What is art?

I wrote this an an answer to a question about my previous post. He asked my permission to disagree, and I want to extend my answer to any of my readers. Please, disagree. Confronting new and different ideas is one of the only ways we grow, and I am open to the idea that I might be wrong.** The commentor gave a hypothetical example of an artist who created socially abhorrent art but it filled the artist's need to express some deep therapeutic needs due to terrible circumstances as a child (the hypothetical art form was vomiting on a canvas). The follow up question was this:

"How many people need to think it good for it to be so? " 

So, without further ado, I dive into my unnecessarily long and at the same time likely insufficient answer. 

First, let's look at what art is. Art is communication or expression (I'll differentiate here by saying that expression is simply getting a message, experience or feeling out regardless of whether there is an audience. Art as expression has the process as the goal and is thus mostly for the creator. This is where the catharsis you mentioned comes in.). Art is expressed through a medium. The ancient meaning of art had to do with skill. In any medium there must be a certain amount of skill applied to create any effect.

If we take your example, vomiting on a canvas would require the me to cultivate a few skills: induction or timing of vomiting, choosing the food, aiming the vomit, choosing how to apply the vomit (is it projectile, is the artist simply lying down and letting the vomit roll over them), creating or choosing the most suitable canvass. These skills are developed aside from the expression. I can draw a line, but a true artist knows where to place that line to communicate an emotion, an experience, or an idea.

Also, I am going to limit the definition of Art to an intentional expression if that's ok. I can throw a number of sticks on the ground and someone could interpret them, but if I had no intent to communicate then it's not art. It may have natural beauty, but it's not art. If someone captured the moment by photograph, painting, literature, dance, etc. then the expression would be art. A beautiful sunset is not art, the communication of a beautiful sunset is. If there is no intent to communicate (or express) then it is not art.

Now let's look at your assertion there are no objective valuations to art. I could probably take your side on this, but I want to make sure that we cover the whole issue. You can look at art, whether you like it or not, and appreciate the skills required to create it. You could even apply those skills unartistically (remembering that art is an intentional creative communication of a message, mood, idea, experience, or feeling). I could play the notes of a piano concerto, if I had the skill, and it would not be my art but the composers. A copy machine does not create art, it merely duplicates it. However, a concert pianist could use their skills to present the concerto and include their own artistic expression in the performance.

This valuation of skill is separate from the aesthetic valuation of beauty. We can take this pretty far and say that the valuation of skill is also subjective. When cutting a log do you want straight lines or curved lines. If you want curved lines and your worker can only make straight lines then you may call him unskilled. I am not going to go that far. I will say that a skill is good if it meets the requirements of the project.

If you are trying to recreate the Mona Lisa with vomit then any vomit that doesn't look like Da Vinci's work is not successful. Taking a more mundane example, I have not the artistic skills to recreate the Mona Lisa by painting, drawing, or any other way. But I could develop the skills, theoretically, if I practiced and studied enough. As an example, I wrote a scene that I wanted my readers to feel excited about. When I got feedback I found out that my readers were confused and didn't understand the scene. The objective view is that my skill were not enough to complete the task. In that sense, my art was not good.

So, we have the skill side of art. Am I, as vomitist, skilled in achieving my goal? I have achieved catharsis, at least enough to keep me alive. I have spewed my hate, terror, frustration, anxiety, and wrath onto many a canvass. Most people who look at my art feel a repulsion. Is their repulsion exactly what I wanted? Are they feeling repulsed and now somehow they understand my message, or are they merely repulsed at the medium and so the message fails to penetrate? If I wanted catharsis, then my work succeeded. If I wanted someone to understand me, then maybe not so much. If I simply wanted my audience to be repulsed, then I have sufficient skill and achieved success.

However, the judgment of how aesthetically pleasing a work of art is falls completely to the subjective view of the audience. Good or bad. This is where “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” comes in. A piece of art can be good or bad to any person, and this is where numbers don't matter.

Now, one more level to this madness, we can also take in the popular success of art. This is where the artist considers audience. Evaluating an audience is also a skill, though most artists keep it in the background. The popular success of an artwork depends on how the audience perceives it. If 100 people think your book is good, does that make it good? The truth is that audience perception has a lot to do with how many people receive your message. I would argue that good art resonates with more people. If you are turning people off of your message with your medium so that they can't appreciate the message, then I think that it is bad art. If the purpose of your art is a self expressive catharsis, then no audience aside from yourself is needed. It is personal art, and unless you intend for someone else to take part in it then I'd even go so far as to say it is not art, but therapy. Personal expression is a positive and important thing, but it only sends a message when there is someone to receive it.

My argument before is that many who study art extensively take their view of the aesthetics and ignore the skills. I might hate the Mona Lisa aesthetically, but I can't dismiss the fact that it took a highly skilled artist to create it. An literature professor may dismiss the Harry Potter series as trite nonsense because they don't like it. They could judge it as bad. But they should not ignore the fact that it has reached a large audience who has been affected by the books and their message about death. What I view as a problem is that many “art snobs” do just that. It is fine that they don't like something, but if they're really studying art then they should be able to admit the quality of the skill.

So, here's my answer in a nutshell. Good art can mean that the artist is skilled at manipulating the medium, it can mean that the message or experience is shared, or it can mean that the art is beautiful or aesthetically pleasing. I would argue that the larger an audience can relate to the piece as intended the better the artwork is. This requires both the objective skill(i.e. the ability to draw lines with the intended effect), and the subjective application of that skill.

This was a long post. I droned on forever. Did I miss the point? Sometimes I do that. Did I mess up the definition of art? What is art, and what makes it good? Am I right? What do you think?

**Edit - this should read: I've got a big ego, and sometimes it needs a bit of draining.  Cheers.