Defining Art

While working on the notation for some of my own music, I found myself thinking back on the history of music throughout the last century in the western societies and nations over time.

For those who don't know about it (and I would not be surprised if there were many people who didn't know about this; I didn't until I took a class on music and art history throughout the last seven decades), around most of the last century for artists of many kinds was filled with quarrels and disputes over the idea that Art has been following a natural progression and development.

This is something that, unfortunately, still persists in some small forms today.  You may find that some professors, performers, or practitioners of music composition, for example, will proclaim that one kind of Artistic style of making and scoring music is the sole and only most 'evolved' form of music notation and sound.  They might then point to a few, or even several, artists preceding them, who drew inspiration from classical composers, musicians, and renowned notation writers, and decided to try to advance the tradition of artistic expression in music by trying something that had never been done before, while building upon selective ideas from older music theory.

With some of these people, there will be a tendency to proclaim that many other ways of 'advancing' the development and progression of music are not worthwhile - and therefore, should not be studied or practiced.  Sometimes, a limiting and elitist behavior evolves out of the belief that music itself is 'progressing' and 'realizing' a 'greater' form.  And this happened not just with music composition, or music in general, but all manner of artistic expressions.

Many may call me wrong for saying this, but I don't think that this is often the point of Art itself...especially for many of the people who engage in performing, composing, playing, painting, sculpting, crafting, and any other form of creating.  And not being able to shake this feeling from myself - this feeling that people of that time were approaching Art too narrowly, and boxing it into a singular idea - I decided to try and type my thoughts on what, exactly, I conceive Art to be, up onto my screen.  I hope some find it to be re-affirming:

______________________________________

Art is not defined solely by the combination of influences that affect the process of creation; and the method of creation does not define the result, or how it is received.

Art is also not defined by the way that people receive any artistic performance, product, or creation; many people choose to receive art favorably or unfavorably based off of their mood, their day's events, their beliefs, and the influence of events from throughout their whole life.

And, Art, in its most general sense, is not something that follows any particular, physically observable procedure; when we compare all of the art styles and practices in the world, I will argue, we find that they are without any concrete element in common.

In fact, I believe that what defines true Art, in the broadest sense, is its brilliant tendency to avoid having being tied down to the point where someone can say "This pattern - this, right here, is the thing that all art has in common!"

Art is defined by the pattern it has of avoiding being defined by any other pattern.  Its defining pattern is being free!

______________________________________

So, as I believe with humans, so too I believe with their creations - that art and people both are naturally defined by a love for something that is free, unlimited, and allows for the emergence of new and unanticipated things into this reality.