Before the industrial era there was a far greater
homogeneity among all objects because their production was still
dependent on handcraft Objects were far less specialized in
function, and the cultural range of forms was more restricted,
there being little reference to earlier or to extraneous
traditions. Furthermore, there was a much tighter segregation
between the class of objects that could lay claim to 'style' and
the class of locally produced objects that had use value
only.
Today a farmhouse table has widespread cultural
value, but just fifty years ago its sole value arose from the
purpose it served. In the eighteenth century there was simply no
relationship between a 'Louis XV table and a peasant's table: there
was an unbridgeable gulf between the two types of object, just as
there was between the two corresponding social classes. No single
cultural system embraced them both. The social order was what
gave objects their standing. Nobility and affluence bestowed
absolute distinction and this was reflected in the value of the
goods that were bought.
In a preindustrial society, "art" refers all
creative human endeavours. From this wide perspective, "art" is
simply a generic term for the human creative impulse, out of which
sprang all other human pursuits, such as science, via alchemy, and
religion, via shamanism. Art connoted a sense of trained ability or
mastery of a medium or process.
All of this changed when it became possible to
mass produce goods as serial versions of an original model.
The model was produced by a 'designer' and the reproduction of the
design was in the hands of specialised crafters who each carried
out a small part of a process of mass-production.
This system of designer-led commercial
reproduction led to a separation of designers from artists.
Their emerged a common view that art is aesthetic rather than
utilitarian. Art objects are produced by artists. Each
object is unique and expensive, and reproductions are priced in an
inverse relationship to the numbers sold. A piece of artwork
reflects the culture that created it, though this might not be
apparent to its contemporary observers. Art depends on context.
Available materials, subjects, themes, metaphors, politics, and
technology all influence the creation of art. The audience's
insight into a work improves as an understanding of the artist's
culture grows.
Now, art is defined as a creative and unique
perception of both the artist and audience. For example, a common
contemporary criticism of some modern painting might be, "my
five-year old could have painted that"—implying that the work
is somehow less worthy of the title "art". This is either
because the viewer fails to find meaning in the work, or because
the work does not appear to have required any skill to produce.
This view is often described as a "layman critique" where emphasis
in Western culture has traditionally been in the direction of
representationalism, the literal description of literal images. In
this sense the valuation of a work of art requires an
understanding of the 'language' used by the artist to convey
meaning, with immediacy and/or depth. Making this judgment requires
a basis for criticism: a way to determine whether the sensory input
meets the criteria to be considered art, whether it is perceived to
be ugly or beautiful.
Perception is always coloured by experience, so a
reaction to art as "ugly" or "beautiful" is necessarily subjective.
Art also appeals to human emotions. It can arouse aesthetic or
moral feelings, and can be understood as a way of communicating
these feelings. The artist has to express himself so that his
public is aroused, but he does not have to do it consciously. Art
both explores human emotions and ways to arouse them - art
with high value brings something new and original in either of
these two respects. References are common and important; a strong
piece of art is a self-referential system; that is, all parts of
the system contribute to the organic integrity of the whole.
Extraneous or missing elements are seen to degrade the artistic
integrity of the work.
Countless schools of artists have each proposed
their own ways to define quality, but they all seem to agree that
value of a work is determined by its capacity to transcend the
limits of its chosen medium in order to strike some universal
chord, which, tends to be the most personal one. Art communicates
on many levels and is open to many interpretations. If returning
many times to the same work of art uncovers variations of meaning
over and over again, it passes an important test. Great art
communicates with people across different cultures and stands the
test of time, possibly the ultimate test for any work of art.
Photography is a modern lodestone of art. The
answer to the question, "Are photographs of un-posed, "real life"
to be considered art?" is overwhelmingly yes. Photographs are
art because a common goal of art is to recontextualize the
appearance of everyday objects.