Month: January 2025

If someone points at a mundane object and calls it art, does it become art? This question strikes at the heart of how we define art. For some, seeing art in everyday objects is a mark of creativity. For others, it’s an absurd notion that undermines the value of traditional art forms.

Can People Who See Art in Everything Be Considered Crazy, Happy or Sad?

Imagine someone who finds meaning in every aspect of life—from the way sunlight filters through a window to the symmetry of a building’s shadow. Are they unusually attuned to the world around them, or are they projecting their own emotions onto their surroundings?

Philosophers like Friedrich Nietzsche have suggested that seeing meaning everywhere can be both a burden and a gift. It may reflect a heightened sensitivity to life, but it can also reveal an emotional need to create order or purpose where none exists.

Does Perception Alone Make Something Art?

The idea that perception itself can turn something into art is central to modern and conceptual art movements. Artists like Duchamp challenged traditional definitions by asserting that the act of selection and presentation is enough to elevate an object into the realm of art.

When interviewing people about installations, one can notice how their perceptions shape their experience. Some might see profound statements in simple arrangements, while others dismiss them entirely. This subjectivity suggests that art doesn’t exist in a vacuum; it needs a perceiver to complete the process of meaning-making.

the Act of Giving Meaning = the Core of Art

At its core, art is about giving meaning. Whether it’s the artist declaring, “This object has meaning because I say it does,” or the audience finding their own emotional connection, the creation of meaning is what transforms the mundane into the extraordinary.

But this act of meaning-making can also be divisive. For some, it’s liberating to think that anything can be art. For others, this openness feels like it erodes the skill, effort, and tradition that many associate with “real art.”

The beauty of this debate is that there’s no single answer. Art lives in the balance between perception, intention, and meaning. Whether it’s a masterpiece hanging in a gallery or a forgotten object rediscovered and reframed, the process of seeing, assigning meaning, and discussing it makes art a vital part of human experience.

Thank you for joining me on this research journey. I had a lot of fun and am looking forward to our second semester.

Have a nice semester break and see you soon. xoxo Fiona

Who decides what qualifies as art? Is it the artist, the audience, or the broader society? This question gains even more significance when we look at modern installations that challenge traditional notions of what art is supposed to be.

Example: Duchamp submitted a urinal to an art exhibition, labeling it as art simply by giving it a title and signing it. His bold act set the stage for the debates we’re still having today: does the artist’s intent alone make something art or does the audience’s reaction play an equally important role?

The Artist’s Intent vs. The Viewer’s Perception

An artist’s intent often serves as the foundation for a work of art. They imbue an object, a scene, or an installation with meaning, hoping to communicate something to their audience. But once the artwork is released into the world, it takes on a life of its own. The audience’s interpretation can diverge dramatically from what the artist originally envisioned.

Consider a hypothetical installation of scattered objects in a public square. One observer might see it as a critique of consumerism, while another might view it as an homage to chaos. These interpretations may have little to do with what the artist intended, yet they add layers of meaning to the work.

Does Misinterpretation Enrich or Detract From Art?

When audiences misinterpret an artwork, does it diminish its value? Or does the diversity of interpretations make it richer? Many argue that art is at its best when it invites multiple perspectives. In interviews with people responding to modern installations, many expressed personal and emotional connections to the work—connections that might have been far removed from the artist’s original message. Yet, these responses weren’t invalid. Instead, they demonstrate the collaborative nature of meaning-making in art.

Ultimately, no one has the final say in defining art. The tension between the artist’s intent and the viewer’s perception is what keeps art alive. Art is not a fixed entity; it’s a dynamic conversation between creation and interpretation, constantly evolving as it moves through time and culture.

Art is one of those rare subjects that invites endless interpretations, shaped by our personal experiences, education, and cultural exposure. Through the lens of outsiders—those unconnected to art and design in their daily lives—and insiders, such as art students and creatives, we see both contrasts and unexpected commonalities. This post explores the intersections, divergences, and potential bridges between these two groups, highlighting what art means in a world of varied perspectives.

Common Ground: The Universality of Emotion

Despite their differing levels of exposure and engagement with art, both outsiders and insiders agree on one core idea: art is an emotional experience.

For outsiders, art often resonates through its beauty or ability to evoke familiar feelings. Many of them associate art with skillful execution, such as a well-painted portrait or an intricate sculpture, and value the emotions these works inspire. One outsider I interviewed defined art as something that provokes thought but emphasized its accessibility—art should “make sense” to the average person.

Insiders, on the other hand, often focus on the emotional intention behind art rather than the viewer’s immediate response. For a classmate the emotional state of the artist plays a significant role in the creative process. Similarly, another student framed art as a vehicle for expressing feelings in others. While insiders embrace emotion in a broader, more abstract sense, both groups recognize that art’s power lies in its ability to connect with people on a human level.

Diverging Views: Purpose and Accessibility

Where the groups diverge most significantly is in their perception of art’s purpose and accessibility.

Outsiders tend to see art through a practical lens. For them, art often has a clear purpose: to beautify, tell a story or showcase extraordinary talent. Many value the craftsmanship and skills required to create art. To them a used coffee cup on a museum pedestal lacks meaning because it doesn’t demonstrate an exceptional skill.

Conversely, insiders celebrate art’s lack of utilitarian constraints. Art is “free” and unnecessary to justify itself economically. This perspective allows insiders to embrace works like Duchamp’s Fountain or a banana taped to a wall, seeing them as provocations that challenge our assumptions about value and meaning. For them, art exists not to conform but to question and expand boundaries.

This divergence extends to accessibility. Outsiders often feel alienated by contemporary or conceptual art, perceiving it as incomprehensible. “Normal people don’t understand this kind of art—it’s for crazy people.” Insiders, however, are more comfortable with ambiguity, viewing art as something open to interpretation rather than requiring a singular “correct” understanding.

The Role of Context: Framing Art

Another significant difference lies in how the two groups perceive context.

Outsiders often rely on traditional settings, like museums or galleries, to confer legitimacy on art. When something like the Mona Lisa is removed from its frame and placed in an unconventional context, it risks losing its meaning or “becoming something else.” This reliance on formal presentation reflects a preference for established norms that make art easier to recognize.

Insiders, in contrast, are more likely to view context as fluid. Many of my classmates argued that art doesn’t need a gallery to be valid; it can exist anywhere, from a street mural to an everyday object. “Art is whatever you call art.” This openness to context reflects a more flexible, inclusive approach, where meaning is shaped by intention rather than location.

Toward a Shared Understanding – what can we learn from each other?

While the differences between outsiders and insiders may seem significant, they are not insurmountable. In fact, these perspectives can complement and enrich one another.

Outsiders remind us of the importance of accessibility. Their preference for skill, beauty, and clarity highlights the need for art to connect with diverse audiences. Without this connection, art risks becoming insular, resonating only within small, self-referential circles.

Insiders, on the other hand, challenge us to expand our horizons. They push against traditional boundaries, encouraging us to see art in new contexts and forms. By embracing ambiguity and questioning conventions, they invite us to think more deeply about what art can be and how it functions in our lives.

Ultimately, the key to bridging these perspectives lies in dialogue and mutual respect. Artists and creatives can strive to make their work more approachable without compromising its integrity, while outsiders can cultivate curiosity and openness to unfamiliar ideas. By meeting in the middle, both groups can contribute to a richer, more inclusive art world—one that celebrates both tradition and experimentation.

Conclusion: Art as a Shared Human Endeavor

Art, at its core, is a deeply human endeavor, shaped by our shared need to express, connect, and make sense of the world. While outsiders and insiders approach art from different angles, their perspectives are not irreconcilable. Instead, they represent two sides of the same coin, each offering valuable insights into what art is and why it matters.

By embracing these differences and finding common ground, we can create a more inclusive understanding of art—one that values both its beauty and its boldness, its traditions and its transgressions. In doing so, we allow art to fulfill its ultimate purpose: to inspire, challenge, and bring us closer together.

How Artists and Designers See Art

Art, for those deeply embedded in creative fields, transcends boundaries and conventional definitions. Unlike outsiders, who often approach art with practicality or tradition in mind, artists and designers tend to view it as a fluid, ever-changing concept—one that exists in both tangible and intangible realms. Based on conversations with classmates and other creatives, this post explores how those immersed in design and artistic practices perceive art, its purpose, and its interplay with emotions and intentions.

Art as Freedom: An Open DefinitionFor many creatives, the definition of art is intentionally broad and inclusive. As one friend put it, “For me, everything is art.” This perspective reflects a core belief among artists: art resists strict categorization. Another student emphasized this further, describing art as something free, unbound by purpose or economic function. Unlike outsiders who may associate art with skill, creatives often celebrate art precisely because it doesn’t need to “earn its keep.”

An interviewee added another layer to this open definition by highlighting intention: “Art is what you make for the sake of making, with no specific purpose, but with a clear reason or idea behind it.” This focus on intent aligns with a broader view that art is not defined by its utility but by the act of creation and the thought processes that drive it.

Emotion as the Core of Creation

Emotion plays a central role in how many creatives experience and produce art. One noted that creativity often stems from emotional expression, stating, “The worse I feel, the better the art.” This sentiment underscores the cathartic nature of artistic practice, where personal struggles, joy or introspection become the foundation for meaningful work.

This emotional connection to art also shapes how creatives interpret its value. A friend described art as a way to evoke and/or process feelings, both for the creator and the audience: “Art is everything humans create to express emotions or awaken them in others.” This contrasts with the more pragmatic views of outsiders, who may prioritize art’s visual appeal or monetary worth.

Interestingly, this emotional dimension often intersects with the narratives of artists themselves. Several classmates mentioned the trope of the “tragic artist,” suggesting that those with difficult personal stories often produce the most compelling art. While this idea is not universally accepted, it reflects a recurring fascination with the vulnerability behind artistic creation.

Art and Design: Two Sides of the Same Coin

While creatives generally view art as limitless, many also recognize a distinction between art and design. One suggested that “art highlights problems that design then solves,” framing art as a precursor to functional creation. This perspective positions art as the space for exploration, questioning, and expression, while design becomes a tool for applying those insights to practical solutions.

Another student, however, argued for a more integrated view, saying, “Art and design can be the same thing.” This sentiment reflects how boundaries between the two disciplines are increasingly blurred, particularly in contemporary practices where design incorporates artistic elements, and art takes on functional forms.

Stefan Sagmeister exemplifies this duality with projects like The Happy Film, which blurs the line between art and design while addressing universal human themes. Creatives often embrace this ambiguity, seeing art and design as complementary rather than opposing forces.

Art as Interpretation: The Role of the Viewer

Creatives also tend to emphasize the subjective nature of art. Art is something “broad, open to interpretation, and reliant on the viewer’s perspective.” This aligns with contemporary theories that art exists not just in the creation but in the interaction between work and audience.

However, this openness does not mean that anything can be art without thought or intention. Many classmates stressed that art must have some foundational idea/purpose, even if that purpose is abstract or personal. This differentiates their view from the more skeptical attitudes of outsiders, who might dismiss conceptual works as “random”.

Art as an Expression of Freedom and Emotion

For those within the creative world, art is a space of freedom, emotion, and intention. It is defined not by its economic value or practical use but by its capacity to express, evoke, and question. Unlike outsiders, who may seek concrete definitions, creatives embrace art’s ambiguity and subjectivity, seeing it as both a personal and communal experience.

This perspective challenges traditional notions of what art should be, pushing the boundaries of its purpose. It also underscores the value of art as a deeply human endeavor, driven by the need to create, feel, and connect.