In American Muse, Chapter 1, Anderson puts forth the notion that “there is an enormous amount of art in America today — far more than is generally recognized by most people, scholar and nonspecialist alike.” He goes on to define art as “being made by humans whose elevated intellectual, creative, or bodily skills are recognized by others in their group; of being imaginatively created in an immediately, and directly sensuous, public medium.” If one applies Anderson’s definition of art to the music, paintings, sculptures, and other works that have been created in modern times by Americans, one can say that Anderson’s argument that art is alive and well in America is quite valid. However, do you believe that Anderson’s definition of art is flawed, and if so, how would you define art?
Anderson focuses on the descriptive rather than the evaluative usage of the word art throughout American Muse. However, most people who look at art make statements such as, “Oh, that’s a beautiful painting” or “That doesn’t look lifelike enough.” Is it wrong to make such evaluative statements about art? Is there such thing as “good art” or “bad art?”
Dewey asserts that “art is a mode of prediction not found in charts and statistics, and it insinuates possibilities of human relations not to be found in rule and precept, admonition and administration.” However, Anderson appears to downplay this by assuming that “art and aesthetics in America have an objective reality, one that can be empirically studied.” Can one’s reaction to art be studied quantitatively, or is art something that cannot be explained in numbers?
I certainly agree with Dewey’s statement in which he speculates that art is absolutely not found quantitatively in the form of charts and statistics. Art is creativity, imagination and thoughts expressed in various ways, and this cannot be expressed in quantitative measures. There’s more to art than sculptures or paintings. Art depicts emotions; there’s art in music, dance, poetry, theater, nature, people, and places, and this art should be sensed, seen and understood with emotions, not but statistics.
In American Muse, Chapter 1, Anderson puts forth the notion that “there is an enormous amount of art in America today — far more than is generally recognized by most people, scholar and non-specialist alike.” He goes on to define art as “being made by humans whose elevated intellectual, creative, or bodily skills are recognized by others in their group; of being imaginatively created in an immediately, and directly sensuous, public medium.” If one applies Anderson’s definition of art to the music, paintings, sculptures, and other works that have been created in modern times by Americans, one can say that Anderson’s argument that art is alive and well in America is quite valid. However, do you believe that Anderson’s definition of art is flawed, and if so, how would you define art?
• I believe that his definition is general enough that one cannot argue with it. This is not to say the definition is perfect. If we used general definitions with every word we encounter nothing would be specific enough to use. For example, if we define the word library as a place where there are books, then we would call bookstores libraries also (which we know is not the case). However we cannot argue that libraries are not places where there are books, the same way we cannot argue that art is manmade with skill and imagination to embody its sensuous elements. In conclusion, I believe that the definition is slightly flawed; in that it is not specific enough; however, I do not have a better definition, therefore it is, in my eyes, valid as a definition of art.
Anderson focuses on the descriptive rather than the evaluative usage of the word art throughout American Muse. However, most people who look at art make statements such as, “Oh, that’s a beautiful painting” or “That doesn’t look lifelike enough.” Is it wrong to make such evaluative statements about art? Is there such thing as “good art” or “bad art?”
• There is no such thing as “bad” art. Art, according to Anderson, is made with skill to have a sensory effect on its audience; once it is classified art it cannot be “bad.” It is better to ponder on the true question when looking at art: what is the artist trying to show me? If this question is in your mind when looking at art one would agree that art can not be “bad” because the artist is made deliberate movements to make the viewer see what he is trying to show. The same way a public speaker needs to use proper diction and pace to be more persuasive, artists (painters, musicians, etc.) need to use their own methods to get the point across to the audience. Once the artist feels they have put their best work forward, it immediately become art. The same way Anderson’s singing is art even if he is not the best singer. One is allowed to say, “Anderson is a bad singer” but not allowed to say, “Anderson’s expression is wrong.”