First we need a working definition of art to address the
topic of art in nature. According to an art history site, the basic components
of art are content and form. Content concerns the ideas in and
behind the artistic work. That is, what the artist was meaning to portray and actually
did portray. Form includes color, value, space and line. Form also refers to the Principles of Design
such as balance, contrast, emphasis and proportion. Physical materials are also
part of form.[1]
Materials are whatever the artist has
used in creating the art; that could mean canvas and oil paints, but it is in
no way limited to that medium. There are artists who work with paper, tin and
other metals, marble, and much more. So here’s the question. Is any material
excluded automatically? I think not. An artist could use sand for a castle on
the beach, and though temporary, it is still an artistic endeavor and very much
art! An artist could use fabric and
design an intricate quilt. Therefore, an artist could use botanical substances
and it would still be art, would it not? I’ve seen lovely pressed flowers
artfully arranged under glass which certainly qualify as art. So here’s the
crux of this matter: Why do many people refuse to call botanical and biological
designs art? Is their definition of art narrowed down specifically so they
don’t have to admit there is an Artist?
If a work or object exhibits
the components of art: design, order, intent, is aesthetically pleasing in its
balance and proportions, and effective in its use of color and lines, it can
hardly be said to have magically arisen. Consistency is necessary for the
definition of art. For example, if a belt (cowhide) is tooled and designed, we
praise the artist; we see the intent is to both hold up pants and to add
decoration. Consider if that cowhide is
covering a mechanical bull-riding structure; we readily admit the ride had an
artist. So, it is just one step further to ask, what if that cowhide is on a cow? That living cow fulfills the
definition of art: It has design, function, aesthetic color combinations,
balance, and an artist’s intent. If a
cowhide tacked on a mechanical ride requires an artist, how much more would the
actual cow, infinitely more complex
and useful, require one?
Some may wish to exclude as
art, botanical and biological presentations on the basis of the materials used.
Yet, those people are not consistent in excluding those materials. For example,
a lovely flower arrangement in a shop is defined as art, but not the lovely
arrangement of wild flowers in a spring meadow. It seems hypocritical to credit
the artistic ability of the artist when fruit is painted on canvas, but not the
artist of the original fruit. Artists universally bemoan their lack
of ability to fully capture on paper the vivid hues of a sunset, the sparkle of
an eye, or the loveliness of flesh. In other words, their “art” pales in
comparison with the original “art.”
Since being on canvas is not
a pre-requisite for art, it is difficult to make a case for restricting almost
any medium. Artists routinely use non-traditional media. A case in point is a
work of art near my town in Nevada which is made of dirt and space. This land
artwork is called “The Double Negative” by artist Michael Heizer. “It is
essentially two ends of a trench spanning empty space. The trenches together
measure 1,500 feet long, 50 feet deep and 30 feet wide.”[2] People travel from all over the world to see
it. I hope they don’t miss seeing the contrasts in snow-capped mountains, the
desert in riotous colors of spring flowers, or the fiery sunsets while they
examine this other art.
An example of nature-as-art
stands proudly at my garden’s edge: a row of sunflowers. The center of the
flower contains seeds in a spiral designed with mathematical precision. The arrangement
uses the golden ratio (1.61803). That spiral is repeatedly found in nature and
is reproduced in paintings; I think it is safe to assume the “original” spiral
had an artist as well. When I see the sunflowers’ golden heads turned toward
the sun, dare I not call it art and credit an artist? Yet when some person
makes a feeble attempt to capture the sunflower’s bright summer yellows and the
spiral design of its seeds on canvas, we call it art? How can the original
figure, for example that of a man, not be considered art, when we call a
sculpture of a man, art which is only copying those same proportions, such as
“David” by Michelangelo? However
expertly the lines, symmetry, and image of a man are duplicated in marble, the
statue is still a limited reflection of the original. If the copy is termed
art, the prototype should be considered art.
So why
when other objects d’art are minus a frame are they so decidedly not art? Could
it be that if people admit to the beauty and wonder of the earth, from
soft-pink cheery blossoms to fragrant roses, then they would have to admit to
an artist? In their world-view, some people simply do not want there to be an artist. The decision is not based on facts, and
certainly not on the abundant evidence around us, but it is a decision to close
their eyes to a world of stunning art.
No comments:
Post a Comment