“fine art”: 1a) Art produced or intended for beauty, not utility. (b) Any of the art forms, such as music, used to create this art. 2) Something requiring highly developed technique and skill (emphasis mine).

     It’s very striking that the only two criteria that distinguish “ordinary” art from fine art are beauty (as opposed to usefulness), and a high degree of skill (what we call “mastery”). Yet self-proclaimed “Fine Art Galleries” everywhere are filled to the brim with works of art that fit neither of these characteristics, at least in my opinion. How is this possible?

     While I recognize that what people consider beautiful can be extremely subjective, the concept of artistic mastery seems much less open to individual interpretation. In fact, here is what the dictionary says about “mastery”:

“mastery”: 1) Possession of consummate skill. (2) Full command of a subject of study.

     There seems to be very little ambiguity about this term–it clearly implies that one is at the top of his/her field, and has undoubtedly spent many years achieving this status. The fact that nowadays anyone can proclaim him/herself a “master” is a result of the reality that there is no longer any kind of regulation in the field of art. In earlier times, artists (like other tradespeople) were subject to the regulating influence of guilds, which identified those who could be called artistic masters, and who could therefore sell their work and services. In modern times, fields like medicine and education still operate under these kinds of internal regulation, but the creation of art no longer does. Can you imagine what would happen if doctors were no longer required to be properly certified, and simply declared themselves to be surgeons? While creating a work of art is admittedly not a life or death undertaking, the result of having no regulation can still be devastating. I will definately address this in more detail soon.

     Please don’t misunderstand me–I am NOT arguing that those who haven’t reached a level of mastery of their craft should not be allowed to sell their artwork. I believe anyone who has the desire to create should have full license to do so, and to sell that work to anyone who wants to buy it. But when fine art galleries are filled with less than top quality work, this leaves nowhere for the master fine artist to market his or her work. Only those artists who are already independently wealthy have the ability to promote themselves and garner all the attention of dealers and collectors. The problem here is that instead of fulfilling the objective of providing high quality, masterfully created works of art, galleries are focusing exclusively on their own financial considerations, and are thereby excluding many fine artists.

     I don’t know about you, but I hate it when somebody complains about something, yet offers no ideas for possible solutions to the problem. So in the spirit of not perpetuating a practice I detest, here are a few immediate thoughts about how this problem might be addressed. I do NOT advocate the return of the old guild system, because I don’t think it’s fair to exclude less experienced artists from creating or selling their work. But what might be helpful is to begin requiring galleries of fine art to possess a certain level of knowledge about the field and the people they’re claiming to represent. It’s incredible to me that there are so few galleries anymore (that I know of, at least) that have owners, managers, or salespeople who know even the most rudimentary thing about the processes, materials, or experience involved in the creation of the work they sell. And what about a knowledge of art history, art appraisal, or even just a genuine interest in the value, meaning, and purpose of art? It seems common sense to me, but as we all know, common sense is anything but common.

1) Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature. 2a) The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium. (b) The study of these activities.(c) The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group. 3) High quality of conception or execution; aesthetic value. 4) A field or category of art, such as music. 5) A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts. 6a) A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building. (b) A trade or craft that applies such a system: the art of the lexicographer.  7a) Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker. (b) Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: “Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice” (Joyce Carol Oates). 8a) arts. Artful devices, strategems, and tricks. (b) Artful contrivance; cunning.

     Of paramount importance, here, are the qualities of beauty, aesthetics, harmony and quality of design and execution, skill developed over time (mastery), and the use of intuition in discerning essential or cosmic understanding. Also included are the ideas of imitating nature, mastering a trade or craft, and the concept of “artful” (clever?) trickery. This is the broadest, most general definition of the whole vast field, and includes everything from prehistoric cave art to folk art, children’s art, classical art, contemporary modern art, and everything in between. Whether or not an individual likes or dislikes any particular work in any of these categories, each one can still be legitimately called “art” according to this general definition.

     However, when I turn to the word root, things start looking a bit different to me. The Indo-European root is “ar”, which carries the basic meaning: “To fit together”. Some more clues are provided by the other words that also share this root, including: arm, army, alarm, disarm, harmony, artist, inert, article, aristocracy, order, ordinary, ornate, adorn, rate, ratio, reason, read, hatred, riddle, rite, arithmetic, and rhyme. What begins to emerge now is the additional quality of a sense of meaning, particularly through words such as “harmony”, “order”, “ratio”, “reason”, “riddle”, “rite”, “arithmetic”, and “rhyme”.  Any follower of Pythagoras would instantly recognize the cosmic significance of these correspondences, because in the Pythagorean view, arithmetical relationships describe reality. But this is a reality that is hardly recognized or respected in this modern age. For example, does the modern materialistic view value mystery (“riddle”), or ceremony (“rite”) as significant aspects of reality? Art too, like arithmetic or reason, is concerned with the “fitting together” of things. More about this later….

                                                        Continue…