Jeff Stone’s Theory of Art Definition

[Warning: This discussion paper is flawed and limited by language’s shortcomings.]

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Art communicates. It is like a conversation. It is the opposite of conversational or written language.

Language is the medium used for two or more people to communicate or for one person to organize her thoughts for eventual public dissemination. Language assumes common understanding of words and expressions, and all language is based on a common understanding of words and expressions.

Each person has her own experiences. These experiences taint beyond untaintability the way she understands words, phrases, metaphors, and symbols. Many expressions are loaded in a personal sense for one person, and mean nothing to someone else. Language does not just belong to cultures. Language belongs to individuals. Everyone has a personalized understanding of language.

Therefore, while language may be based on a common understanding of words and expressions, this common understanding is full of faults. One fault is an assumption that the other person has your biases. So, through language, we can only loosely understand each other. We can never, through language, completely understand other people.

Language is one medium. Art is another.

Art assumes very few common understandings. Yes, art often draws from already established cultural icons and history, but art remains art well after a generation has passed and carried its touchstones with it. Art may be a product of the past, but it is always in the present and speaks to the present (while not being limited by it).

An artist produces something that she was compelled to produce. She may be compelled by rage, joy, any number of other emotions, by money, or even by a teacher assigning a project. The production of art is not accidental. When it is, the artist is still compelled to view it as art. At some point, art becomes intentional, even if the execution of it is mistake-riddled.

The more open-ended the external assignment, the more a piece says about its creator. But even in a precise assignment, the creator still leaves her “print”. The starting point, the point at which the artist knows the piece is done, and all points inbetween say something about the artist, their experiences, their subconscious, their understandings, their influences, their philosophy, their level of cynicism, their commitment to and investment in the piece (and what that says about the artist)….

[I have written very few lyrics that are literally about what has happened to me. Under one, two, or three surfaces, my personality and life story is revealed. And even more about me can be understood through my melodies and harmonic structures.]

I was having a conversation with a friend, Tom Glenne, and I told him about a realization I had about a song of mine. “You’re Going Down”, it turns out, was about me, something I hadn’t realized before. In response he said, and I am paraphrasing, “What you say about other people is also true of you”. The wisdom in this is amazing. This is true in art as well.

The creator is always saying something about herself, even if she is not the subject of the piece. The viewer/listener experiences the art with all of his biases intact. The conversation is, how do you feel about this and what does that say about you?

All conversation is about you and your emotional attachments, or someone else who matters to you for whatever reason, and her emotional attachments. Gossip is about you. The news is about you. You attempt to meet in the middle, with the common understanding of language serving as the medium.

Art is a form of communication using media that may include a common understanding of language. But art only partly, if at all, relies on it. The rest of the communication comes from a reflective emotional response.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments? Help de-bug my argument.

jeffstonemusic@yahoo.com