Define art

If there's one elusive subject, it's art. This abstract noun - with sometimes even abstract realizations, yuk - is one that is quite hard to define.

Let's see what 'Van Dale' has to say:
"The creative and original expression or exposition of thoughts or feelings in an often touching or shocking fashion." (fast translation, don't nag!)

I guess you could state the bottom line is that emotion drives art. This brings me to the difference between art and skill, or technique if you will. Gallons of craftmanship can't compensate a lack of emotional basis if what Van Dale says is truth. But can one really say a, for instance, architect that designs this incredible, beautiful and functional building isn't an artist? Does it depend on whether or not he attempted to put his 'creativity' (equally elusive term) or 'personality' in his oeuvre?

And what about advertising? Can this be called an art? The big difference with what most would call art is the fact that, if you play the game by the rules, advertising should be free of personal interpretation. Therefore advertising can never be art. It's designed for the receiver, not for the sender.

Obviously art has nothing to do with beauty. I think we'll all agree that there are a great deal of monstrosities in musea all over the world.

My question results from some pondering I did. It has everything to do with my future studies. Talking about school, my esthetics teacher started his lessons (6th year of high school if I'm not mistaking) with this exact question: 'what is the definition of art?'. The answer he cherished as his own was 'Whatever was made with the intention of being art'...

Well, dear reader(s), from this moment on, this blog is a work of art :-) It meets all criteria:
- I'm making an effort to express myself towards the world.
- I make it for myself in the first place, because let's be honest, I'm no Dan Brown.
- My intention is to write it in a creative manner (whether or not I succeed in doing this is not an issue right now)
- Starting from the paragraph above, it was even ment to be art.

So there you go... :-) Or not.

Let's summarize: emotion. So, no reason at all? If something is expressive, but well-thought-through at the same time, can it be art too? Or can something only be labeled art if it's a product of some instinctive, spontanious urge to create?

If art and creativity are things that come from the inside, what about 'art class'? Can one 'learn' to be creative? Can effort replace talent? Of course, all works of art required some level of effort to be made. But, imagine someone with a creativity level that approaches freezing point, if that person practises his or her ass off, can s/he be an artist as well?

This question popped up while I was thinking about a very particular type of expression: music. I personally admire people that can play a musical instrument wonderfully more than for instance amazing singers. The reason I came up with, is that a voice is something you are blessed or cursed with by mother nature. It takes practice to work it, but still. With instruments, everyone starts at zero!

Talent will of course facilitate the learning process and cause you to take it all in a lot quicker. Nevertheless I believe that it takes more work to play e.g. the piano very well, than learning to control your fabulous voice...

The thing is, if you don't have a great voice by nature, most won't keep working it anyway because they're not stimulated. Learning to play an instrument usually comes from an internal yearning that has nothing to do with your degree of talent. I think therefore people are inclined to put more effort into mastering brass, wood or other aids than their own vocal chords.

Can someone with no talent at all be taught to make music? Or art? Or does every form of it require at least a certain minimum of giftedness (is that a word?)

So many questions, so little answers... Next time on this blog, the meaning of life :-p