The Meaning of Art

During Christmas vacation I saw in New York a movie which tried to encourage art studies by saying that everybody is an artist. That was provided in that film simply by the assertion that plowing and planting, or sewing and mending, are—art.

The same film made me aware of the fact that the term art as we understand it today was not existing in English until the second half of the last century. Before that time it meant, as it partly does today, mainly skill, technical ability. That is the reason why we call for instance, acrobats of the circus—artists, and we speak even of the art of war.

Today there is a tendency to confine the term art only to the so-called fine arts i.e. painting and sculpture. In this understanding the applied arts are of second rate, handicraft is still less, and industry, so to speak is on the other side of the tracks.

As I see it, art today means more than technical ability or workmanship. Art has become a word for something more spiritual. So I understand under art, besides the so-called fine arts, also music, acting, dancing, writing; also photography and dressmaking, landscaping. I believe that handicraft, as well as industry, can produce art.

As a process, art includes all activities and efforts which express human mentality, either of the individual or of a group, through form—therefore perceivable through our senses. Art as a result, as a work of art, embraces man-made forms which incarnate and reveal—consciously or unconsciously—human emotions, for the purpose of reproducing the same or similar emotions in the spectator or listener.

Coming back to the before-mentioned movie, I do not believe that everybody is an artist, and I cannot believe that for instance, mending usually is done for the purpose of expressing or arousing of feelings. But I do believe that everyone has artistic tendencies, if not abilities, and everyone—at least to a certain extent—everyone appreciates form qualities, such as: color, shape, space, movement, rhythm, proportion.

You see, I had to tell you already in the beginning my personal opinions, because there is no objective interpretation of what is art. There are no definite rules or systems by which to evaluate art, or, to distinguish between art and non-art. And that, in spite of many aesthetical theories, in spite of many definitions on art.

That there is no comprehensive explanation of art everybody could agree with, is caused by the real nature of art. Because art is concerned with something that cannot be explained by words or literal description (figures, statistics). The very fact that there is something in life independent of, and unattainable by, thinking and speaking and therefore inexpressible in words, is the reason why we whistle and sing and gesticulate and dance; why we smile or make a jump for instance when we are happy.

The simple fact that we live more on feelings than on logical reasons makes art such an important factor in life, because art is a demonstration of human life. And just as the question “What is Life?” is as interesting as troublesome, the same with the question "What is Art?". In order to say it very simply, our feelings and emotions are the reason why we have music and painting, dancing and architecture, and all the others arts, why we have changing styles and fashions.

When I say red we can be sure that, if here are hundreds of people, we have hundreds of different reds in our minds. Even if I try to describe a certain red, let's say a red we all see everywhere and every day many times, let's say the red of the Coca Cola signs. I still believe we see different reds. Only the presentation of that particular red can unify our seeing. (But our emotional reactions will remain different.) I gave you this example, in order to demonstrate only one experience unattainable by verbal explanation.

When I say ten cents, then I expect that we all see in our imagination that round metal piece, showing on one side a profile of an energetic lady called Liberty; on the other side some war tools or war symbols circumscribed by “The United States of America”. Our thoughts may go on and state: from silver, a coin, a dime, or good for two Coca Colas. This kind of reaction we call, psychologically speaking, association.

When I say, “Berea College,” nothing more, only Berea College, and then pause, my words have stopped but our minds don't stop. They go on and you may think, “That's here, that's our college, in Kentucky, has 2000 students,” and so on. There we have again reactions which are associations.

But there is also another kind of reaction coming more from our heart or soul, than from our brain. Imagine your vacations are soon over; you are soon going back to school. Many of you will say, “Fine, (at least I hope so) glad to see my friends again or maybe even the teachers.” You feel happy, proud, or, also possible, you are afraid. Such reactions are emotions.

One more example: When I say Black Mountain College, of which you know probably less than of Berea College, that is where our knowledge is limited, our reactions are inclined more to the emotional side. You may think: ? or: Such a small one! Only seventy students! Progressive! Two question marks.

These few examples in order to clarify my statement, that art is concerned with emotions; and to indicate that art does not exist for knowledge or information, but for demonstration and experience of emotional approaches, emotional relationship.

When I said before that the insufficiency of words is one reason for the existence of art, then I should not forget a special type of words, which doesn't have any descriptive content, which doesn't remind us of anything in the world of nature or idea. But produce, instead of an image, just as music does, which produces only emotional reactions, —feelings.

For instance: Trallala Trallala

Hey nonny Hey nonny

Some German refrains:

Heididel Heididel Heidideldidum

Or Juchheissa Juchheissa Juchherassassa

Contemporary American: Hotchacha or Boob boop a doop

You see—hear—your reactions are obvious.

Now we should remember that also nature causes emotions in us. Looking at a sunset or the starry sky makes us breathe differently. We feel it pleasant to see a good face, a well-proportioned figure, and are enthusiastic about flowers and butterflies, about great plastic clouds or sun reflections on water and snow. A colorful autumn landscape makes us gay; a gray day sentimental. Our reactions in such situations are emotional participations in demonstrations of life by nature.

Here the question arises: What is the difference between emotions caused by nature and emotions caused by art? A bird's song is a combination of tones just as music is, but we don't consider birds' songs as music. Therefore not as art. Both kinds of tone combinations are demonstrations of life, but music expresses human life and there is the difference. Art comes from the human soul and speaks to human souls. Art fulfills spiritual demands through spiritual messages.

I believe we will agree that the East pinnacle looked in the fall of 1840 just the same or almost the same as it will look in the fall of 1940. But a landscape of the East pinnacle painted in 1940 will definitely differ from a landscape of the same view painted a hundred years ago. That tells us again that an artist's report (in this case a landscape) has a message, and this message is related to the artist's mentality and the mentality of his time.

From these two comparisons (a) between bird's song and music and (b) between two landscapes of the same view but of different periods, let us conclude that not nature is the first concern of art, but the human spirit. To art, Nature is only a point of departure.

That means, in other words, art is revelation instead of information. Expression instead of description. Creation instead of imitation or repetition. Good acting as an art goes behind the play and is more than interpretation and mimicry.

If there is a parallel between art and nature, namely in the fact that both nature and art demonstrate life, then the artist is not a competitor of nature but of the creator—as the creator's image; therefore his task is not to imitate the results of nature but the process of nature. That is to create life, namely, in form organisms. Form means here again, color, shape, space, etc.

That indicates that not every painter, sculptor or actor is an artist, because many of them are only imitators of the results of nature, believing for instance that the more “natural” their work looks, the more artistic it is. Their mistake is in believing that in art the factual record comes before the human confession.

I have seen, and I hope you too have seen, good dresses and good chairs which tell us more about the human soul than many paintings do. There are also interiors, even though done by housewives, that are better arranged and have more meaning than others done by interior decorators. In my opinion, a good dressmaker, or milliner, is a better artist than a mediocre sculptor. And I believe there are more laymen with an artistic feeling than there are artistic artists.

In order to explain what artistic feeling or artistic seeing is, let me start with a negative statement. To see grass only as an edible vegetable, that does every cow. (Repeat). But as soon as we see grass for instance as a carpet or as a fur, as an assemblage or as a forest (suppose we have our eyes deep enough in it); or when we see grass as a color or as many or changing colors with a certain psychic effect; or as a plastic or tactile appearance, or as a multiplicated movement:

There enters the human being who naturally wants to be creative—there comes the flexible and productive mind that wants to do something with the world around it. Here comes the poet, the artist, the scientist or philosopher. I like to believe that every human being is inclined to develop as one or the other kind of these species of homo sapiens.

I hope that makes more clear that not external recognition is the purpose of art, but to enjoy and to respect form qualities which reveal our emotional participation in life. As long as we hear single tones or only many tones, we don't hear music at all. Music is in between the tones; we hear music if we feel the relationship of the tones. Or—as long as we hear only words in a poem, so long we don't get its poetry. The art of a poem is between, behind or above or, despite of, words. How the words or tones are chosen and how they are put together; how a color is used and related to others; how the figures are placed in a composition (no matter if it be on the stage or in a painting) is decisive in art.

Art is concerned with the HOW, not with the WHAT; not with literal content, but its performance of the content. The performance—how it is done—that is the content of Art. Art is concerned with quality and not quantity.

Here I should take the opportunity to clear up a prejudice most disturbing today in any approach to or any appreciation of art. A misleading belief promoted mainly by some art dealers and also art concessionists, that a portrait has more value than a landscape, a madonna more than a still life, an oil painting more than a woodcut, a picture with a famous name superior to one by an unknown artist, that old paintings are of higher value than contemporary ones.

No and again NO. A folksong can be much greater art than an opera and very often is. A small drawing can be more valuable than a monumental mural, or an imitation of a Gothic Cathedral. It is an error to believe that necessarily a hand woven material has more artistic value than a machine woven one.

Does it increase your appreciation of a rose if you know its name, origin, price or rareness? Marble is not always more beautiful than bricks; that depends upon application and treatment, and never upon historical dates or anecdotes. The visionary strength, the genuineness of expression, the intensity of emotional effect, are what count.

In other words, what counts is: How much the artist was engaged in his conception; how he treated his medium for his expression and how intensively he speaks to us. Again, in Art, the HOW is decisive, not the WHAT. With this statement we arrive at another differentiation, namely between art and science. But since our time is limited, and I should save some time for showing a few reproductions of works of art, I have to be very brief even though this theme could give material enough for a whole philosophy.

Both science and art are spiritual approaches to life, but their tendencies are different and often opposite. As to the phenomena of life Art is primarily concerned with the existence of those phenomena, science with the reasons for their existence. Therefore art is apt to express, science to discover.

The method of science is mainly deduction, of art mainly induction. Art is subjective and likes to demonstrate; science is more objective and likes to explain. Art intends to believe and prefers synthesis; science wants to know and must analyze. These of course are very rough statements, and both art and science overlap each other. If I should express the difference only with punctuation signs, then I believe, that after the word LIFE art would put an exclamation mark and science a question mark.

Art has no purpose at all to do what I am trying to do here now, namely to develop a theory, but I think I need this theorizing as a preparation for experiencing or enjoying art. I say purposely experiencing and enjoying instead of understanding of art, because art does not ask for an understanding in the usual intellectual sense.

Do we understand a rose, when we admire it, or gold, or a precious stone? What about understanding of charm? We can only admire charm. If somebody is a connoisseur of wine, that means he has taste, that is, a feeling for wine; that is the point. Contact with art is something like love. There may be sometimes reason for love but real love doesn't need reasons.

The practical question now is how to develop a taste or feeling for art. If somebody says: I don't hear any music, that is no proof that there is no music. It may prove that he has no ear for music. The same with art. The consequence: He does not have to be pro or con.

Drinking wine for the first time is no reason to say: That is good wine, no matter if you like it or not. To have a so-called understanding of wine needs tasting many wines instead of only drinking many wines. The same with art, because evaluation arises from comparison.

In order to understand art we have to see it, and to see it again, have to compare similar and different works of art and find the necessity for their existence in their form problems.

Therefore the best way to study art is to practice art. That gives us at least respect for real art (pictures!).

In order to make a resumé, the meaning of art is: Learn to see and to feel life; that is, cultivate imagination; because there are still marvels in the world; because life is a mystery and always will be. But be aware of it. Therefore art means: You have to believe to have faith, that is cultivate vision.

Through works of art we are permanently reminded to be balanced; within ourselves and with others to have respect for proportion, that is to keep relationship. It teaches us to be disciplined and selective between quantity and quality. Art teaches the educational world.

It is to be too poor, to collect only knowledge, and too, that economy is not a matter of statistics, but a sufficient proportion between effort and effect.

To say it on a higher level: Art is a credo in the last verse of the first chapter of Genesis where it says, "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good."