It has been a long time since I considered what constitutes ‘fine art’ or even ‘art’ and I’m surprised that the debate still continues or that anyone still feels the need to define either. There has always been an exclusivity to definitions that favour an academic viewpoint and the fact that such a list as this –

1. Realistic drawing
2. Constructive drawing
3. Ability to draw from life
4. Drawing from memory and imagination
5. Knowledge of art materials and their skillful use
6. Knowledge of the rules of perspective
7. Knowledge of golden proportions
8. Composition skills [Drawing Academy]

is used to separate artists into two categories narrows the definition considerably. I don’t doubt the usefulness of such skills but so many artists whose work I value discarded such a list early on in their lives and some never bothered with such a list at all. On the other hand there are many artists who can say that they have mastered all of the skills on this list and yet fail to produce anything worthwhile beyond examples of skill.

In the same way a definition such as this doesn’t help. A fine artist makes a living from their art and may create pieces for exhibitions, art galleries, or online stores. The difference between a craft artist and a fine artist is the level of education or training. An artist is considered a fine artist when their work is considered highly valuable and they have mastered their technique. [Wikipedia]

While ‘craft’ has become an almost derogatory term for those who earn their living from a highly skilled used of materials and the assumption that there is a line between ‘art’ and ‘craft’ to distinguish artists according to how much work they sell, their level of training, the depth of mastered technique or what might be considered valuable at any point in time, is also less than helpful. Selling work through galleries, online or out of your garage are all acceptable ways but what of the multitude of artists who may never do any of this or who choose not to enter the market. Does that make their work any less valuable? Of course, there are always going to be determiners or arbiters of taste or fashion who run competitions and art fairs but again, this is largely a matter of opinion.

This definition also doesn’t help Fine artists use different techniques to create art, such as weaving, painting, glass blowing, or sculpting. They strive to develop new methods or ideas for making art. They may create art to send a message through their work, spark controversy, or simply provoke a feeling in the person observing their work.

The assumption behind this version of fine art permeates a deal of teaching. Art as message, art as controversy, art as emotion, may all apply and to an extent they do, but they do not define art. When viewers go looking for the ‘message’ art takes on the guise of aphorism. While there are plenty of examples of moral and ethical ‘messages’ in art, of the need to teach the populace about religious principles or social responsibility in the historic past, art to  counteract  lack of education and superstition, is an ageing concept. Messages about pollution, over population and planetary degradation may also raise their heads but again, does this necessarily produce Art let alone Fine Art?

For much of the 20^th century attempts to redefine art and what can or cannot be included led to boundaries between art, craft and performance dissolving. Can the human body be a medium and a tool for creating art? Abramovic, Stelarc and countless other artists would say yes. Can artists pass over ideas in miniature to be built by artisans? Of course they can. Can artists ignore life drawing completely and still produce something worthwhile and valuable? No doubt.

A definition such as Fine Art is ‘visual art judged for its beauty and meaningfulness, specifically, painting, sculpture, drawing, watercolor, graphics, and architecture’ simply creates a different exclusive list.

The definition I prefer runs along the lines of….creative art, especially visual art, whose products are to be appreciated primarily or solely for their imaginative, aesthetic, or intellectual content…

What underpins this idea is that art or fine art is essentially tapping into initially a personal view of the world, whether through observation, experience of imagination, that may strike a chord with a viewer. Aesthetic considerations can be culturally based, and intellectual considerations are the products of thinking, but the ability of a work of art to appeal to an audience whether it be widespread and based on popularity or fashion or simply, one person, is irrelevant. While appreciation of an audience may well be a desired goal of acceptability or justification, the artist creates work to satisfy a personal need.

The definition that I read this morning also doesn’t help I define “fine art” as what I would make if I could make any art I wanted. [Nicholas Wilton].

I can understand where Wilton is coming from with his  background as a reluctant illustrator bound to commercial need, but Facebook is full of people doing exactly what they want, satisfying a personal need, exploring a personal aesthetic, with no training, little skill and constantly asking for validation. Whether it is art, fine art, craft or even art at all depends upon the collective aesthetic being employed.

There are musicians who are proficient at playing chopsticks and those that can play all of the notes and still not be able to make music. Perhaps that is a definition that could be applied to ‘fine art’. Making music.