Rebecca's Thoughts

What is art?

The general public’s knowledge of art is based on a limited number of names and titles. People think of art as being in museums; it is painted by people like Vincent van Gogh, Pablo Picasso, or Leonardo da Vinci. Some may think of artists like Damien Hirst whose art and status exist because they have capitalized on the shocking and sensationalized nature of the art market. We consider these things to be art because the institutions around art consider certain things to be art. This limiting perspective is challenging because, at the end of the day, what is the difference between a shark submerged in formaldehyde and a knitted sweater? One is found in museums and the other is relegated to the closet. In this paper, I would like to examine the reasons behind this and evaluate why the title of art is only deserving of particular mediums. 

In Mieke Bal and Norman Bryson’s paper “Semiotics and Art History: A Discussion of Context and Senders” they discuss the role of semiotics in art history and how context is key to understanding art and the culture that surrounds it. Art can influence our view of history to the extent that it can be revised and create a form of a ‘verification effect,’ an endless cycle of conformation and discovery through art.[1] Observation A must be factual because these paintings depict and confirm that such things exist. This line of thinking generalizes and erases many of the realities of history. This usage of context can also play into what gets defined as art and who can be called an artist. The paper discusses the role of the artist as resolving a capitalistic need to provide property and economic value to the creator and beholder of art.[2] In other words, artists were considered artists because they historically filled a role within a system of capitalism and society dubbed this role as being art or artistry. This plays into who can be considered artists as institutions, through the use of context, have set a historical precedent on what can and should be defined as art. Only those considered artists may make contributions to the authorized collection created by society and institutions within it.[3]

This is how we can have the distinction between a shark submerged in formaldehyde and a knitted sweater. One is seen as being a “serious” mode of art and the other is a “hobby.[4]” In the report “More than ‘Just a Little Hobby’: Women and Textile Art in Ireland” the authors interviewed textile artists in Ireland about their perspective of artistry and what should be considered art. One of the artists interviewed, Rita Scannell, explained that “art in Ireland is still painting on canvas” and that textile art is seen only as being “women’s work.[5]” The paper goes on to say that “sewing, necessary to the creation of textile art, is seen as a hobby or as a strictly domestic pursuit and is often associated with functional quilt making.[6]” Additionally, this type of art is seen as being “frivolous” or “decorative” rather than something that should belong in a museum. 

This distinction between decorations and art is important because the type of art determines what is allowed to enter a museum’s collections. One of the artists interviewed said, “If you mixed fabric with painted work and made a collage out of it, people will see it as mixed media, and that can go into an art gallery. But if you make something that’s just textiles you won’t be accepted in an art gallery.[7]” This leads to many “textile artists” moving more towards mixed media in terms of labelling and creating their art. This also is not to say that textile art is not allowed or accepted in museums, rather acceptance is dependent on the mission of some museums and as the paper puts it, “in some ways they’re [textile art is] still regarded as. . .second class art.[8]”

This statement can be contrasted with what can be found in museums and how they differ. Damien Hurst is an artist known for pushing the boundaries of art. He is known for revolutionizing the art scene in London and changing the definition of high art. He is also known for his many controversies and, for the sake of this paper, submerging multiple dead sharks in vats of formaldehyde. His work, for the most part, is seen as being art and is housed in many museums and private collections. Hurst has managed to game the system when it comes to art, and this has led to a form of infamy within the art world. He capitalizes on the capitalistic nature of the art world and has created a spectacle to fill the void left by people like Andy Warhol. Further cementing what art is and how art should look. 

In the paper, Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists? Linda Nochlin discusses the role of women in art history.[9] While the paper primarily looks at paintings, the trends discussed can and should overflow to other types of art. The paper looks at the role of privilege in art and how women are often at a disadvantage, whether this be financial, power, or authority, women who make art approach the institutions at an automatic disadvantage. Much like the textile artists in Ireland, historically, women painters were not taken seriously. “It is this emphasis which transforms serious commitment to frivolous self-indulgence, busy work, or occupational therapy, and today, more than ever, in suburban bastions of the feminine mystique, tends to distort the whole notion of what art is and what kind of social role it plays.[10]” It would not be a controversial statement to claim that Hirst’s approached the institution of art from a position of privilege. He was allotted the advantage of being allowed to make “serious art” due to his position within society. 

When art historians look back on the 20^th century through the eye of semiotics, themes are present throughout. Capitalism is found as a means used to express and create art. The later works of Warhol, pop art, and Hirst show that commodification is how artists make money. Art like this is also accepted as a normal standard of what art can be. This view sees only the artist and their works about their significant impact on a given medium of art.[11] Historically, women were seen to lack this impact. They have lacked this golden nugget genius and “the free-enterprise conception of individual achievement. On this basis, women’s lack of major achievement in art may be formulated as a syllogism: If women had the golden nugget of artistic genius, then it would reveal itself.[12]”

This contextualizes art and sees that, despite breaking the status quo, art found in museums maintains history and traditions. This further outlines what is found in museums and what is not. A knitted sweater or a quilt are objects not commonly found in art museums, historically and in the present, whereas ‘innovative’ sculptures and paintings flourish and are abundant. Art of the present is based largely on the art of the past, whether intentionally or not, and has led to a gap in more traditionally feminine techniques and skills. The lack of precedent gives textile art, or art made by women more generally, a disadvantage when it comes to having their creations taken seriously. Duchamp built the fountain so Hirst could flood the museum, but women were never given the water to begin with. 

---

[1]   Mieke Bal, “Semiotic Elements in Academic Practices,” Critical Inquiry 22 (Spring1996): 573-89. (p.250)

[2] Mieke Bal, “Semiotic Elements in Academic Practices,” Critical Inquiry 22 (Spring1996): 573-89 (p. 253-254)

[3] Ibid (p.254)

[4] Nancy J. Nelson, Karen L. LaBat, and Gloria M. Williams, “More than ‘Just a Little Hobby’: Women and Textile Art in Ireland,” Women’s Studies International Forum 28, no. 4 (July 2005): 328–42, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2005.04.017. (p. 334)

[5] Ibid

[6] Nancy J. Nelson, Karen L. LaBat, and Gloria M. Williams, “More than ‘Just a Little Hobby’: Women and Textile Art in Ireland,” Women’s Studies International Forum 28, no. 4 (July 2005): 328–42, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2005.04.017. (p. 334)

[7] Ibid (p. 336)

[8] Ibid (p. 337)

[9] Linda Nochlin, “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists” (1971) in Linda

Nochlin. Women, Art, and Power and Other Essays. (1988): 145-178

[10] Ibid (PDF version p. 15)

[11] Mieke Bal, “Semiotic Elements in Academic Practices,” Critical Inquiry 22

(Spring1996): 573-89. (p.255)

[12] Linda Nochlin, “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists” (1971) in Linda

Nochlin. Women, Art, and Power and Other Essays. (1988): 145-178 (PDF version p. 9)