimetic (sometimes translated “imitative”). Artworks are ontologically dependent on, imitations of, and therefore inferior to, ordinary physical objects. Physical objects in turn are ontologically dependent on, and imitations of, and hence inferior to, what is most real, the non-physical unchanging Forms. Grasped perceptually, artworks present only an appearance of an appearance of the Forms, which are grasped by reason alone. Consequently, artistic experience cannot yield knowledge. Nor do the makers of artworks work from knowledge. Because artworks engage an unstable, lower part of the soul, art should be subservient to moral realities, which, along with truth, are more metaphysically fundamental and, properly understood, more humanly important than, beauty. The arts are not, for Plato, the primary sphere in which beauty operates. The Platonic conception of beauty is extremely wide and metaphysical: there is a Form of Beauty, which can only be known non-perceptually, but it is more closely related to the erotic than to the arts. (See Janaway 1998, the entry on Plato’s aesthetics , and the entry on Plato on Rhetoric and Poetry .)

Kant has a definition of art, and of fine art; the latter, which Kant calls the art of genius, is “a kind of representation that is purposive in itself and, though without an end, nevertheless promotes the cultivation of the mental powers for sociable communication” (Kant, Critique of the Power of Judgment , Guyer translation, section 44, 46).) When fully unpacked, the definition has representational, formalist and expressivist elements, and focuses as much on the creative activity of the artistic genius (who, according to Kant, possesses an “innate mental aptitude through which nature gives the rule to art”) as on the artworks produced by that activity. Kant’s aesthetic theory is, for architectonic reasons, not focused on art. Art for Kant falls under the broader topic of aesthetic judgment, which covers judgments of the beautiful, judgments of the sublime, and teleological judgments of natural organisms and of nature itself. So Kant’s definition of art is a relatively small part of his theory of aesthetic judgment. And Kant’s theory of aesthetic judgment is itself situated in a hugely ambitious theoretical structure that, famously, aims, to account for, and work out the interconnections between, scientific knowledge, morality, and religious faith. (See the entry on Kant’s Aesthetics and Teleology and the general entry on Immanuel Kant .)

Hegel’s account of art incorporates his view of beauty; he defines beauty as the sensuous/perceptual appearance or expression of absolute truth. The best artworks convey, by sensory/perceptual means, the deepest metaphysical truth. The deepest metaphysical truth, according to Hegel, is that the universe is the concrete realization of what is conceptual or rational. That is, what is conceptual or rational is real, and is the imminent force that animates and propels the self-consciously developing universe. The universe is the concrete realization of what is conceptual or rational, and the rational or conceptual is superior to the sensory. So, as the mind and its products alone are capable of truth, artistic beauty is metaphysically superior to natural beauty (Hegel, Lectures , [1886, 4]). A central and defining feature of beautiful works of art is that, through the medium of sensation, each one presents the most fundamental values of its civilization. [ 2 ] Art, therefore, as a cultural expression, operates in the same sphere as religion and philosophy, and expresses the same content as they. But art “reveals to consciousness the deepest interests of humanity” in a different manner than do religion and philosophy, because art alone, of the three, works by sensuous means. So, given the superiority of the conceptual to the non-conceptual, and the fact that art’s medium for expressing/presenting culture’s deepest values is the sensual or perceptual, art’s medium is limited and inferior in comparison with the medium that religion uses to express the same content, viz., mental imagery. Art and religion in turn are, in this respect, inferior to philosophy, which employs a conceptual medium to present its content. Art initially predominates, in each civilization, as the supreme mode of cultural expression, followed, successively, by religion and philosophy. Similarly, because the broadly “logical” relations between art, religion and philosophy determine the actual structure of art, religion, and philosophy, and because cultural ideas about what is intrinsically valuable develop from sensuous to non-sensuous conceptions, history is divided into periods that reflect the teleological development from the sensuous to the conceptual. Art in general, too, develops in accord with the historical growth of non-sensuous or conceptual conceptions from sensuous conceptions, and each individual art-form develops historically in the same way (Hegel, Lectures ; Wicks 1993, see also the entries on Hegel and on Hegel’s Aesthetics ).

For treatments of other influential definitions of art, inseparable from the complex philosophical systems or corpuses in which they occur, see, for example, the entries on 18th Century German Aesthetics , Arthur Schopenhauer , Friedrich Nietzsche , and Dewey’s Aesthetics .

3. Skepticism about Definitions of Art

Skeptical doubts about the possibility and value of a definition of art have figured importantly in the discussion in aesthetics since the 1950s, and though their influence has subsided somewhat, uneasiness about the definitional project persists. (See section 4, below, and also Kivy 1997, Brand 2000, and Walton 2007).

A common family of arguments, inspired by Wittgenstein’s famous remarks about games (Wittgenstein 1953), has it that the phenomena of art are, by their nature, too diverse to admit of the unification that a satisfactory definition strives for, or that a definition of art, were there to be such a thing, would exert a stifling influence on artistic creativity. One expression of this impulse is Weitz’s Open Concept Argument: any concept is open if a case can be imagined which would call for some sort of decision on our part to extend the use of the concept to cover it, or to close the concept and invent a new one to deal with the new case; all open concepts are indefinable; and there are cases calling for a decision about whether to extend or close the concept of art. Hence art is indefinable (Weitz 1956). Against this it is claimed that change does not, in general, rule out the preservation of identity over time, that decisions about concept-expansion may be principled rather than capricious, and that nothing bars a definition of art from incorporating a novelty requirement.

A second sort of argument, less common today than in the heyday of a certain form of extreme Wittgensteinianism, urges that the concepts that make up the stuff of most definitions of art (expressiveness, form) are embedded in general philosophical theories which incorporate traditional metaphysics and epistemology. But since traditional metaphysics and epistemology are prime instances of language gone on conceptually confused holiday, definitions of art share in the conceptual confusions of traditional philosophy (Tilghman 1984).

A third sort of argument, more historically inflected than the first, takes off from an influential study by the historian of philosophy Paul Kristeller, in which he argued that the modern system of the five major arts [painting, sculpture, architecture, poetry, and music] which underlies all modern aesthetics … is of comparatively recent origin and did not assume definite shape before the eighteenth century, although it had many ingredients which go back to classical, mediaeval, and Renaissance thought (Kristeller 1951). Since that list of five arts is somewhat arbitrary, and since even those five do not share a single common nature, but rather are united, at best, only by several overlapping features, and since the number of art forms has increased since the eighteenth century, Kristeller’s work may be taken to suggest that our concept of art differs from that of the eighteenth century. As a matter of historical fact, there simply is no stable definiendum for a definition of art to capture.

A fourth sort of argument suggests that a definition of art stating individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for a thing to be an artwork, is likely to be discoverable only if cognitive science makes it plausible to think that humans categorize things in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions. But, the argument continues, cognitive science actually supports the view that the structure of concepts mirrors the way humans categorize things – which is with respect to their similarity to prototypes (or exemplars), and not in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions. So the quest for a definition of art that states individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions is misguided and not likely to succeed (Dean 2003). Against this it has been urged that psychological theories of concepts like the prototype theory and its relatives can provide at best an account of how people in fact classify things, but not an account of correct classifications of extra-psychological phenomena, and that, even if relevant, prototype theory and other psychological theories of concepts are at present too controversial to draw substantive philosophical morals from (Rey 1983; Adajian 2005).

A fifth argument against defining art, with a normative tinge that is psychologistic rather than sociopolitical, takes the fact that there is no philosophical consensus about the definition of art as reason to hold that no unitary concept of art exists. Concepts of art, like all concepts, after all, should be used for the purpose(s) they best serve. But not all concepts of art serve all purposes equally well. So not all art concepts should be used for the same purposes. Art should be defined only if there is a unitary concept of art that serves all of art’s various purposes – historical, conventional, aesthetic, appreciative, communicative, and so on. So, since there is no purpose-independent use of the concept of art, art should not be defined (Mag Uidhir and Magnus 2011; cf. Meskin 2008). In response, it is noted that some account of what makes various concepts of art concepts of art is still required; this leaves open the possibility of some degree of unity beneath the apparent multiplicity. The fact (if it is one) that different concepts of art are used for different purposes does not itself imply that they are not connected in ordered, to-some-degree systematic ways. The relation between (say) the historical concept of art and the appreciative concept of art is not an accidental, unsystematic relation, like that between river banks and savings banks, but is something like the relation between Socrates’ healthiness and the healthiness of Socrates’ diet. That is, it is not evident that there exist a mere arbitrary heap or disjunction of art concepts, constituting an unsystematic patchwork. Perhaps there is a single concept of art with different facets that interlock in an ordered way, or else a multiplicity of concepts that constitute a unity because one is at the core, and the others depend asymmetrically on it. (The last is an instance of core-dependent homonymy; see the entry on Aristotle , section on Essentialism and Homonymy.) Multiplicity alone doesn’t entail pluralism.

A sixth, broadly Marxian sort of objection rejects the project of defining art as an unwitting (and confused) expression of a harmful ideology. On this view, the search for a definition of art presupposes, wrongly, that the concept of the aesthetic is a creditable one. But since the concept of the aesthetic necessarily involves the equally bankrupt concept of disinterestedness, its use advances the illusion that what is most real about things can and should be grasped or contemplated without attending to the social and economic conditions of their production. Definitions of art, consequently, spuriously confer ontological dignity and respectability on social phenomena that probably in fact call more properly for rigorous social criticism and change. Their real function is ideological, not philosophical (Eagleton 1990).

Seventh, the members of a complex of skeptically-flavored arguments, from feminist philosophy of art, begin with premises to the effect that art and art-related concepts and practices have been systematically skewed by sex or gender. Such premises are supported by a variety of considerations. (a) The artworks the Western artistic canon recognizes as great are dominated by male-centered perspectives and stereotypes, and almost all the artists the canon recognizes as great are men – unsurprisingly, given economic, social, and institutional impediments that prevented women from making art at all. Moreover, the concept of genius developed historically in such a way as to exclude women artists (Battersby, 1989, Korsmeyer 2004). (b) The fine arts’ focus on purely aesthetic, non-utilitarian value resulted in the marginalization as mere “crafts” of items of considerable aesthetic interest made and used by women for domestic practical purposes. Moreover, because all aesthetic judgments are situated and particular, there can be no such thing as disinterested taste. If there is no such thing as disinterested taste, then it is hard to see how there could be universal standards of aesthetic excellence. The non-existence of universal standards of aesthetic excellence undermines the idea of an artistic canon (and with it the project of defining art). Art as historically constituted, and art-related practices and concepts, then, reflect views and practices that presuppose and perpetuate the subordination of women. The data that definitions of art are supposed to explain are biased, corrupt and incomplete. As a consequence, present definitions of art, incorporating or presupposing as they do a framework that incorporates a history of systematically biased, hierarchical, fragmentary, and mistaken understandings of art and art-related phenomena and concepts, may be so androcentric as to be untenable. Some theorists have suggested that different genders have systematically unique artistic styles, methods, or modes of appreciating and valuing art. If so, then a separate canon and gynocentric definitions of art are indicated (Battersby 1989, Frueh 1991). In any case, in the face of these facts, the project of defining art in anything like the traditional way is to be regarded with suspicion (Brand 2000).

An eighth skeptically-flavored argument concludes that, insofar as almost all contemporary definitions foreground the nature of art works , rather than the individual arts to which (most? all?) artworks belong, they are philosophically unproductive (Lopes 2014). [ 3 ] The grounds for this conclusion concern disagreements among standard definitions as to the artistic status of entities whose status is for theoretical reasons unclear – e.g., things like ordinary bottleracks (Duchamp’s Bottlerack ) and silence (John Cage’s 4′33″ ). If these hard cases are artworks, what makes them so, given their apparent lack of any of the traditional properties of artworks? Are, they, at best, marginal cases? On the other hand, if they are not artworks, then why have generations of experts – art historians, critics, and collectors – classified them as such? And to whom else should one look to determine the true nature of art? (There are, it is claimed, few or no empirical studies of art full stop, though empirical studies of the individual arts abound.) Such disputes inevitably end in stalemate, it is claimed. Stalemate results because (a) standard artwork-focused definitions of art endorse different criteria of theory choice, and (b) on the basis of their preferred criteria, appeal to incompatible intuitions about the status of such theoretically-vexed cases. In consequence, disagreements between standard definitions of art that foreground artworks are unresolvable. To avoid this stalemate, an alternative definitional strategy that foregrounds the arts rather than individual artworks, is indicated. (See section 4.5.)

Philosophers influenced by the moderate Wittgensteinian strictures discussed above have offered family resemblance accounts of art, which, as they purport to be non-definitions, may be usefully considered at this point. Two species of family resemblance views will be considered: the resemblance-to-a-paradigm version, and the cluster version.

On the resemblance-to-a-paradigm version, something is, or is identifiable as, an artwork if it resembles, in the right way, certain paradigm artworks, which possess most although not necessarily all of art’s typical features. (The “is identifiable” qualification is intended to make the family resemblance view something more epistemological than a definition, although it is unclear that this really avoids a commitment to constitutive claims about art’s nature.) Against this view: since things do not resemble each other simpliciter , but only in at least one respect or other, the account is either far too inclusive, since everything resembles everything else in some respect or other, or, if the variety of resemblance is specified, tantamount to a definition, since resemblance in that respect will be either a necessary or sufficient condition for being an artwork. The family resemblance view raises questions, moreover, about the membership and unity of the class of paradigm artworks. If the account lacks an explanation of why some items and not others go on the list of paradigm works, it seems explanatorily deficient. But if it includes a principle that governs membership on the list, or if expertise is required to constitute the list, then the principle, or whatever properties the experts’ judgments track, seem to be doing the philosophical work.

The cluster version of the family resemblance view has been defended by a number of philosophers (Bond 1975, Dissanayake 1990, Dutton 2006, Gaut 2000). The view typically provides a list of properties, no one of which is a necessary condition for being a work of art, but which are jointly sufficient for being a work of art, and which is such that at least one proper subset thereof is sufficient for being a work of art. Lists offered vary, but overlap considerably. Here is one, due to Gaut: (1) possessing positive aesthetic properties; (2) being expressive of emotion; (3) being intellectually challenging; (4) being formally complex and coherent; (5) having the capacity to convey complex meanings; (6) exhibiting an individual point of view; (7) being original; (8) being an artifact or performance which is the product of a high degree of skill; (9) belonging to an established artistic form; (10) being the product of an intention to make a work of art (Gaut 2000). The cluster account has been criticized on several grounds. First, given its logical structure, it is in fact equivalent to a long, complicated, but finite, disjunction, which makes it difficult to see why it isn’t a definition (Davies 2006). Second, if the list of properties is incomplete, as some cluster theorists hold, then some justification or principle would be needed for extending it. Third, the inclusion of the ninth property on the list, belonging to an established art form , seems to regenerate (or duck), rather than answer, the definitional question. Finally, it is worth noting that, although cluster theorists stress what they take to be the motley heterogeneity of the class of artworks, they tend with surprising regularity to tacitly give the aesthetic a special, perhaps unifying, status among the properties they put forward as merely disjunctive. One cluster theorist, for example, gives a list very similar to the one discussed above (it includes representational properties, expressiveness, creativity, exhibiting a high degree of skill, belonging to an established artform), but omits aesthetic properties on the grounds that it is the combination of the other items on the list which, combined in the experience of the work of art, are precisely the aesthetic qualities of the work (Dutton 2006). Gaut, whose list is cited above, includes aesthetic properties as a separate item on the list, but construes them very narrowly; the difference between these ways of formulating the cluster view appears to be mainly nominal. And an earlier cluster theorist defines artworks as all and only those things that belong to any instantiation of an artform, offers a list of seven properties all of which together are intended to capture the core of what it is to be an artform, though none is either necessary or sufficient, and then claims that having aesthetic value (of the same sort as mountains, sunsets, mathematical theorems) is “what art is for ” (Bond 1975).

4. Contemporary Definitions

Definitions of art attempt to make sense of two different sorts of facts: art has important historically contingent cultural features, as well as trans-historical, pan-cultural characteristics that point in the direction of a relatively stable aesthetic core. (Theorists who regard art as an invention of eighteenth-century Europe will, of course, regard this way of putting the matter as tendentious, on the grounds that entities produced outside that culturally distinctive institution do not fall under the extension of “art” and hence are irrelevant to the art-defining project (Shiner 2001). Whether the concept of art is precise enough to justify this much confidence about what falls under its extension claim is unclear.) Conventionalist definitions take art’s contingent cultural features to be explanatorily fundamental, and aim to capture the phenomena – revolutionary modern art, the traditional close connection of art with the aesthetic, the possibility of autonomous art traditions, etc. – in social/historical terms. Classically-flavored or traditional definitions (also sometimes called “functionalist”) definitions reverse this explanatory order. Such classically-flavored definitions take traditional concepts like the aesthetic (or allied concepts like the formal, or the expressive) as basic, and aim to account for the phenomena by making those concepts harder – for example, by endorsing a concept of the aesthetic rich enough to include non-perceptual properties, or by attempting an integration of those concepts (e.g., Eldridge, section 4.4 below) .

Conventionalist definitions deny that art has essential connection to aesthetic properties, or to formal properties, or to expressive properties, or to any type of property taken by traditional definitions to be essential to art. Conventionalist definitions have been strongly influenced by the emergence, in the twentieth century, of artworks that seem to differ radically from all previous artworks. Avant-garde works like Marcel Duchamp’s “ready-mades” – ordinary unaltered objects like snow-shovels ( In Advance of the Broken Arm ) and bottle-racks – conceptual works like Robert Barry’s All the things I know but of which I am not at the moment thinking – 1:36 PM; June 15, 1969 , and John Cage’s 4′33″ , have seemed to many philosophers to lack or even, somehow, repudiate, the traditional properties of art: intended aesthetic interest, artifactuality, even perceivability. Conventionalist definitions have also been strongly influenced by the work of a number of historically-minded philosophers, who have documented the rise and development of modern ideas of the fine arts, the individual arts, the work of art, and the aesthetic (Kristeller, Shiner, Carroll, Goehr, Kivy).

Conventionalist definitions come in two varieties, institutional and historical. Institutionalist conventionalism, or institutionalism, a synchronic view, typically hold that to be a work of art is to be an artifact of a kind created, by an artist, to be presented to an artworld public (Dickie 1984). Historical conventionalism, a diachronic view, holds that artworks necessarily stand in an art-historical relation to some set of earlier artworks.

The groundwork for institutional definitions was laid by Arthur Danto, better known to non-philosophers as the long-time influential art critic for the Nation . Danto coined the term “artworld”, by which he meant “an atmosphere of art theory.” Danto’s definition has been glossed as follows: something is a work of art if and only if (i) it has a subject (ii) about which it projects some attitude or point of view (has a style) (iii) by means of rhetorical ellipsis (usually metaphorical) which ellipsis engages audience participation in filling in what is missing, and (iv) where the work in question and the interpretations thereof require an art historical context (Danto, Carroll). Clause (iv) is what makes the definition institutionalist. The view has been criticized for entailing that art criticism written in a highly rhetorical style is art, lacking but requiring an independent account of what makes a context art historical , and for not applying to music.

The most prominent and influential institutionalism is that of George Dickie. Dickie’s institutionalism has evolved over time. According to an early version, a work of art is an artifact upon which some person(s) acting on behalf of the artworld has conferred the status of candidate for appreciation (Dickie 1974). Dickie’s more recent version consists of an interlocking set of five definitions: (1) An artist is a person who participates with understanding in the making of a work of art. (2) A work of art is an artifact of a kind created to be presented to an artworld public. (3) A public is a set of persons the members of which are prepared in some degree to understand an object which is presented to them. (4) The artworld is the totality of all artworld systems. (5) An artworld system is a framework for the presentation of a work of art by an artist to an artworld public (Dickie 1984). Both versions have been widely criticized. Philosophers have objected that art created outside any institution seems possible, although the definition rules it out, and that the artworld, like any institution, seems capable of error. It has also been urged that the definition’s obvious circularity is vicious, and that, given the inter-definition of the key concepts (artwork, artworld system, artist, artworld public) it lacks any informative way of distinguishing art institutions systems from other, structurally similar, social institutions (D. Davies 2004, pp. 248–249, notes that both the artworld and the “commerceworld” seem to fall under that definition). Early on, Dickie claimed that anyone who sees herself as a member of the artworld is a member of the artworld: if this is true, then unless there are constraints on the kinds of things the artworld can put forward as artworks or candidate artworks, any entity can be an artwork (though not all are), which appears overly expansive. Finally, Matravers has helpfully distinguished strong and weak institutionalism. Strong institutionalism holds that there is some reason that is always the reason the art institution has for saying that something is a work of art. Weak institutionalism holds that, for every work of art, there is some reason or other that the institution has for saying that it is a work of art (Matravers 2000). Weak institutionalism, in particular, raises questions about art’s unity: if absolutely nothing unifies the reasons that the artworld gives for conferring art-hood on things, then the unity of the class of artworks is vanishingly small. Conventionalist views, with their emphasis on art’s heterogeneity, swallow this implication. From the perspective of traditional definitions, doings so underplays art’s substantial if incomplete unity, while leaving it a puzzle why art would be worth caring about.

Some recent versions of institutionalism depart from Dickie’s by accepting the burden, which Dickie rejected, of providing a substantive, non-circular account of what it is to be an art institution or an artworld. One, due to David Davies, does so by building in Nelson Goodman’s account of aesthetic symbolic functions. Another, due to Abell, combines Searle’s account of social institutions with Gaut’s characterization of art-making properties, and builds an account of artistic value on that coupling.

Davies’ neo-institutionalism holds that making an artwork requires articulating an artistic statement, which requires specifying artistic properties, which in turn requires the manipulation of an artistic vehicle. Goodman’s “symptoms of the aesthetic” are utilized to clarify the conditions under which a practice of making is a practice of artistic making: on Goodman’s view, a symbol functions aesthetically when it is syntactically dense, semantically dense, relatively replete, and characterized by multiple and complex reference (D. Davies 2004; Goodman 1968; see the entry on Goodman’s aesthetics ). Manipulating an artistic vehicle is in turn possible only if the artist consciously operates with reference to shared understandings embodied in the practices of a community of receivers. So art’s nature is institutional in the broad sense (or, perhaps better, socio-cultural). By way of criticism, Davies’ neo-institutionalism may be questioned on the grounds that, since all pictorial symbols are syntactically dense, semantically dense, relatively replete, and often exemplify the properties they represent, it seems to entail that every colored picture, including those in any catalog of industrial products, is an artwork (Abell 2012).

Abell’s institutional definition adapts Searle’s view of social kinds: what it is for some social kind, F , to be F is for it to be collectively believed to be F (Abell 2012; Searle 1995, 2010; and see the entry on social institutions ). On Abell’s view, more specifically, an institution’s type is determined by the valued function(s) that it was collectively believed at its inception to promote. The valued functions collective belief in which make an institution an art institution are those spelled out by Gaut in his cluster account (see section 3.1, above). That is, something is an art institution if and only if it is an institution whose existence is due to its being perceived to perform certain functions, which functions form a significant subset of the following: promoting positive aesthetic qualities; promoting the expression of emotion; facilitating the posing of intellectual challenges, and the rest of Gaut’s list. Plugging in Gaut’s list yields the final definition: something is an artwork if and only if it is the product of an art institution (as just defined) and it directly effects the effectiveness with which that institution performs the perceived functions to which its existence is due. One worry is whether Searle’s account of institutions is up to the task required of it. Some institutional social kinds have the following trait: something can fail to be a token of that kind even if there is collective agreement that it counts as a token of that kind. Suppose someone gives a big cocktail party, to which everyone in Paris is invited, and things get so out of hand that the casualty rate is greater than the Battle of Austerlitz. Even if everyone thinks the event was a cocktail party, it is possible (contrary to Searle) that they are mistaken: it may have been a war or battle. It’s not clear that art isn’t like this. If so, then the fact that an institution is collectively believed to be an art institution doesn’t suffice to make it so (Khalidi 2013; see also the entry on social institutions ). [ 4 ] A second worry: if its failure to specify which subsets of the ten cluster properties suffice to make something an artwork significantly flaws Gaut’s cluster account, then failure to specify which subsets of Gaut’s ten properties suffice to make something an art institution significantly flaws Abell’s institutionalism.

Historical definitions hold that what characterizes artworks is standing in some specified art-historical relation to some specified earlier artworks, and disavow any commitment to a trans-historical concept of art, or the “artish.” Historical definitions come in several varieties. All of them are, or resemble, inductive definitions: they claim that certain entities belong unconditionally to the class of artworks, while others do so because they stand in the appropriate relations thereto. According to the best known version, Levinson’s intentional-historical definition, an artwork is a thing that has been seriously intended for regard in any way preexisting or prior artworks are or were correctly regarded (Levinson 1990). A second version, historical narrativism, comes in several varieties. On one, a sufficient but not necessary condition for the identification of a candidate as a work of art is the construction of a true historical narrative according to which the candidate was created by an artist in an artistic context with a recognized and live artistic motivation, and as a result of being so created, it resembles at least one acknowledged artwork (Carroll 1993). On another, more ambitious and overtly nominalistic version of historical narrativism, something is an artwork if and only if (1) there are internal historical relations between it and already established artworks; (2) these relations are correctly identified in a narrative; and (3) that narrative is accepted by the relevant experts. The experts do not detect that certain entities are artworks; rather, the fact that the experts assert that certain properties are significant in particular cases is constitutive of art (Stock 2003).

The similarity of these views to institutionalism is obvious, and the criticisms offered parallel those urged against institutionalism. First, historical definitions appear to require, but lack, any informative characterization of art traditions (art functions, artistic contexts, etc.) and hence any way of informatively distinguishing them (and likewise art functions, or artistic predecessors) from non -art traditions (non-art functions, non-artistic predecessors). Correlatively, non-Western art, or alien, autonomous art of any kind appears to pose a problem for historical views: any autonomous art tradition or artworks – terrestrial, extra-terrestrial, or merely possible – causally isolated from our art tradition, is either ruled out by the definition, which seems to be a reductio , or included, which concedes the existence of a supra-historical concept of art. So, too, there could be entities that for adventitious reasons are not correctly identified in historical narratives, although in actual fact they stand in relations to established artworks that make them correctly describable in narratives of the appropriate sort. Historical definitions entail that such entities aren’t artworks, but it seems at least as plausible to say that they are artworks that are not identified as such. Second, historical definitions also require, but do not provide, a satisfactory, informative account of the basis case – the first artworks, or ur-artworks, in the case of the intentional-historical definitions, or the first or central art-forms, in the case of historical functionalism. Third, nominalistic historical definitions seem to face a version of the Euthyphro dilemma. For either such definitions include substantive characterizations of what it is to be an expert, or they don’t. If, on one hand, they include no characterization of what it is to be an expert, and hence no explanation as to why the list of experts contains the people it does, then they imply that what makes things artworks is inexplicable. On the other hand, suppose such definitions provide a substantive account of what it is to be an expert, so that to be an expert is to possess some ability lacked by non-experts (taste, say) in virtue of the possession of which they are able to discern historical connections between established artworks and candidate artworks. Then the definition’s claim to be interestingly historical is questionable, because it makes art status a function of whatever ability it is that permits experts to discern the art-making properties.

Defenders of historical definitions have replies. First, as regards autonomous art traditions, it can be held that anything we would recognize as an art tradition or an artistic practice would display aesthetic concerns, because aesthetic concerns have been central from the start, and persisted centrally for thousands of years, in the Western art tradition. Hence it is an historical, not a conceptual truth that anything we recognize as an art practice will centrally involve the aesthetic; it is just that aesthetic concerns have always dominated our art tradition (Levinson 2002). The idea here is that if the reason that anything we’d take to be a Φ-tradition would have Ψ-concerns is that our Φ-tradition has focused on Ψ-concerns since its inception, then it is not essential to Φ-traditions that they have Ψ-concerns, and Φ is a purely historical concept . But this principle entails, implausibly, that every concept is purely historical. Suppose that we discovered a new civilization whose inhabitants could predict how the physical world works with great precision, on the basis of a substantial body of empirically acquired knowledge that they had accumulated over centuries. The reason we would credit them with having a scientific tradition might well be that our own scientific tradition has since its inception focused on explaining things. It does not seem to follow that science is a purely historical concept with no essential connection to explanatory aims. (Other theorists hold that it is historically necessary that art begins with the aesthetic, but deny that art’s nature is to be defined in terms of its historical unfolding (Davies 1997).) Second, as to the first artworks, or the central art-forms or functions, some theorists hold that an account of them can only take the form of an enumeration. Stecker takes this approach: he says that the account of what makes something a central art form at a given time is, at its core, institutional, and that the central artforms can only be listed (Stecker 1997 and 2005). Whether relocating the list at a different, albeit deeper, level in the definition renders the definition sufficiently informative is an open question. Third, as to the Euthyphro -style dilemma, it might be held that the categorial distinction between artworks and “mere real things” (Danto 1981) explains the distinction between experts and non-experts. Experts are able, it is said, to create new categories of art. When created, new categories bring with them new universes of discourse. New universes of discourse in turn make reasons available that otherwise would not be available. Hence, on this view, it is both the case that the experts’ say-so alone suffices to make mere real things into artworks, and also true that experts’ conferrals of art-status have reasons (McFee 2011).

4.4 Traditional (mainly aesthetic) definitions

Traditional definitions take some function(s) or intended function(s) to be definitive of artworks. Here only aesthetic definitions, which connect art essentially with the aesthetic – aesthetic judgments, experience, or properties – will be considered. Different aesthetic definitions incorporate different views of aesthetic properties and judgments. See the entry on aesthetic judgment .

As noted above, some philosophers lean heavily on a distinction between aesthetic properties and artistic properties, taking the former to be perceptually striking qualities that can be directly perceived in works, without knowledge of their origin and purpose, and the latter to be relational properties that works possess in virtue of their relations to art history, art genres, etc. It is also, of course, possible to hold a less restrictive view of aesthetic properties, on which aesthetic properties need not be perceptual; on this broader view, it is unnecessary to deny what it seems pointless to deny, that abstracta like mathematical entities and scientific laws possess aesthetic properties.)

Monroe Beardsley’s definition holds that an artwork is “either an arrangement of conditions intended to be capable of affording an experience with marked aesthetic character or (incidentally) an arrangement belonging to a class or type of arrangements that is typically intended to have this capacity” (Beardsley 1982, 299). (For more on Beardsley, see the entry on Beardsley’s aesthetics .) Beardsley’s conception of aesthetic experience is Deweyan: aesthetic experiences are experiences that are complete, unified, intense experiences of the way things appear to us, and are, moreover, experiences which are controlled by the things experienced (see the entry on Dewey’s aesthetics ). Zangwill’s aesthetic definition of art says that something is a work of art if and only if someone had an insight that certain aesthetic properties would be determined by certain nonaesthetic properties, and for this reason the thing was intentionally endowed with the aesthetic properties in virtue of the nonaesthetic properties as envisaged in the insight (Zangwill 1995a,b). Aesthetic properties for Zangwill are those judgments that are the subject of “verdictive aesthetic judgments” (judgements of beauty and ugliness) and “substantive aesthetic judgements” (e.g., of daintiness, elegance, delicacy, etc.). The latter are ways of being beautiful or ugly; aesthetic in virtue of a special close relation to verdictive judgments, which are subjectively universal. Other aesthetic definitions build in different accounts of the aesthetic. Eldridge’s aesthetic definition holds that the satisfying appropriateness to one another of a thing’s form and content is the aesthetic quality possession of which is necessary and sufficient for a thing’s being art (Eldridge 1985). Or one might define aesthetic properties as those having an evaluative component, whose perception involves the perception of certain formal base properties, such as shape and color (De Clercq 2002), and construct an aesthetic definition incorporating that view.

Views which combine features of institutional and aesthetic definitions also exist. Iseminger, for example, builds a definition on an account of appreciation, on which to appreciate a thing’s being F is to find experiencing its being F to be valuable in itself, and an account of aesthetic communication (which it is the function of the artworld to promote) (Iseminger 2004).

Aesthetic definitions have been criticized for being both too narrow and too broad. They are held to be too narrow because they are unable to cover influential modern works like Duchamp’s ready-mades and conceptual works like Robert Barry’s All the things I know but of which I am not at the moment thinking – 1:36 PM; June 15, 1969 , which appear to lack aesthetic properties. (Duchamp famously asserted that his urinal, Fountain , was selected for its lack of aesthetic features.) Aesthetic definitions are held to be too broad because beautifully designed automobiles, neatly manicured lawns, and products of commercial design are often created with the intention of being objects of aesthetic appreciation, but are not artworks. Moreover, aesthetic views have been held to have trouble making sense of bad art (see Dickie 2001; Davies 2006, p. 37). Finally, more radical doubts about aesthetic definitions center on the intelligibility and usefulness of the aesthetic. Beardsley’s view, for example, has been criticized by Dickie, who has also offered influential criticisms of the idea of an aesthetic attitude (Dickie 1965, Cohen 1973, Kivy 1975).

To these criticisms several responses have been offered. First, the less restrictive conception of aesthetic properties mentioned above, on which they may be based on non-perceptual formal properties, can be deployed. On this view, conceptual works would have aesthetic features, much the same way that mathematical entities are often claimed to (Shelley 2003, Carroll 2004). Second, a distinction may be drawn between time-sensitive properties, whose standard observation conditions include an essential reference to the temporal location of the observer, and non-time-sensitive properties, which do not. Higher-order aesthetic properties like drama, humor, and irony, which account for a significant part of the appeal of Duchamp’s and Cage’s works, on this view, would derive from time-sensitive properties (Zemach 1997). Third, it might be held that it is the creative act of presenting something that is in the relevant sense unfamiliar, into a new context, the artworld, which has aesthetic properties. Or, fourth, it might be held that (Zangwill’s “second-order” strategy) works like ready-mades lack aesthetic functions, but are parasitic upon, because meant to be considered in the context of, works that do have aesthetic functions, and therefore constitute marginal borderline cases of art that do not merit the theoretical primacy they are often given. Finally, it can be flatly denied that the ready-mades were works of art (Beardsley 1982).

As to the over-inclusiveness of aesthetic definitions, a distinction might be drawn between primary and secondary functions. Or it may be maintained that some cars, lawns, and products of industrial design are on the art/non-art borderline, and so don’t constitute clear and decisive counter-examples. Or, if the claim that aesthetic theories fail to account for bad art depends on holding that some works have absolutely no aesthetic value whatsoever, as opposed to some non-zero amount, however infinitesimal, it may be wondered what justifies that assumption.

Hybrid definitions characteristically disjoin at least one institutional component with at least one aesthetic component, aiming thereby to accommodate both more traditional art and avant-garde art that appears to lack any significant aesthetic dimension. (Such definitions could also be classified as institutional, on the grounds that they make provenance sufficient for being a work of art.) Hence they inherit a feature of conventionalist definitions: in appealing to art institutions, artworlds, arts, art functions, and so on, they either include substantive accounts of what it is to be an art institution/world/genre/-form/function, or are uninformatively circular.

One such disjunctive definition, Longworth and Scarantino’s, adapts Gaut’s list of ten clustering properties, where that list (see 3.5 above) includes institutional properties (e.g., belonging to an established art form) and traditional ones (e.g., possessing positive aesthetic properties); see also Longworth and Scarantino 2010. The core idea is that art is defined by a disjunction of minimally sufficient and disjunctively necessary conditions; to say that a disjunct is a minimally sufficient constitutive condition for art-hood, is to say that every proper subset of it is insufficient for art-hood. An account of what it is for a concept to have disjunctive defining conditions is also supplied. The definition of art itself is as follows: ∃ Z ∃ Y (Art iff ( Z ∨ Y )), where (a) Z and Y , formed from properties on Gaut’s cluster list, are either non-empty conjunctions or non-empty disjunctions of conjunctions or individual properties; (b) there is some indeterminacy over exactly which disjuncts are sufficient; (c) Z does not entail Y and Y does not entail Z ; (d) Z does not entail Art and Y does not entail Art. Instantiation of either Z or Y suffices for art-hood; something can be art only if at least one of Z , Y is instantiated; and the third condition is included to prevent the definition from collapsing into a classical one. The account of what it is for concept C to have disjunctive defining conditions is as follows: C iff ( Z ∨ Y ), where (i) Z and Y are non-empty conjunctions or non-empty disjunctions of conjunctions or individual properties; (ii) Z does not entail Y and Y does not entail Z ; (iii) Z does not entail C and Y does not entail C . A worry concerns condition (iii): as written, it seems to render the account of disjunctive defining conditions self-contradictory. For if Z and Y are each minimally sufficient for C , it is impossible that Z does not entail C and that Y does not entail C . If so, then nothing can satisfy the conditions said to be necessary and sufficient for a concept to have disjunctive defining conditions.

A second disjunctive hybrid definition, with an historical cast, Robert Stecker’s historical functionalism, holds that an item is an artwork at time t , where t is not earlier than the time at which the item is made, if and only if it is in one of the central art forms at t and is made with the intention of fulfilling a function art has at t or it is an artifact that achieves excellence in achieving such a function (Stecker 2005). A question for Stecker’s view is whether or not it provides an adequate account of what it is for a function to be an art function, and whether, consequently, it can accommodate anti-aesthetic or non-aesthetic art. The grounds given for thinking that it can are that, while art’s original functions were aesthetic, those functions, and the intentions with which art is made, can change in unforeseeable ways. Moreover, aesthetic properties are not always preeminent in art’s predecessor concepts (Stecker 2000). A worry is that if the operative assumption is that if x belongs to a predecessor tradition of T then x belongs to T , the possibility is not ruled out that if, for example, the tradition of magic is a predecessor tradition of the scientific tradition, then entities that belong to the magic tradition but lacking any of the standard hallmarks of science are scientific entities.

A third hybrid definition, also disjunctive, is the cladistic definition defended by Stephen Davies. who holds that something is art (a) if it shows excellence of skill and achievement in realizing significant aesthetic goals, and either doing so is its primary, identifying function or doing so makes a vital contribution to the realization of its primary, identifying function, or (b) if it falls under an art genre or art form established and publicly recognized within an art tradition, or (c) if it is intended by its maker/presenter to be art and its maker/presenter does what is necessary and appropriate to realizing that intention (Davies 2015). (In biology, a clade is a segment in the tree of life: a group of organisms and the common ancestor they share.) Artworlds are to be characterized in terms of their origins: they begin with prehistoric art ancestors, and grow into artworlds. Hence all artworks occupy a line of descent from their prehistoric art ancestors; that line of descent comprises an art tradition that grows into an artworld. So the definition is bottom-up and resolutely anthropocentric. A worry: the view seems to entail that art traditions can undergo any changes whatsoever and remain art traditions, since, no matter how distant, every occupant of the right line of descent is part of the art tradition. This seems to amount to saying that as long as they remain traditions at all, art traditions cannot die. Whether art is immortal in this sense seems open to question. A second worry is that the requirement that every art tradition and artworld stand in some line of descent from prehistoric humanoids makes it in principle impossible for any nonhuman species to make art, as long as that species fails to occupy the right location in the tree of life. While the epistemological challenges that identifying artworks made by nonhumans might pose could be considerable, this consequence of the cladistic definition’s emphasis on lineage rather than traits raises a concern about excessively insularity.

A fourth hybrid definition is the “buck-passing” view of Lopes, which attempts an escape from the stalemate between artwork-focused definitions over avant-garde anti-aesthetic cases by adopting a strategy that shifts the focus of the definition of art away from artworks. The strategy is to recenter philosophical efforts on different problems, which require attention anyway: (a) the problem of giving an account of each individual art, and (b) the problem of defining what it is to be an art, the latter by giving an account of the larger class of normative/appreciative kinds to which the arts (and some non-arts) belong. For, given definitions of the individual arts, and a definition of what it is to be an art, if every artwork belongs to at least one art (if it belongs to no existing art, then it pioneers a new art), then a definition of artwork falls out: x is a work of art if and only if x is a work of K , where K is an art (Lopes 2014). When fully spelled out, the definition is disjunctive: x is a work of art if and only if x is a work belonging to art 1 or x is a work belonging to art 2 or x is a work belonging to art 3 …. Most of the explanatory work is done by the theories of the individual arts, since, given the assumption that every artwork belongs to at least one art, possession of theories of the individual arts would be necessary and sufficient for settling the artistic or non-artistic status of any hard case, once it is determined what art a given work belongs to. As to what makes a practice an art, Lopes’ preferred answer seems to be institutionalism of a Dickiean variety: an art is an institution in which artists (persons who participate with understanding in the making of artworks) make artworks to be presented to an artworld public (Lopes 2014, Dickie 1984). Thus, on this view, it is arbitrary which activities are artworld systems: there is no deeper answer to the question of what makes music an art than that it has the right institutional structure. [ 5 ] So it is arbitrary which activities are arts. Two worries. First, the key claim that every work of art belonging to no extant art pioneers a new art may be defended on the grounds that any reason to say that a work belonging to no extant artform is an artwork is a reason to say that it pioneers a new artform. In response, it is noted that the question of whether or not a thing belongs to an art arises only when, and because, there is a prior reason for thinking that the thing is an artwork. So it seems that what it is to be an artwork is prior, in some sense, to what it is to be an art. Second, on the buck-passing theory’s institutional theory of the arts, which activities are arts is arbitrary. This raises a version of the question that was raised about the cladistic definition’s ability to account for the existence of art outside our (Hominin) tradition. Suppose the connection between a practice’s traits and its status as an art are wholly contingent. Then the fact that a practice in another culture that although not part of our tradition had most of the traits of one of our own arts would be no reason to think that practice was an art, and no reason to think that the objects belonging to it were artworks. But it seems doubtful that we are really so in the dark when it comes to determining whether practices in alien cultures or traditions are arts.

4.6 Evolutionary Approaches;

The bearing of evolutionary considerations on the explanation and understanding of art is emphasized by some theorists. Some do so indirectly, and in bottom-up manner, by focusing on the neural mechanisms of perception or aesthetic experience. An approach that is broader and more pertinent to the definition of art is pursued by the ethologist Ellen Dissanayake. On the basis of studies of the performance arts, especially music, and the static arts (including, notably, petroglyphs), Dissanyake hypothesizes the existence of a distinctively human capacity she terms “making special” or “artifying” (Dissanayke 2018, 2013). The activity of making-special – i.e., making the ordinary “ extra -ordinary” – is practiced by all people at all times, and is aesthetically or proto-aesthetically motivated (Dissanayake 2013). It underlies art, ritual, and play; has “antecedents and counterparts in ritualized and play behaviors in nonhuman animals”; and can be manifested in pre-verbal, non-verbal, cross-modal, participative, and affiliative contexts. (Dissanayake 2018, 2013) Making-special involves capacities that are primarily emotional, not narrowly cognitive. It originates in patterns of ancestral mother-infant interaction, according to the hypothesis. These patterns (characterized cross-culturally by emphasis on vocal movement, emphatic contour, glissando, and dynamic variation) emerged in humans in the Pleistocene. Since the mother-infant relationship promotes infant survival and maternal reproductive success, the types of interactions that power that relationship continue to influence human behavior and cognition. Making-special in mother-infant interaction can be operationalized by five aesthetic or proto-aesthetic operations: formalization , which includes “shaping, composing, simplifying or forming a pattern or comprehensible whole,” rather than leaving the “ordinary” thing as it is naturally; repetition of elements, “often in a regularized, even rhythmic manner” different from the ordinary disposition of those elements; exaggeration of motifs; elaboration or dynamic variation of motivs; and manipulation of the perceiver's expectations (e.g., peek-a-boo) (Dissanayake 2013). These operations are characteristic of all artificers, across media, whether making-special/artifying artifacts, events, places, utterances, sounds, movements, or ideas. So artists, and mothers with infants, are focused on the same things: “attracting attention from an audiences, sustaining interest, and evoking and manipulating emotion” (Dissanayake 2018). Infants’ receptivity to exactly these operations suggests, then, that humans are born with aesthetic or proto-aesthetic capacities. The “elements that made possible successful ancestral mother-infant interaction comprise the biological seedbed from which individuals and cultures could later go on to create their arts”; mother-infant interactions “prepare infants to be artists in the broadest sense of the term” (Dissanayake 2018). One worry is whether the concept of making-special is so broad that it includes everything humans find interesting, not just the artistic and the aesthetic (Davies 2012). If so, the theory may provide the underpinnings or genus of, while being insufficient for, a definition of art. (See also the discussion of aesthetics and evolution in the entry aesthetics and cognitive science .

Conventionalist definitions account well for modern art, but have difficulty accounting for art’s universality – especially the fact that there can be art disconnected from “our” (Western) institutions and traditions, and our species. They also struggle to account for the fact that the same aesthetic terms are routinely applied to artworks, natural objects, humans, and abstracta. Aesthetic definitions do better accounting for art’s traditional, universal features, but less well, at least according to their critics, with revolutionary modern art; their further defense requires an account of the aesthetic which can be extended in a principled way to conceptual and other radical art. (An aesthetic definition and a conventionalist one could simply be conjoined. But that would merely raise, without answering, the fundamental question of the unity or disunity of the class of artworks.) Which defect is the more serious one depends on which explananda are the more important. Arguments at this level are hard to come by, because positions are hard to motivate in ways that do not depend on prior conventionalist and functionalist sympathies. If list-like definitions are flawed because uninformative, then so are conventionalist definitions, whether institutional or historical. Of course, if the class of artworks, or of the arts, is a mere chaotic heap, lacking any genuine unity, then enumerative definitions cannot be faulted for being uninformative: they do all the explaining that it is possible to do, because they capture all the unity that there is to capture. In that case the worry articulated by one prominent aesthetician, who wrote earlier of the “bloated, unwieldy” concept of art which institutional definitions aim to capture, needs to be taken seriously, even if it turns out to be ungrounded: “It is not at all clear that these words – ‘What is art?’ – express anything like a single question, to which competing answers are given, or whether philosophers proposing answers are even engaged in the same debate…. The sheer variety of proposed definitions should give us pause. One cannot help wondering whether there is any sense in which they are attempts to … clarify the same cultural practices, or address the same issue” (Walton 2007).

• Abell, Catharine, 2012, “Art: What It Is and Why It Matters,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 85: 671–691.
• Adajian, Thomas, 2005, “On the Prototype Theory of Concepts and the Definition of Art,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 63: 231–236.
• –––, 2012, “Defining Art,” in A. Ribeiro (ed.) 2012, pp. 39–56.
• Battersby, Christine, 1989, Gender and Genius: Towards a Feminist Aesthetics , London: The Women’s Press.
• Beardsley, Monroe, 1982, The Aesthetic Point of View , Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
• Bond, E. J., 1975, “The Essential Nature of Art,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 12: 177–183.
• Brand, Peggy Zeglin, 2000, “Glaring Omissions in Traditional Theories of Art,” in N. Carroll (ed.) 2000, pp. 175–198.
• Carroll, Noel, 1993, “Historical Narratives and the Philosophy of Art”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 51(3): 313–26.
• –––, 2001, Beyond Aesthetics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2004, “Non-Perceptual Aesthetic Properties,” British Journal of Aesthetics , 44: 413–423.
• Carroll, Noël, 2000, “Introduction,” in Carroll (ed.) 2000, 3–24.
• Carroll, Noël (ed.), 2000, Theories of Art Today , Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
• Cohen, Ted, 1973, “Aesthetic/Non-aesthetic and the concept of taste: a critique of Sibley’s position”, Theoria , 39(1–3): 113–152.
• Danto, Arthur, 1981, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2013, What Art Is , New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Davidson, Donald, 2005, Truth and Predication , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Davies, David, 2004, Art as Performance , Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
• Davies, Stephen, 1991, Definitions of Art , Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• –––, 1997, “First Art and Art’s Definition,” Southern Journal of Philosophy , 35: 19–34
• –––, 2000, “Non-Western Art and Art’s Definition,” in N. Carroll (ed.) 2000, pp. 199–217 .
• –––, 2006, The Philosophy of Art , Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
• –––, 2012, The Artful Species , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2015, “Defining Art and Artworlds,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 73(4): 375–384.
• Davies, Stephen, and Sukla, Ananta (eds.), 2003, Art and Essence , Westport, CT: Praeger.
• Dean, Jeffery, 2003, “The Nature of Concepts and the Definition of Art,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 61: 29–35.
• Devitt, Michael, 2001, “The Metaphysics of Truth,” in Michael Lynch (ed.), The Nature of Truth , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 579–611.
• DeClerq, Rafael, 2002, “The Concept of an Aesthetic Property,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 60: 167–172.
• Dickie, George, 1965, “Beardsley’s Phantom Aesthetic Experience”, Journal of Philosophy , 62(5): 129–136.
• –––, 1974, Art and the Aesthetic: An Institutional Analysis , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• –––, 1984, The Art Circle , New York: Haven.
• –––, 2001, Art and Value , Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
• –––, 2004, “Defining Art: Intension and Extension” in P. Kivy (ed.), Blackwell Guide to Aesthetics , Oxford: Blackwell, 45–62.
• Dissanayake, Ellen, 1990, What is Art For? , Bellingham: University of Washington Press.
• Dissanayake, Ellen, 2018, “The Concept of Artification,” in Early Rock Art of the American West: The Geometric Enigma , E. Malotka and E. Dissanayake, pp. 91–129
• Dissanayake, Ellen, 2013, “Genesis and Development of Making Special: Is the Concept Relevant to Aesthetic Philosophy?”, Revista de Estetika 54: 83–98
• Dutton, Denis, 2006, “A Naturalist Definition of Art,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 64: 367–377.
• –––, 2008, The Art Instinct , New York: Bloomsbury Press.
• Eagleton, Terry, 1990, The Ideology of the Aesthetic , London: Basil Blackwell.
• Eldridge, Richard, 1985, “Form and Content: An Aesthetic Theory of Art,” British Journal of Aesthetics , 25(4): 303–316.
• Field, Hartry, 1972, “Tarski’s Theory of Truth,” The Journal of Philosophy , 69: 347–375.
• Frueh, Joanna, 1991, “Towards a Feminist Theory of Art,” in Feminist Art Criticism: An Anthology , A. Raven, C. Langer and J. Frueh (eds.), Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 153–165.
• Gaut, Berys, 2000, “The Cluster Account of Art,” in N. Carroll (ed.) 2000, pp. 25–45.
• Goehr, Lydia, 1994, The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Goldman, Alan, 1995, Aesthetic Value , Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• Goodman, Nelson, 1968, Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols , Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company.
• Hegel, G.W.F., Lectures , translated by Bernard Bosanquet in The Introduction to Hegel's Philosophy of Fine Art , London: Kegan Paul, Trench, & Co., 1886; reprinted as Introductory Lectures on Aesthetics , edited and with an Introduction by Michael Inwood, London: Penguin, 1993. [Page reference is to the 1886 translation.]
• Iseminger, Gary, 2004, The Aesthetic Function of Art , Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Janaway, Christopher, 1998, Images of Excellence: Plato’s Critique of the Arts , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Kant, Immanuel, 2000, Critique of the Power of Judgment , Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews (trans.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Khalidi, Muhammed, 2013, “Three Kinds of Social Kinds,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 90(1): 96–112.
• Kivy, Peter, 1975, “What Makes ‘Aesthetic’ Terms Aesthetic?” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 36(2): 197–211.
• –––, 1997, Philosophies of the Arts , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Korsmeyer, Christine, 2004, Gender and Aesthetics: An Introduction , New York: Routlege.
• Kristeller, Paul, 1951, “The Modern System of the Arts,” Journal of the History of Ideas , 12: 496–527.
• Levinson, Jerrold, 1990, Music, Art, and Metaphysics , Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• –––, 2002, “The Irreducible Historicality of the Concept of Art”, British Journal of Aesthetics , 42(4): 367–379.
• –––, 2005a, “What Are Aesthetic Properties?” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 79: 191–210.
• –––, 2005b, The Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2005c, “Philosophical Aesthetics: An Overview,” in Levinson 2005b, pp. 3–24
• Longworth, F., and A. Scarantino, 2010, “The Disjunctive Theory of Art: The Cluster Account Reformulated,” British Journal of Aesthetics , 50(2): 151–167.
• Lopes, D.M., 2008,“Nobody Needs a Theory of Art” Journal of Philosophy , 105: 109–127.
• –––, 2014, Beyond Art , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• McFee, Graham, 2011, Artistic Judgment: A Framework for Philosophical Aesthetics , London: Springer.
• Mag Uidhir, C., 2013, Art and Art Attempts , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Mag Uidhir, C. and Magnus, P. D., 2011, “Art Concept Pluralism” Metaphilosophy , 42: 183–97.
• Malotki, Ekkehart and Dissanayake, Ellen, 2018, Early Rock Art of the American West: The Geometric Enigma , Seattle: University of Washington Press
• Matravers, Derek, 2000, “The Institutional Theory: A Protean Creature,” British Journal of Aesthetics , 40: 242–250.
• Meskin, Aaron, 2008,“From Defining Art to Defining the Individual Arts: The Role of Theory in the Philosophies of Arts” in Stock and Thomson-Jones (eds.) 2008, pp. 125–150.
• Osterman, Bernt, 1998, “On Functional and Procedural Art Definitions,” The Journal of Aesthetic Education 32: 67–77.
• Plato, 1997, Complete Works , John M. Cooper (ed.), Indianapolis: Hackett.
• Rey, Georges, 1983, “Concepts and Stereotypes,” Cognition , 15: 237–262.
• Ribeiro, Anna Christina (ed.), 2012, Continuum Companion to Aesthetics , London: Continuum.
• Shelley, James, 2003, “The Problem of Non-Perceptual Art,” British Journal of Aesthetics , 43: 363–378.
• Sibley, Frank, 1959, “Aesthetic Concepts,” Philosophical Review , 74: 135–159.
• Shiner, Larry, 2001, The Invention of Art , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• –––, 2003, “Western and Non-Western Concepts of Art: Universality and Authenticity” in S. Davies and A. Sukla (eds.) 2003, pp. 143–157.
• Stecker, Robert, 1997, Artworks: Definition, Meaning, Value , University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
• Stecker, Robert, 2000, “Is It Reasonable to Attempt to Define Art” in N. Carroll (ed.) 2000, pp. 45–64.
• –––, 2003, “Definition of Art,” in J. Levinson (ed.), The Oxford Handbook to Aesthetics , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 136–154.
• –––, 2005, Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art , Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
• Stock, Kathleen 2003, “Historical Definitions of Art,” in Davies and Sukla, 2003, pp. 159–176
• Stock, Kathleen, and Thomson-Jones, Katherine, 2008, New Waves in Aesthetics , London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Tilghman, Benjamin, 1984, But Is It Art? , Oxford: Blackwell.
• Walton, Kendall, 1997, “Review of Art and the Aesthetic ,” Philosophical Review , 86: 97–101.
• –––, 2007, “Aesthetics – What?, Why?, and Wherefore?” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 65(2): 147–162.
• Wicks, R., 1993, “Hegel’s Aesthetics,” in F. Beiser (ed.), Cambridge Companion to Hegel , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 348–377.
• Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 1953, Philosophical Investigations , G.E.M. Anscombe and R. Rhees (eds.), G.E.M. Anscombe (trans.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• –––, 1968, Philosophical Investigations , Oxford: Blackwell.
• Weitz, Morris, 1956, “The Role of Theory in Aesthetics,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 15: 27–35.
• Zangwill, Nick, 1995a, “Groundrules in the Philosophy of Art,” Philosophy , 70: 533–544.
• –––, 1995b, “The Creative Theory of Art,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 32: 315–332
• –––, 2001, The Metaphysics of Beauty , Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• ___, 2007, Aesthetic Creation , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Zemach, Eddy, 1997, Real Beauty , University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

aesthetics: aesthetic judgment | aesthetics: and cognitive science | aesthetics: German, in the 18th century | Aristotle, General Topics: aesthetics | Dewey, John: aesthetics | Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: aesthetics | Kant, Immanuel: aesthetics and teleology | Nietzsche, Friedrich | Plato: rhetoric and poetry | Schopenhauer, Arthur

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Adajian < adajiatr @ jmu . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• Art Degrees
• Galleries & Exhibits
• Request More Info

Art History Resources

Guidelines for analysis of art.

• Formal Analysis Paper Examples
• Guidelines for Writing Art History Research Papers
• Oral Report Guidelines
• Annual Arkansas College Art History Symposium

Knowing how to write a formal analysis of a work of art is a fundamental skill learned in an art appreciation-level class. Students in art history survey and upper-level classes further develop this skill. Use this sheet as a guide when writing a formal analysis paper. Consider the following when analyzing a work of art. Not everything applies to every work of art, nor is it always useful to consider things in the order given. In any analysis, keep in mind: HOW and WHY is this a significant work of art?

Part I – General Information

• In many cases, this information can be found on a label or in a gallery guidebook. An artist’s statement may be available in the gallery. If so, indicate in your text or by a footnote or endnote to your paper where you got the information.
• Subject Matter (Who or What is Represented?)
• Artist or Architect (What person or group made it? Often this is not known. If there is a name, refer to this person as the artist or architect, not “author.” Refer to this person by their last name, not familiarly by their first name.)
• Date (When was it made? Is it a copy of something older? Was it made before or after other similar works?)
• Provenance (Where was it made? For whom? Is it typical of the art of a geographical area?)
• Location (Where is the work of art now? Where was it originally located? Does the viewer look up at it, or down at it? If it is not in its original location, does the viewer see it as the artist intended? Can it be seen on all sides, or just on one?)
• Technique and Medium (What materials is it made of? How was it executed? How big or small is it?)

Part II – Brief Description

In a few sentences describe the work. What does it look like? Is it a representation of something? Tell what is shown. Is it an abstraction of something? Tell what the subject is and what aspects are emphasized. Is it a non-objective work? Tell what elements are dominant. This section is not an analysis of the work yet, though some terms used in Part III might be used here. This section is primarily a few sentences to give the reader a sense of what the work looks like.

Part III – Form

This is the key part of your paper. It should be the longest section of the paper. Be sure and think about whether the work of art selected is a two-dimensional or three-dimensional work.

Art Elements

• Line (straight, curved, angular, flowing, horizontal, vertical, diagonal, contour, thick, thin, implied etc.)
• Shape (what shapes are created and how)
• Light and Value (source, flat, strong, contrasting, even, values, emphasis, shadows)
• Color (primary, secondary, mixed, complimentary, warm, cool, decorative, values)
• Texture and Pattern (real, implied, repeating)
• Space (depth, overlapping, kinds of perspective)
• Time and Motion

Principles of Design

• Unity and Variety
• Balance (symmetry, asymmetry)
• Emphasis and Subordination
• Scale and Proportion (weight, how objects or figures relate to each other and the setting)
• Mass/Volume (three-dimensional art)
• Function/Setting (architecture)
• Interior/Exterior Relationship (architecture)

Part IV – Opinions and Conclusions

This is the part of the paper where you go beyond description and offer a conclusion and your own informed opinion about the work. Any statements you make about the work should be based on the analysis in Part III above.

• In this section, discuss how and why the key elements and principles of art used by the artist create meaning.
• Support your discussion of content with facts about the work.

General Suggestions

• Pay attention to the date the paper is due.
• Your instructor may have a list of “approved works” for you to write about, and you must be aware of when the UA Little Rock Galleries, or the Arkansas Museum of Fine Arts Galleries (formerly Arkansas Arts Center) opening April 2023, or other exhibition areas, are open to the public.
• You should allow time to view the work you plan to write about and take notes.
• Always italicize or underline titles of works of art. If the title is long, you must use the full title the first time you mention it, but may shorten the title for subsequent listings.
• Use the present tense in describing works of art.
• Be specific: don’t refer to a “picture” or “artwork” if “drawing” or “painting” or “photograph” is more exact.
• Remember that any information you use from another source, whether it be your textbook, a wall panel, a museum catalogue, a dictionary of art, the internet, must be documented with a footnote. Failure to do so is considered plagiarism, and violates the behavioral standards of the university. If you do not understand what plagiarism is, refer to this link at the UA Little Rock Copyright Central web site: https://ualr.edu/copyright/articles/?ID=4
• For proper footnote form, refer to the UA Little Rock Department of Art website, or to Barnet’s A Short Guide to Writing About Art, which is based on the Chicago Manual of Style. MLA style is not acceptable for papers in art history.
• Allow time to proofread your paper. Read it out loud and see if it makes sense. If you need help on the technical aspects of writing, contact the University Writing Center at 501-569-8343 or visit the Online Writing Lab at https://ualr.edu/writingcenter/
• Ask your instructor for help if needed.

Further Information

For further information and more discussions about writing a formal analysis, see the following sources. Some of these sources also give information about writing a research paper in art history – a paper more ambitious in scope than a formal analysis.

M. Getlein, Gilbert’s Living with Art (10th edition, 2013), pp. 136-139 is a very short analysis of one work.

M. Stokstad and M. W. Cothren, Art History (5th edition, 2014), “Starter Kit,” pp. xxii-xxv is a brief outline.

S. Barnet, A Short Guide to Writing About Art (9th edition, 2008), pp. 113-134 is about formal analysis; the entire book is excellent for all kinds of writing assignments.

R. J. Belton, Art History: A Preliminary Handbook http://www.ubc.ca/okanagan/fccs/about/links/resources/arthistory.html is probably more useful for a research paper in art history, but parts of this outline relate to discussing the form of a work of art.

VISIT OUR GALLERIES SEE UPCOMING EXHIBITS

• School of Art and Design
• Windgate Center of Art + Design, Room 202 2801 S University Avenue Little Rock , AR 72204
• Phone: 501-916-3182 Fax: 501-683-7022 (fax)
• More contact information

Connect With Us

UA Little Rock is an accredited member of the National Association of Schools of Art and Design.

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

Distinguishing characteristics

• The interpretation of art
• Auditory art
• Literary and nonliterary
• The translation problem
• The question of correspondence to actuality
• Analysis of representation
• Subject matter
• Symbols in art
• Expression in the creation of art
• The expressive product
• The formalist position
• Organic unity
• Complexity, or diversity
• Theme and thematic variation
• Development, or evolution
• Hedonistic theories of art
• Art as a means to truth or knowledge
• Aestheticism
• Mixed positions

• What was Friedrich Nietzsche’s childhood like?
• Where did Friedrich Nietzsche study?
• What did Friedrich Nietzsche write?
• Why is Jean-Jacques Rousseau famous?

philosophy of art

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - The Definition of Art
• Internet Archive - "The Philosophy of Art"
• Table Of Contents

philosophy of art , the study of the nature of art, including concepts such as interpretation, representation and expression, and form. It is closely related to aesthetics , the philosophical study of beauty and taste.

The philosophy of art is distinguished from art criticism , which is concerned with the analysis and evaluation of particular works of art. Critical activity may be primarily historical, as when a lecture is given on the conventions of the Elizabethan theatre in order to explain some of the devices used in William Shakespeare ’s plays. It may be primarily analytical , as when a certain passage of poetry is separated into its elements and its meaning or import explained in relation to other passages and other poems in the tradition. Or it may be primarily evaluative, as when reasons are given for saying that the work of art in question is good or bad, or better or worse than another one. Sometimes it is not a single work of art but an entire class of works in a certain style or genre (such as pastoral poems or Baroque music) that is being elucidated, and sometimes it is the art of an entire period (such as Romantic ). But in every case, the aim of art criticism is to achieve an increased understanding or enjoyment of the work (or classes of works) of art, and its statements are designed to achieve this end.

The test of the success of art criticism with a given person is: Has this essay or book of art criticism increased or enhanced the person’s understanding or appreciation of the work of art in question? Art criticism is particularly helpful and often necessary for works of art that are more than usually difficult, such that persons not already familiar with the artist or the genre or the period would be unable to adequately understand or enjoy the work if left to themselves.

The task of the philosopher of art is more fundamental than that of the art critic in that the critic’s pronouncements presuppose answers to the questions set by the philosopher of art. The critic says that a given work of music is expressive, but the philosopher of art asks what is meant by saying that a work of art is expressive and how one determines whether it is. In speaking and writing about art, critics presuppose that they are dealing with clear concepts, the attainment of which is the task of the philosopher of art.

The task of the philosopher of art is not to heighten understanding and appreciation of works of art but to provide conceptual foundations for the critic by (1) examining the basic concepts that underlie the activities of critics and enable them to speak and write more intelligibly about the arts and by (2) arriving at true conclusions about art, aesthetic value, expression, and the other concepts that critics employ.

Upon what do philosophers of art direct their attention? “Art” is the ready answer, but what is art and what distinguishes it from all other things? The theorists who have attempted to answer this question are many, and their answers differ greatly. But there is one feature that virtually all of them have in common: a work of art is a human-made thing, an artifact , as distinguished from an object in nature. A sunset may be beautiful, but it is not a work of art. A piece of driftwood may have aesthetic qualities, but it is not a work of art since it was not made by a human. On the other hand, a piece of wood that has been carved to look like driftwood is not an object of nature but of art, even though the appearance of the two may be exactly the same. This distinction was challenged in the 20th century by artists who declared that objets trouvés (“found objects”) are works of art, since the artist’s perception of them as such makes them so, even if the objects were not human-made and were not modified in any way (except by exhibition) from their natural state.

Nevertheless, according to the simplest and widest definition, art is anything that is human-made. Within the scope of this definition, not only paintings and sculptures but also buildings, furniture, automobiles, cities, and garbage dumps are all works of art: every change that human activity has wrought upon the face of nature is art, be it good or bad, beautiful or ugly, beneficial or destructive.

The ordinary usage of the term is clearly less wide. When works of art are spoken of in daily life, the intention is to denote a much narrower range of objects—namely, those responded to aesthetically. Among the things in this narrower range, a distinction, although not a precise one, is made between fine and useful art. Fine art consists of those works designed to produce an aesthetic response or that (regardless of design) function as objects of aesthetic appreciation (such as paintings, sculptures, poems, musical compositions)—those human-made things that are enjoyed for their own sake rather than as means to something else. Useful art has both an aesthetic and a utilitarian dimension: automobiles, glass tumblers, woven baskets, desk lamps, and a host of other handmade or manufactured objects have a primarily useful function and are made for that purpose, but they also have an aesthetic dimension: they can be enjoyed as objects of beauty, so much so that people often buy one brand of car rather than another for aesthetic reasons even more than for mechanical reasons (of which they may know nothing). A borderline case is architecture : many buildings are useful objects the aesthetic function of which is marginal, and other buildings are primarily objects of beauty the utility of which is incidental or no longer existent (Greek temples were once places of worship, but today their value is entirely aesthetic). The test in practice is not how they were intended by their creators, but how they function in present-day experience. Many great works of painting and sculpture , for example, were created to glorify a deity and not, insofar as can be ascertained , for an aesthetic purpose (to be enjoyed simply in the contemplation of them for their own sake). It should be added, however, that many artists were undoubtedly concerned to satisfy their aesthetic capabilities in the creation of their work, since they were highly perfectionistic as artists, but in their time there was no such discipline as aesthetics in which they could articulate their goals; in any case, they chose to create “for the greater glory of God” by producing works that were also worthwhile to contemplate for their own sake.

This aesthetic sense of the word art , whether applied to fine art or useful art, is the one most employed by the majority of critics and philosophers of art today. There are two other senses of art , however, that are still narrower, and, to avoid confusion, their use should be noted: (1) Sometimes the term art is restricted to the visual arts alone or to some of the visual arts. But as philosophers of art use the term (and as it is used here), art is not limited to visual art; music and drama and poetry are as much arts as are painting, sculpture, and architecture . (2) Sometimes the term art is used in a persuasive sense, to include only those works considered good art. Viewers at an art gallery, examining a painting they dislike, may exclaim “That’s not art!” But if the term art is to be used without confusion, it must be possible for there to be bad art as well as good art. The viewer, then, is not really denying that the work in question is art (it is a human-made object presented to be contemplated for its own sake) but only that it is worthwhile.

The word art is also ambiguous in another way: it is sometimes used to designate the activity of creating a work of art, as in the slogan “Art is expression,” but it is more often used to designate the product of that process, the completed artwork or artifact itself, as in the remark “Art is a source of great enjoyment to me.” There will be occasion later to remark on this ambiguity .

Countless proffered definitions of art are not definitions at all but are theories about the nature of art that presuppose that the ability to identify certain things in the world as works of art already exists. Most of them are highly unsatisfactory even as theories. “Art is an exploration of reality through a sensuous presentation”—but in what way is it an exploration? Is it always concerned with reality (how is music concerned with reality, for example)? “Art is a re-creation of reality”—but is all art re-creation, even music? (It would seem likely that music is the creation of something, namely, a new set of tonal relationships, but not that it is the re-creation of anything at all.) “Art is an expression of feeling through a medium”—but is it always an expression ( see below Art as expression ) and is it always feeling that is expressed? And so on. It appears more certain that Shakespeare’s King Lear is a work of art than that these theories are true. All that seems to be required for identifying something as a work of art in the wide sense is that it be not a natural object but something made or transformed by a human being , and all that is required for identifying it as art (not as good art but as art) in the narrower sense is that it function aesthetically in human experience, either wholly (fine art) or in part (useful art); it is not even necessary, as has been shown, that it be intended by its creator to function in this way.

Essay on Art

500 words essay on art.

Each morning we see the sunshine outside and relax while some draw it to feel relaxed. Thus, you see that art is everywhere and anywhere if we look closely. In other words, everything in life is artwork. The essay on art will help us go through the importance of art and its meaning for a better understanding.

What is Art?

For as long as humanity has existed, art has been part of our lives. For many years, people have been creating and enjoying art.  It expresses emotions or expression of life. It is one such creation that enables interpretation of any kind.

It is a skill that applies to music, painting, poetry, dance and more. Moreover, nature is no less than art. For instance, if nature creates something unique, it is also art. Artists use their artwork for passing along their feelings.

Thus, art and artists bring value to society and have been doing so throughout history. Art gives us an innovative way to view the world or society around us. Most important thing is that it lets us interpret it on our own individual experiences and associations.

Art is similar to live which has many definitions and examples. What is constant is that art is not perfect or does not revolve around perfection. It is something that continues growing and developing to express emotions, thoughts and human capacities.

Importance of Art

Art comes in many different forms which include audios, visuals and more. Audios comprise songs, music, poems and more whereas visuals include painting, photography, movies and more.

You will notice that we consume a lot of audio art in the form of music, songs and more. It is because they help us to relax our mind. Moreover, it also has the ability to change our mood and brighten it up.

After that, it also motivates us and strengthens our emotions. Poetries are audio arts that help the author express their feelings in writings. We also have music that requires musical instruments to create a piece of art.

Other than that, visual arts help artists communicate with the viewer. It also allows the viewer to interpret the art in their own way. Thus, it invokes a variety of emotions among us. Thus, you see how essential art is for humankind.

Without art, the world would be a dull place. Take the recent pandemic, for example, it was not the sports or news which kept us entertained but the artists. Their work of arts in the form of shows, songs, music and more added meaning to our boring lives.

Therefore, art adds happiness and colours to our lives and save us from the boring monotony of daily life.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Conclusion of the Essay on Art

All in all, art is universal and can be found everywhere. It is not only for people who exercise work art but for those who consume it. If there were no art, we wouldn’t have been able to see the beauty in things. In other words, art helps us feel relaxed and forget about our problems.

FAQ of Essay on Art

Question 1: How can art help us?

Answer 1: Art can help us in a lot of ways. It can stimulate the release of dopamine in your bodies. This will in turn lower the feelings of depression and increase the feeling of confidence. Moreover, it makes us feel better about ourselves.

Question 2: What is the importance of art?

Answer 2: Art is essential as it covers all the developmental domains in child development. Moreover, it helps in physical development and enhancing gross and motor skills. For example, playing with dough can fine-tune your muscle control in your fingers.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App