What Is Art?

There’s a movie called Crime Busters (1977), starring Bud Spencer and Terence Hill (The Finnish title goes: Kick Ass and Have a Good One, or something). This is one of the better moments among Sergio Corbucci’s later works. But here’s the thing, if you like this, you’re a buffoon.

Why is this? Why is Crime Busters somehow an inferior piece of art, if many people like it? You know what, I’m just gonna come out of the closet, and say it: Crime Busters is awesome. I’m not even going to hastily add ”In an ironic sense, of course”. I enjoy it, therefore it’s enjoyable.

We need a comparison for Crime Busters here... Krrzystof Kieslowski completed his masterwork and swansong, the ’colour trilogy’ in 1994. The three movies explore love, grief, and heartbreak in different moods respectively. The films are set in post-iron-curtain-Poland. Basically, if you like them, you’re smart, wonderful, and smell good. I guess that’s good news, since I also enjoyed the Colour-trilogy a lot. Therefore, it’s enjoyable.

Would it anger you if I stated that Crime Busters and the Colour-trilogy are equal as works of art? You don’t have to like both, or neither, but do we have to rank them? If you say yes, and are the reigning authority in determining their artistic value, I would love to hear more. How did you achieve that status? Was there a qualification process? Who/what finally assigned you to the position, and how can other people apply?

Ok, wiseguy, you say, let’s put that to the test. What about Violent Shit (1989) and Schindler’s List (1993)? Equal?

Ok, I admit it. If it came down to me to decide which film should be preserved for future generations, I would indeed choose Schindler’s List over Violent Shit. (In case you’re wondering, it’s a real title, and yes, I have actually seen it. I’m surprised if you don’t know it, it won a few Oscars… Ba-dum-tss! )

Making this choice, I would not consider myself a snob at all. But doesn’t it make me a hypocrite? I say something, and the next minute, I can bend the rule to my will and start ranking art?

There is a definition I heard a long time ago that, in a nutshell, goes something like: Art is everything that’s not necessary for human survival.

For example, nutrition is necessary, but spicing, flavouring, and decorating your meal is not. We do it for our enjoyment. You could call cooking a form of art?

It was never necessary for cavemen to paint pictures on their cave walls, but they did so anyway. By this definition, cave paintings are art, but then again, so is Mona Lisa.

Procreation is necessary for the survival of the human race, but the pursuit can be a form of art too. Writing love songs or poems is not vital for the continuation of the species, but they might help us get there. And maybe the deed itself can be called art, if you do it right? After all, art doesn’t require an audience. It should be noted, many a movie has been made on the subject at hand. Sometimes, it’s a highly regarded film with a prestigious cast, like 9/2 Weeks, or the Last Tango in Paris. Then there are the movies where something mundane, like a plumber’s work assignment leads to a suprising sexual encounter. The latter films are generally considered less classy, and it would be hard to argue there. But by the given definition, aren’t they art too?

Yeah, I know. Using this definition means gossip tabloids and flat-earth websites are art too, as they are not essential to our survival. Daytime soaps, reality TV, and technically, Backdoor Sluts 9 are all art.

Once again, the definition is not mine. I might not fully subscribe to it, but I haven’t heard a better one yet.

What does it come down to then? Class, prestige, or production value? Does a higher budget mean higher art? Surely having a high budget means ad campaigns, product placement, market research, algorithms, compromise… Words not usually associated with artistic integrity. In fact, if a movie has the word ’Lego’ in the title, it is often seen as an inferior piece of art. So it can’t be about the money.

Is there one thing that defines the value of an artwork? Is it skill, experience, success, or perhaps the amount of awards the artist has received? The price tag on the painting? If someone pays a million dollars for a painting, is the painting now worth a million dollars?

If there’s one thing, one word that defines whether a piece has artistic merit or not, I’d like to make a suggestion. This theory might not be airtight, but you’d have to work hard to convince me otherwise - The word is passion.

Your kid’s drawing might not technically top Da Vinci’s works, but it was done with passion and sincerity. It comes from a pure place, uncontaminated by an ulterior motive such as greed or envy. It’s not competitive or opportunistic, aiming for profit or awards. I say your kid’s drawing is worth more than, say, some asshole duct-taping a banana to a wall. But as I’m not the CEO of art, my opinion doesn’t matter any more than yours.

You may say ”Duh” as I state the following, but here goes:

’Art’ is not something prestigious that only a handful of ’superior’ artists produce. ’Art’ should also not be an insult used to describe something pretentious or boring. Art is what an artist produces, and a person who produces art is an artist. Unless… maybe a piece of art is only the tip of the iceberg, and the real art is the story behind the work? The moment of creation, and everything that lead into that moment, something the audience will never see. Boom, right? From Mona Lisa to Violent Shit, and everything between, there’s always a story behind the work. We can only try and imagine what lead the artist here, and will never know for sure.

What do you think, what defines true art? Sincerity? Passion? Honesty? Integrity? Skill? Other?