I tried to figure out what art is, where it comes from and how to find it, experience it and create it, to make my own philosophy of art. Not just fine art, and also not just the drawing arts, but rather the feeling of experiencing something intrinsically interesting no matter which field or in which form it comes. It can even be completely outside the fields of art & entertainment or not in the form of an intentional artwork made by a human at all. It became this, enjoy!
Introduction
Why figure out what art is? It's less about defining the boundaries of a word
1, and more about figuring out what moments in life are actually worthwile and interesting. If I think about the highest moments in the world and our lives I often arrive at art, so if art is just another word for the highest moments in existence, figuring out what art is means figuring out what the highest moments of our lives have in common, and where they come from.
The current idea (and probably previous ideas as well) of what differs art from non-art, of which types of things can be included in art, and of fine art vs non-fine art, excludes way too many interesting things and wrongly categorizes things based on old ideals, business and status. And I believe art is too important to not take more seriously than this. If we can learn what art is by honest investigation instead of just using the same ideas we've been taught by others - if we have more knowledge behind what we do - we won't deceive ourselves or be deceived by the general public's opinion of what's great, and can come closer to actually knowing what's great. If we know enough about what art is, where it comes from and how it's made, we can get better at both experiencing art, finding new interesting art and creating more and better art ourselves.
What is art?
Of all the things you can do, some of them you do as a means to some other end - like how healthcare is built for saving people's lives and not for us to just enjoy and contemplate the healthcare institutions themselves - and others you do for their own sake, like how you can watch a truly great art piece or a beautiful sunset and feel that you've arrived at the final destination, where there's no need for the artwork or sunset to give you anything else than simply the experience of them. Some things in the world make you stop and contemplate and just take in the moment, and you find it interesting for no other reason than the fact that you can't resist being interested in it.
You could call these intrinsically worthwile moments "art", but many other things than those in the traditional art fields can create these moments - it can be an incredible football goal, a brilliant idea or just seeing how someone lives their life in a truly unique way. The word "art" will also bring in lots of things that to me aren't great art just because they're traditionally called art. Lots of bad art, and simple mainstream entertainment without significant artistic value, could be called art by the traditional definition. John Dewey used the word "aesthetic experience" to separate such intrinsically interesting moments from products used to transfer these moments. To him aesthetic experiences are everywhere and not only in art, and art is more of an attempt to create a product of these experiences, transfering aesthetic experiences to other people. This is not only to make aesthetic experiences span various fields and a larger range of our lives, but also to point out that experiences are the main part of art, not objects. He didn't call them intrinsically interesting moments, but his separation of aesthetic experience from art products is pretty much what I'm going for here.
2 But after all, I still think art is the best word for all these types of intrinsically worthwile moments, regardless of which field we're talking about. It's just a good word.
We all know when we experience an artistic moment like this, when something is just interesting and inspiring, and also often unexplainable and confusing. Great aesthetic experiences aren't necessarily beautiful in the traditional sense, ugly art can be interesting too, but they're definitely always interesting. Art is more close to the feeling of being unstoppably interested towards something, than it is close to the feeling of visually pleasing proportions (or to naturally harmonious color combinations, musical notes sounding good together, perfect coordination of dancers, flawless execution of anything, etc). It's more like a confusion that resonates with you, than something perfect. High effort seems to often be a part of great art, but being impressed by skill or effort isn't the one true definition of art either. It's also not about hedonic pleasure at all, it's something that makes you more fulfilled deep in the soul and not just on your surface-level needs. Things can be entertaining, funny and thrilling, but these aren't necessarily what we're looking for here either. Great art also differs from great design, where design is about making reasonable choices and art is almost the opposite. Experiencing great art is like stumbling upon an interesting question and trying to find an answer, realizing that there is no answer, and still wanting to answer it more and not less because of this, to speak in metaphors. Art is when you don't have a further reason for feeling interested in something other than just being interested it.
Poetic descriptions aside, one thing great art ironically enough seem to have in common is that they're all different. Art could in a way be seen as a loose phrase for the various diverse human experiences where we have to handle things that are new and different in a meaningful way. "Unique" would be a close-to-home word to use to describe great art, but many things can be unique without being meaningful or interesting. "Irreplaceable" is more what I'm trying to convey here. Great art seems to come from doing something that no one else can do. And not just by coming up with a completely random long sequence of numbers that out of pure statistics could not be done by anyone else, but when it actually requires a certain effort and/or a unique point of view that no one else than you has in them. Then it's new and different in a meaningful way. I think this is why great art is often seen as honest, genuine, unique, and feels like it tells some truth about the world, either by literally telling a truth or by giving you some kind of intuitive feeling of truth. Because that's what comes out of doing what only you can do and no one else can do, that's an honest, unique and true way to live. You kind of have to be true to yourself, in some way, to make truly great art.
3
I think doing what only you can do and no one else can do can either come in the form of effort, or in the form of your unique point of view, or both. You don't need both to create great art - many of the truly great artworks probably took huge amounts of effort to make, like the Sistine Chapel, but some of the greatest songs were probably written in under an hour. In those cases, effort from past times probably poured through in that moment, but sometimes you also just have something unique in you from birth that lets you see things differently and create a song that is really unique and therefore resonates with lots of people. Or you've by chance ended up in unique situations that you can tell about. We get that intrinsical interest from people doing something no one else can do. That's why we're eternally fascinated by things like Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings and inventions, unique life stories, the pyramids, the great wall of China, Einstein's field equations and Wayne Gretzky's hockey goals (at least I am).
So that's what I think the best art is. You can define it either by that specific feeling of "disinterested" interest I tried to describe, or by how someone did something no one else can do and made it into a work. Almost annoyingly simple and familiar as a definition and "recipe", but it excludes a lot of descriptions we could have used, and that's what lets us focus on the right things.
Creating great art
I do think there is a way to make better art, but there is no step-to-step guide. Since the whole point of art is to bring something irreplacable to the world, something only you can do, I obviously can't tell you how to do that. You can study others who have created irreplaceable things, but the best way to honour your heroes is to realize you won't ever be able to make what they made, and instead do your own thing, just like they did. You probably don't even know exactly what you do when you do that thing you do that no one else can do. Maybe you can explain parts of it but not all of them. Being too conscious about what you do will probably damage more than help great artists anyway. But I do think it helps to know what art really is, so you can recognize when you stray too far away from it and start becoming commercial, superficial, pandering, self-conscious or anxious. If you know exactly what is great art and not, you can more easily redirect back to where you should be. I made an attempt at collecting common traps when doing creative works that stand in the way of the actual creative work in my post
"Meditations for creating things", which is somewhat outdated but may still hold up decently.
But you can get better at tapping into those things that only you can do. You can either do more than everyone else, or do things differently than everyone else. There are definitely ways to do impressive things, great art can't always be entirely about chance and intuition, I don't think you should
only sit around and wait for inspiration. There are methods for finding what you can do much of and do greatly, so with all the talk about the "soft" values of art, which are undoubtedly a big part of what makes art special compared to the more logical fields, you can with discipline, effort, planning and habit also approach great art.
Here is my idea on how to do things in general, which could be helpful for this (or maybe it's just helpful for me).
Doing things differently can come from your unique point of view: What you're born with, what you've been through in life, where you are in time and culture right now, etc. The total that is you, and not just the parts that feel the most "unique" to you, but also all the normal things, all the boring things, all the things you didn't want to do, all the things you've been through where you haven't felt like the "true you" - those are all also part of your unique perspective. I suspect that
especially those things you don't think of as interesting about yourself could be those that are actually the most interesting. Those things that don't seem to give you any particular advantage over other people, those things that don't fit any specific purpose in society, those things that feel pointless if you try to explain them rationally. Those parts of you are probably where you try the least to be like everyone else. While those times when you try to be interesting will ironically make you more like others, less unique and less interesting, because you will fill your head with ideas about how to be and how not to be and won't be natural.
So far I've talked about those things we can actually theorize about at all. But sometimes that irreplaceable thing that only you can do and no one else can do, is more mysterious and seems to come from some unknown place. We could call it intuition, creativity, timing, luck, chance, the unconscious, the universe, the spiritual realm, etc. You can't rationally create these ideas by instruction, you can only get better at recognizing these ideas and knowing which ones are worth to listen to and which ones to filter out. How do you "tap into" this intiutive source of ideas? This question is probably both too big and too small to give a concrete answer to, but books like for example Rick Rubin's "The Creative Act" at least try to explain how to better be in tune with that source. One thing that 100% blocks that creative source is constantly being occupied with things, like working all the time and not taking breaks to let thoughts flow naturally in the mind. So there's at least one thing you can stop doing to be in a better place for those ideas to arrive.
Another thing you could look for when you create art is that feeling you get when you experience great art. The feeling of experiencing a great idea put out by someone else is often the same as the feeling of getting a great idea in your own head. I don't know if they're exactly the same thing, but the concept of "inspiration" at least points in this direction. Especially if you're a person who gets inspired to create by watching your favorite artists' works. This is another case for really understanding which moments, experiences and works are truly worthwile and interesting, so you know what to look for both in your own creative act and in others' art.
Art... and entertainment?
"Art" and "entertainment" are two words often used to describe two completely separated worlds, mostly defined by the motives behind the works - art is made for its own sake, entertainment is made to please an audience (I even described it like this
earlier). But this focuses too much on social status and too little on actual quality. It also focuses too much on the intention behind a work. Someone may intend to create entertainment but the audience ends up seeing something artistic in it, and someone may intend to create great art but end up creating something non-original and familiar.
In my eyes, art is that which is original. It can't be created by instruction - it's what comes from doing what only you can do, from your unique point of view and effort. While entertainment is what's recognizable and familiar, and therefore
can be created per instruction. Art and entertainment aren't two different kinds of things, they're different intensites along the same scale of originality. The more original something is the closer it is to art, and the less original the more it belongs in the term "entertainment". The reason we often treat entertainment as "that which aims to please and amuse" is because we're often pleased and amused by familiar things (if we treat "familiar" as a very broad term) and original, irreplaceable and unique works are the works we're interested in for their own sake. If something is created per instruction, by copying, with intent of amusing simple emotions, it will be more familiar and less original, and people will find it entertaining but not disinterested as art is. If something on the other hand is created from intution, with high effort and with a unique point of view, with intent of creating something for the sake of itself and not to fill a specific purpose, it will be more original and uncopyable, and people will find it interesting for the sake of itself and not just amusing as entertainment is.
And all unique works of art consist of familiar parts, more or less. A song with artistic value may consist of a familiar song structure, familiar chords and a familiar theme, but the way they're combined is original and unique. It is obviously entertainment, but entertainment made artistic. Art is made of entertainment. This is why it's unhelpful to divide art and entertainment into two distinctly separated fields. Art appears in the entertainment world, because art is made of entertainment. Entertainment appears in the art world, because... art is made of entertainment. If we recognized this we could find more great art without prejudice, and focus on actual quality instead of status markers as "fine art" and even just "art".
So while I'm saying that art is what's actually worthwile, and entertainment is not, we should still treat entertainment as central to experiencing, finding and creating art, because art is made of entertainment (entertainment doesn't always necessarily have artistic quality, though...).
Experiencing and finding great art
With a theory of art like this we can more easily find great art and filter out worse art. And while I don't think we should look only for the most purely artsy art that isn't contaminated with lower forms of entertainment and commerce (great art is often hidden among these), I think we should watch out for things that don't have any art in them at all. With enough knowledge about what art is and isn't, you'd easily see that a really bad sitcom has no art in it, but a decent sitcom may have some in it. I would recommend the chapter "Error" in Paul Graham's
"How Art Can Be Good" for some ideas on how to learn to see through "tricks" of art and experience it more honestly, he pretty much put to words what I've been thinking about this but didn't have the words for. You can become better at experiencing art just like you can get better at creating it.
Not just honest about that YOU like it and no one else. But also honest about what type of feeling. Is this just comfortable and nice, or is it truly interesting and beautiful? The feeling of great art is what I've tried to describe in this post, and I can just hope that you may find a better diet, with more healthy and tasty food. Where trash food may have its place on a corner but as long as you recognize it's not the best food, the actually good food is the best. Honesty is hard but will get easier as you grow older.
It's not a hard rule, but the best art often doesn't feel good the first time, and then gets better as you slowly understand it. The best art lets you see the world in a new way and new things aren't comfortable. Let some time pass and quality will prove itself. Play all songs on an album, don't just go back to your favorites every time. Let things continue playing, take the opportunity while you're there. If you feel nothing, it's often because it doesn't have anything interesting to offer. Feeling something is a better pointer, but what's interesting is that feeling slight negativity and repell is actually an even better sign than feeling positively when experiencing something new. An immediate positive reaction often means you recognize it and already know it's good and why, which is a sign not of originality but of familiarity. So going against your gut isn't just something you do to get new perspectives, it's also something you want from art, that friction is a main ingredient of art.
Another crucial part of experiencing great art is actually finding new things that you didn't know you liked. Check out many things so you see what the world has in it, smaller chance that you'll miss greatness, bigger chance you'll find it and actually learn what it is. All good things are new unkown things, that you probably didn't think you would like, in the beginning. If you're decently interested in some type of art you'll probably check out what's popular, stick with what you like, and maybe find some new stuff adjacent to the things you already like. You'll travel a bit away from your previous taste but not very fast or very far. This is probably better than just liking what's on social media, on TV and on the radio, and than being closed toward new things at all.
4
With all the people in the world having different opinions and taste, can we even take recommendations from others? If so, who? To talk about that we first have to take on the eternal question: Is art subjective or objective? I believe art is a subjective experience, and that artistic quality isn't an actual thing that literally/physically exists inside an artwork. The quality of art is in your own experience of it, and both you and the work are two important ingredients in the artistic experience. The experience of art will always be combined with your own perception of it, and other contextual circumstances like life experience, what you know about the artwork and its creation, what you know about other things, how it fits in your current life, etc. In a way you as a viewer does a big part of the job when experiencing art (especially so if we're talking about interactive artforms such as video games, performance art or standup comedy).
Just because art is a subjective experience doesn't mean "anything can be art" and that we can decide whenever something is great art. Artistic quality is subjective, but it's not arbitrary. I believe the feeling of experiencing artistic excellence is a real feeling that can't be faked. It's subjective and doesn't arise at the exact same moments for all people, but it is an absolute feeling you can't override with opinion. Like how we all know the feeling of hunger and can talk about it, and if you'd say you feel hunger when you don't you would 100% be lying - the same goes for the feeling of art. It is a real feeling, and you're probably more or less good at recognizing it.
Okay, but even if the feeling is absolute, it can appear in people at different times, which makes people like different things. Yes, great individuality exists, but great generality also exists. Your taste and opinion on the same work can vary largely on different days, and the taste among people in the world can be very close and similar for one work despite all these people being different in so many way person-wise. It gets evened out on large scale. Even if art is a subjective experience, many people like the same thing. Maybe because the best art touches something deeply human and timeless, and not just something specific in one person, or it's something with the sheer power of effort and uniqueness put into a great piece of art that makes it irresistible to humans. There's at least no meaning in treating art like something you can't judge at all, that would only be reasonable if all people had their completely unique taste, if everyone liked one artwork each only. But that's not the case, great art strikes similar emotions in many people at the same time, for a reason.
This statistical fact lets us treat those works as (almost) ojectively great. Not 100% objective, but enough to treat them as such. An artwork being talked about for hundreds of years could, believe it or not, mean something and isn't something we should automatically dismiss just because our own taste doesn't understand that work right now. The main practical reason for treating art as having objective quality is because it can lead us to experiencing new art with a higher probability of it being good to ourselves too. If many people like something (for the correct reasons) chances are we will too.
But we have to separate a work being appreciated honestly from it just being famous. Many people can still be wrong - many people saying they like something doesn't necessarily mean they do, and them thinking that they like it doesn't mean they necessarily do either. People who've never experienced a work or experience that gives them that feeling of great art won't know what feeling that is. So they probably think hedonistic pleasure or simple recognition of a work means it's good, and that's what they think quality is. Those people may see "art" as a just a synonym to "weird" and believe that the purpose of art is to confuse people and no to make them feel great things. So we can't trust literally what people are saying about art and works in general.
So if the main reason for judging art objectively is to give ourselves and others bigger chance to finding things they themselves like (because statistically people like the same things), and if this "objective" quality comes from the statistical sum of how a work actually evokes this absolute feeling of artistic quality in people, and if people may
say they feel that feeling while they actually don't feel it (in case of being inexperienced with feelings and art in general), we have to see through what they say and dissect their descriptions. To see if they feel the ”correct” feeling, however harsh that sounds. When they talk about a work they like, do they talk about how famous it is, or do they get lost in describing it? Do they describe the feeling they get as mainly pleasant and recognizable, or as interesting? The whole theory and description I've laid out in this text should be helpful here.
But just like when it comes to creating art, having a system for understanding what art is good and not feels like it goes against the spiritual and non-analyzable nature of art. Of all the methods you could use, it's hard to say which one is better or worse. Being too specific would leave out some good methods I haven't thought of, so I'll refrain from doing so. I for example am very interested in finding systems for good recommendations, like finding blogs who often give tips about other good blogs, to give many new recommendations but with some type of quality filter, more focused towards actual artistic quality and not just audience engagement as in current Tiktok:ified social media. But this still depends on some notion of what is a good filter, and truly interesting changes happen when you check out something you have no reason at all for checking out.
So the only thing I can fully recommend is doing what you don't want to do, every now and then. When opportunity arises to check out something you actually wouldn't check out usually, take that opportunity and do what feels wrong. You don't even have to look for these opportunities, because they always appear occasionally no matter what you do. When someone you know and whose art taste you trust tells you about something that sounds really bad, give it the benefit of a doubt and see if you'll change. If something sounds really good you probably wouldn't need me to tell you to check it because you'd do it anyway, that's why I'm mentioning this specifically. It may even be someone who's taste you don't trust at all. It may be someone you hate, your mortal enemy and nemesis in life. A surprisingly effective way to find new interesting things has to me been when searching for something and checking out other things with a similar name. Like, why should I like another song just because it has the same name as a song I already like? Because great things appear when you check out completely new things, and this is almost as random as something can be, while still feeling like you're checking out something familiar and have a thought behind it. It's weird enough to work.
That's it. That's the whole post. This is my current best attempt at explaining art, but remember that all the "normal" posts on kbrecordzz.com where I just talk about art I like without ever reaching a conclusion are probably even better descriptions of what art is. Because this post is just a path to art, and what's actually interesting is always the art itself. And I'm still not sure about the word "art". Even if I mention multiple times that art isn't just paintings and sculptures in museums and galleries but is about all types of intrinsically interesting and worthwile experiences, I'm still afraid that's what people think when they see the word "art". Maybe "art & entertainment" is a good phrase after all.
Footnotes:
Want to see all the weird stuff that's too dangerous for this public site?
Subscribe to Golden emails
by 
