The Three Criteria of Art

As someone who enjoys museums and has wandered into my fair share of modern art museums, I am pretty accustomed to hearing people looking at modern art and decrying it as nonsense (or praising something that seems like nonsense to me as genius). I frequently drag friends to modern art exhibits and for my friends who are less into the experience, I have a theory that I turned into something of a game in order to make art critics of anyone.

People like to claim that art is such a spiritual thing that it’s indefinable, but I don’t think this is true. Art is made by human hands, not a message from the gods, and should not elude definition. I once heard modern art described as the intersection of I-could-do-that and but-you-didn’t, but while this may describe some modern art, it doesn’t actually define what art is.

So here’s my theory. In order for something to be considered art, you must be able to answer yes to one of these questions:

1.      Is it aesthetically pleasing to someone?

2.      Did it require a great amount of skill to create?

3.      Does it mean something symbolically?

Now, you can obviously answer yes to more than one of these questions and I could actually argue that the more yeses you get, the less likely you are to have the artistic merit of something challenged.

But I’m sure you can see a bit of a hitch in this theory: all the questions are subjective. Correct. Art is, at its core, subjective and thus the questions defining it will also be. If you genuinely don’t believe in any standard of taste whatsoever, you might find the answering of these questions to be completely impossible. But in order to actually get anywhere with applying this theory, you need to at least be able to accept that your taste may not be the taste of others and you should at least have some small background in critically reading visual media. This is the baseline you need to start from.

The first potential requirement is aesthetic pleasure. This is the one that most requires a divorcing from personal taste. Just because you might not enjoy looking at something, does not mean that everyone will not enjoy looking at it. Of the three requirements, this is definitely the most subjective but there are some examples I can use to try to get at how an art piece can fail this requirement. I once saw a painted canvas in an art museum. It was a single square canvas painted one uniform color. It was not part of any other piece; that was the entire work. Even if you enjoy that color, it seemed safe to me to say that there was nothing specifically aesthetic pleasing about this single colored canvas.

The second requirement of technical skill is probably the least subjective. It is not hard to look at something and determine that it is something you could not do without a great deal of acquired skill in painting, sculpture, metal work, crafting or what have you. The one real fault to this criterion would be an ego on the part of the viewer who wildly overestimates their own skill or who lacks any kind of knowledge of what creating a piece entails. Notably though, there are a lot of modern art pieces that do fail this requirement (hence the previously mentioned I-can-do-that idea).

The last requirement of meaning is somewhat subjective but is definitely the requirement that asks the most of the viewer. Most people can answer the first two questions quickly on a gut instinct from having lived in a world of senses and experiences, but this last one requires not only contemplation but also a measure of reading comprehension. Modern art especially is often not meant to be taken at face value in the way traditional art it. Aesthetics and skills are usually very apparent in traditional art where priority was placed on creating something that would be difficult for anyone else to make and which would fetch a high price for its decorative purposes. Sometimes traditional art doesn’t have a meaning outside of it being something skillfully made and nice to look at. Modern art, however, is commonly determined on this criterion alone, which is why modern art is vastly more mocked and underappreciated. Modern art that doesn’t quickly pass the test with the first two requirements will find itself beholden to the interpretative capabilities of the viewers.

It seems safe to say that modern art that fails the first two tests always has a meaning intended by the artist. What you are actually determining is whether a meaning is being conveyed. You are judging not the ambiguous intention but the communication. Sometimes at art museums there will be a little plaque next to a piece that will explain the meaning to a confused viewer. Sometimes the meaning explained will justify the work just fine and you will look back at the piece with an, “Oh” of understanding, if you decide that the author’s purpose was clearly conveyed and also that it matters. Sometimes you will look back at the piece and think that the justification isn’t in any way clear in its representation and you have truly found something that is not art. Sometimes there’s no plaque at all and you are left up to your own devices and you really need to be mentally flexible to try to pull out a meaning. This is where having a friend along is helpful for bouncing ideas off of. Maybe you can’t read the piece as well as your friend can. If a meaning isn’t coming through or an explained meaning is still unconvincing after explanation, the piece is not art.

A prime example of something I have considered not art would be Comedian by Maurizio Cattelan, the now famous banana taped to a wall. Let’s run the test:

1.      Is it aesthetically pleasing to someone? I would have to say no. Perhaps you do find a banana aesthetically pleasing but the juxtaposition of a banana and duct tape isn’t reaching any real level of composition to create something interesting to stare at.

2.     Did it require skill to create? A big no there. While it might be kind of difficult to do without crushing the banana if it’s quite ripe, this is something most people have the ability to do.

3.      Does it mean something symbolically? After staring at it for a while, I got nothing concrete. The artist has stated both that it represents “global trade, a double entendre, as well as a classic device for humor” and that “it’s supposed to be a banana.” Basically it means everything and nothing. When I first saw it I made some joke about how it represents the duality of man and the battle between intellect and the beast and it turns out my phony art critique impression was just as valid as the artist’s actual explanation. You could try to argue that the point is its silliness, bolstered by the title, but I really don’t think there’s enough actual creative mental lifting here to make this piece worthy of being called art.

Amusingly, Chipotle made a social media post as a joke of a burrito taped to a wall after the banana from the piece was eaten. My brother pointed out that the social media post actually does qualify as art because it has a very clear meaning determinable by anyone with a basic understanding of the piece it’s responding to: it’s a parody. I would also argue that if the person who ate the banana claimed it was an act of performance art, I would completely stand behind the banana eating as art. The meaning is clear: it’s an act of showing the insignificance of the original piece. Or possibly it’s just adding legitimacy to the Comedian title. I can see an old comedy show where a bumbling joker accidently eats something that was part of an art piece and gets in trouble for it by the art world elites. It’s life imitating art.

So while the subjective world of art cannot totally be demystified, this is a good place to start. I often find that when others employ this method for the first time, they find themselves appreciating art in a way they hadn’t before and become overall less dismissive of the pieces they don’t understand. 

Theories In Short

Here's a collection of theories that I have been meaning to write, some for years. They are all too short to write full on essays about so here they are in brief.

People believe they deserve control, love, and a purpose, but not a single one of these things is guaranteed.

The Emotion/Logic Spectrum:

Everyone falls somewhere on a spectrum with emotion on one end and logic on the other. There are benefits to spending time with people who linger close to your side of the spectrum in terms of relatability, but spending time with people on the opposite of the spectrum is good for perspective. When making a decision, it is best to consult people on both sides of the spectrum if you are in the middle or people on the opposite side from you if you lean more towards one side.

If you live too close to the edge of either spectrum, it can be really hard for you to understand the motivations of people who live on the other side. For instance, someone who lives at 95% logic might not understand emotional responses to behavior that they believe can be surmounted with logic. Often the very logical view the emotional as weak or annoying and the very emotional view the logical as heartless and boring. If you do live too far on one side, it will be a lot harder for you to interact with people on the other side, but it is vitally important that you do so in order to get along with people.

Also important is that some people aren’t good at determining where they are on the spectrum. Plenty of people who claim to be solely logic-driven are actually heavily, if not primarily, driven by emotion. This flaw has a tendency to fall along gender lines as men are socialized to not be emotional, although they are actually socialized to show only emotions like anger. Therefore, men who do show socially acceptable male emotions view themselves as completely logic driven even though they are not. People of all genders who acknowledge a tendency towards emotion are usually more accurate in their assessment, but many are more than capable of logic-based responses. It just takes some effort and cultivation that people usually don’t wish to put in to develop logical responses.

Resilience:

The most resilient people are always the ones who have had to face the most in terms of tragedies. Early exposure to tragedy is often the most beneficial as children are more malleable and resilient and can then carry that resilience into adulthood. A person who is happy, or at least contented, either has suffered tremendously and managed to work through it or hasn’t suffered at all. When someone who hasn’t suffered is then faced with tragedy later in life they will have one of two responses. Either they will have built up enough good faith from a life of ease that they will be able to deal with the tragedy with positivity, or they will become completely disillusioned and fall apart. The latter is usually the more common.

It is also worth noting that early exposure to tragedy, while beneficial for many, can also fully break someone before they have had a chance to thrive. This is why the type of tragedy and the after effects can be very important. Facing the death of a loved one is usually the kind of positive tragedy that builds resilience as it teaches children that good things don’t always last and that you have to value people in your life. If that loved one was a primary caregiver, however, this can lead to negative after effects as a result of the death. Something like a sexual assault is the kind of negative tragedy that can have negative effects on future relationships. A lesson may be learned, but it is a lesson that should not be taught to a child and it should never be taught in that way.

Money & Happiness:

The idea that money can’t buy happiness is wrong. Money can buy happiness. The fallacy is in thinking you’ll know how to use it. Money can buy you a lot of material possessions, which is how most people would use a surplus of money if acquired, but material possessions are not something that can bring anyone lasting happiness. What brings people lasting happiness is connection with others and the meeting of basic needs, things that money can make easier to accomplish.

What money can buy are healthcare for you and the people you love so they you can better enjoy life. It can buy quality time spent with people you love. It can buy shelter and food so you never have to worry about how to acquire those things. It can buy supplies needed to fulfill hobbies that bring you joy. It can buy experiences that you could not have without the time or money to have them.

Money can buy happiness, but wealth cannot.

Rumors:

            If you find out that there is a rumor going around about you that is true, you have no reason to be upset about the rumor unless you are ashamed of that truth. If you live your life without shame, these rumors will never affect you.

            If you find out that there is a rumor going around about you that is untrue, you have no reason to be upset about the rumor as it is false. A false rumor can usually be proven false. The only situation you have to fear is a false rumor that cannot be proven false.

Tom’s People:

·         Engineers: Those who create and control and construct.

·         Data Analysts: Those who investigate and study and display information found.

·         Philosophers: Those who question and think and discuss.

·         Storytellers: Those who experience and engage and entertain.

There is overlap in these types.

A storyteller is an engineer in the way they take experiences and construct them into a story. A philosopher might engineer a theory. A data analyst may engineer a display of their findings.

When a data analyst meditates on people, they are looking at quantifiable information they may express in words or numbers. When a philosopher meditates on people they do so qualitatively but in the abstract. When a storyteller meditates on people, they do so qualitatively but in the concrete.

Engineers have a philosophy of construction. Data analysts have a philosophy they wish to prove. Storytellers impart their life philosophy with every story they tell.

Why You Don't Have Many Friends

There are three basic reasons why someone may not have a lot of friends. When I say not a lot of friends I do mean only about 1-4 people who they hold close outside of or including family. These are probably not the only reasons but they are the primary ones.

1. You actively chose not to have many friends.

Not having a lot of friends is by no means a red flag if someone is choosing to keep their friend group small. There are a lot of advantages to having only a few friends, particularly if you are a person who doesn’t like to socialize much. For some it’s easier to only have a few friends and for some it’s simply that they don’t enjoy the company of very many people so they have found the few people they like to spend time with.

2. You are not good at maintaining friendships.

As stated, having friends is truthfully a lot of work and there are some people who want to have friends but aren’t putting in the effort to keep up with friends and make plans with them. There are many reasons someone could be like this. Some people are very busy and then they feel it has been too long to try to reconnect in times when they can. Some people think they are not worth being friends with and decide that it’s up to the other person to keep the friendship going because that will show they actually want to bother with you. Some people have some sort of mental or physical disability which might keep them from keeping friendships alive. This is truly the most common reason.

3. You use friends for a functional purpose.

Most people who lack friends for this reason are the most oblivious as to why they don’t have friends. Unlike the people in group two who tend towards the self-deprecating side, people in this group have a tendency to externally think highly of themselves but internally have a lot of self disgust. People in this category have a tendency to rely on friends heavily for support but don’t reciprocate that support when the friend is in need, leading to a severing of ties. This category could be simplified as “people who aren’t good friends.”