
· Is put within the context of art.
· Is an intended expression.
· Relays information in a subjective way. (The expression is at least defined and isolated)
· Has an impact on the recipient.
These few sentences exclude a lot of artistic expressions, which many would take to be merely bad art. But I’d argue that for art to… emerge one needs two subjects - the artist and the recipient. Both of these must define the object in question as art for it to be art.
If the creator (a designer in this case) does not define his new chair as art, but the end user does, we would normally attribute the normative power to the creator. He has made it, so he gets to define its use. If however the creator deems it to be art, but the recipient refutes that statement, then the artist may well be correct in his own mind (in that he is both creator and recipient himself), but the artistic statement has no impact on the recipient, so to say that it is art gives no meaning.
Phuh. This was very condensed, but condensed is fun. So, looking at the four points above in succession, we can give yet another example of what art may be. A good context is an art gallery. We are looking at a figurative painting laden with symbols. For something to be a symbol, it has to be an intentional expression (even if that expressed is chaos). The symbols bear meaning, and those meanings are related by a subject to a subject. And the painting can give more or less meaning - have greater and lesser impact on the recipient.
The example I have given above is probably only one of many ways to distinguish what is art from what isn’t. But it is a good tool when deciding art from good design and so on. This view is one of the reasons why I like jazz music so much. The jazz musicians often try to find something to express, and then use time in their music dealing with this. They relay that feeling in a very direct manner, something I find fascinating and increadibly valuable.
Emil D.