Analysis | Art and Expression of Identity

An argumentation on art versus the artist from two contrasting points of view. Written by Samantha Robyn Norrah for PHI 103: Principles of Sound Reasoning with Professor Watson at Arizona State University on June 24th, 2022. Final Grade: A.

Artwork by Micheal Reeder

Perspective 1: The Origin of Art

1. Introduction

A signature in the corner of a painting and a name stamped under the title of literature act as more than self-credit to a body of work. They resemble a sense of ownership, individuality, power, and creation. Such proprietorship gives faculty to consensual distribution, which can lead to fame and financial gains. Art, in this way, is more than art. It is livelihood. But many of the most notorious artists are associated to works that have circulated in their respective fields for centuries. And while their art may be alive in this sense, the artists are not. Art of this kind, from paintings to philosophical work, are most often presented alongside their creator in the form of short biographies or imagery. Maintaining the identity of an individual, the arts creator, while presenting the piece in parallel. Names, in this way, are tied to artwork by the nature of ones artwork being of the artist. And it suggests, that the art might not be able to stand alone without the identity of the individual, their reputation, or respective historical context. I tend to think that art has value before the effects of entitlement play out. Art can speak for itself, and as a body of work, existing as from nature, it deserves its own space in the public domain. Although it may be tempting to believe that artists should not be removed from their art because art originates from its producers, in this paper I will argue that artists should be removed from their art because art is public domain. First, I will give background to this thesis, then I will present my argument, followed by explaining my premises and finally defending against possible objections.

2. Background

Historically, art has been used to express a point of view or even assert one. Vincent van Gogh’s “Starry Night” of 1889, allows onlookers to perceive a landscape with tidal waves of whimsy, a perspective they might not have otherwise imagined in their own mind. But while some art seemingly intends to give a glimpse into the artists world, other works more clearly construct a narrative of the world that may or not be founded in reality, or least, could be said to be aspirational. Such pieces as these could be seen in art discovered around the globe which depicts social and/or political events with emotive authority and grace, like “Liberty Leading the People” by Eugène Delacroix from 1830. But to assume that any art merely intends to express a perspective is to assume that expressing perspectives are, in and of themselves, without the intention of asserting such perspective. To express a visual or a thought by the means of art, is to place ones perspective of the world into the external world, thereby asserting their interpretation for others to derive from. In this way, all art that holds intention described as any kind, is plainly intended to impact the way others ascribe to the world and is therefor undeniably assertive in nature.

Art, by its nature of translating perspectival instances to and from individuals, acts more as a mirror, than anything. To an artist —be it in front of a blank canvas, cube of granite, or leafs of virgin paper— whatever it is they dispose on to the world with the aid of medium, is equivalent to what one might think to be their inverted selves, as when gazing deeply into ones reflection. The visuals distort in symbolic depictions that are of shape, size, color, syntax, metaphor, and semantics. Irregardless, it is the object of the artist, sliced and rendered as a duplicate into and onto the physical world. And for this relationship in which art seems to have with the artist, it has often been supposed that the art cannot be separated from the artist. For in a sense, it is the artist for which one is apprehending when engaging with the art that they produce. But what fails to be seen and recognized is that if this relationship is somewhat equivalent, than the question is less on what is the origin of the art, but what is the origin of the artist? And in a rather simple response, I see no further explanation than that the artist originates from the natural world. With this understanding, art is similarly of the natural world. Making something that which has no necessity of being held by the private domain of an illusive ‘self’, but that ought to by-in-large be considered public domain.

3. Argument

My argument that artists should be removed from their art is as follows:

1. If artists should be removed from their art, then art is public domain. (Basic)

2. Art is public domain. (Basic)

C. Artists should be removed from their art. (1, 2 MP)

4. Validity

I will now show that this argument is unquestionably valid. 

Dictionary: 

A = Artists should be removed from their art.

P = Art is public domain.

Symbolized Argument:

1. A => P (Basic)

2. P (Basic)

C. A (1, 2 MP)

Truth Table:

5. Explanation of Premises

My first basic premise states that if artists should be removed from their art, then art is public domain.  Art by public domain is just as independent from its creators as we are from ours. As if to say, the expression of art is not unlike bringing a child into the world. On existing in its own being, despite any intentions tied to its conception, it will exist, be interpreted upon, and affect others in a way which inevitably forms its singular individuality, separate from its makers. Art is like this, having the ability to stand on its own. For, it does not matter whether an artist wished to portray themselves, the world or their world-view any sort of way, their work will be translated and filtered through the perceptions of others, and it will naturally adopt its own sense of being in this multifaceted relationship. When art can be understood as not requiring the artist past its creation, it can more honestly be viewed for what it is, which is a product of the natural world. 

My second basic premise asserts that art is public domain. Being a product of the natural world consists of being materially composed of and by the natural world. Historically, it has been assumed that what consists of our minds is something metaphysical, and therefore, art that is derived from the mind is metaphysical in nature. However, this could not be further from the case. Not only is art materially physical, the contents of what we view as art is physically grounded. Artists which choose to relay their thought or visual experiences onto the world through art, are not downloading metaphysical instances to be delivered in the physical. They are working from the physical natures that they have observed, composing a lyrical interpretation of what already is. I suspect this is why we can easily interchange the term “art” with “piece.” Because art is a piece of nature or even pieces of various natural observations perceived by the artist that they have assorted together to create something that seems new, innovated, or original. But this is not much different from the evolution of a handwritten love letter to a heart-emoji sent by text message. The physical nature for which the message or intention is constructed differently, but the message remains somewhat the same. 

The key here is that in each case, artist to art or letter to text, public interpretations may vary depending on their relationship to the methods utilized through time and space. Meaning, some evolutions of things and people may lose relevance and translation in a public domain. For example, Pablo Picasso, as a deceased artist, is less relevant than he was years prior because he was discovered to be a sex offender. His works are still attached to products such as plates and decorative pillows, but his image seems to be largely removed from the sphere surrounding the art world. In contrast, artist from the mid 1900’s, Salvador Dali, is still publicly prided in image despite his rumored sexual oddity, empathy towards fascism, and self-reported animal cruelty. As it seems, his identity suits the modern public domain, arguably more than his artworks. Though his works may be celebrated, they are hardly pressed on plates and decorative pillows. His face, however, is. Making it unclear as whether his work is famed because of its genius, or if it is famed because of Dali’s claim to his own genius. In either sense, it seems even the artist belongs to some aspect of public domain. 

6. Defense of Most Controversial Premise

My most controversial premise of those above is that art is public domain. Because this is highly controversial, I will further defend this using the following sub-argument:

Sub-Argument

1. Either art is private domain or art is public domain. (Basic)

2. Art is not private domain. (Basic)

C. Therefore, art is public domain. (1, 2 DS)

Dictionary:

R = Art is private domain.

P = Art is public domain.

Symbolized Argument:

1. ~R v P (Basic)

2. ~R (Basic)

C. P (1, 2 DS)

Truth Table:

R	P	1. R v P	2. ~R	C. P
T	T	T	F	T
T	F	T	F	F
F	T	T	T	T
F	F	F	T	F

7. Objections

The most likely objection to my argument is that artists should not be removed from their art because art is not of public domain. Laying this claim on the basis that art must be a sort of expression from an individual, not directly sourced from a public domain, even if it has traces to the physical world by material composition and inspiration. The indirectness of its association warrants ownership to the artist, and grants artists a deserving rights to their own creations.

In response to this objection I would reply that artist should be removed from their art because indirect causes can be more impactful, albeit less noticeable or not as superficial. For example, there currently exist many policies put into place across America that, while they might not directly state the facts, can be proven to hold indirect discrimination. Such policies are rooted in racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.. Amendment 13 of the American constitution is intentionally titled “Abolition of Slavery,” where abolition suggests an elimination to slavery. However, the amendment details an exception to slavery; “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” In this way, the amendment has been able to carry on the methodology of slavery and racism, the same thing it proposes to reject, into modern-day criminal justice systems, prolonging racism into the 21st century. To believe that the indirect does not ultimately effect, it to say that more seemingly dominant causes are what we ought to be judging from. But as mowing over a dandelion does not rid of the weed, so does assuming that the artist is arts source not negate that it is of public domain.

As an objection to my second premise in my sub-argument, my opponent might retort by claiming that art is private domain of the artist, not the public. Art is oftentimes viewed as a resource or a product. Something which is by the creator and representative of the creator. It is a commodity for trade and distribution. In this way, it is a livelihood, and would require protections to remain as such. For if art was not considered as a product, it would not need protections from the public domain. And the public domain could do more than translate the meaning of a piece, but it could reproduce, distribute, and build from the body of work. In order to maintain the sacred relationship of art to artist, law, policy, and ethics are applied that uphold the private domain. But in doing this, I see that we do not just end up protecting works, but we end up commercializing artists in the process. 

In response to this objection, I would reply that art is not private domain because both art and artist are of public domain. The artist Andy Warhol, of the later 1900’s, characteristically caught on to this dilemma. In seizing the fact that art is the artist and vise versa, he, inescapably, ‘became’ art. Or more clearly, he embraced the fact that he was art. His persona, similar to Dali’s, was a deliberate action. His art, held the same intentions. Everything was attested onto the world, as an interpretation of the world, to be interpreted by the world. We now know this more commonly as adapting a ‘brand identity.’ And Warhol was one of the first to exercise this openly but also comment on this phenomena, both through language and representative painting. He once said, “Art? That's a man's name.” As ordinarily taken as joke, this statement goes over ones head. But what Warhol was speaking to was the link of artist to art, not as ownership, but as holding identity similarly to a product. Warhol’s “Campbell’s Soup Cans” prints and portraits of Marilyn Monroe, visually represented this idea where product is on display, drawing clear examples of what it means to be of anything in our society. As we are, of nature, justing being, but when of the public, we are products or even servants of the public domain. The notion to which I am describing, the concept of art standing alone as an individual, also suggests that if art is a product, the artist is one too. What is clear from this is that art and artist are separate, but that both are derived solely from the natural world, and on this, are of public domain. Thus, not being of the private domain unless as the sense of a singular product or image to be used by and for the public domain.

8. Conclusion

In conclusion, artists should be removed from their art because art is of public domain. There are many ways in which both an artist and their art can viewed to address this controversy. But ultimately, by associating an artist to their art, one is admitting that the artist is more than a vessel of creation for the piece, but that they are as much of a product is as the art itself. Just as susceptible to holding value, merit, and relevancy in and for the public domain. 

Works Cited

“The 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.” National Constitution Center. Accessed June 28, 2022. https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-xiii.

13th. YouTube. Netflix, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krfcq5pF8u8. 

“Liberty Leading the People.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. Accessed June 28, 2022. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Liberty-Leading-the-People. 

Oyler, Lauren. “It's Really Surreal How Salvador Dalí Was a Fascist Who Hit Women.” VICE, October 8, 2015. https://www.vice.com/en/article/8qwp9v/its-really-surreal-how-salvador-dal-was-a-fascist-who-hit-women. 

“Picasso Throw Pillows.” Society6. Accessed June 28, 2022. https://society6.com/pillows/picasso. 

“Salvador Dali Throw Pillows.” Society6. Accessed June 28, 2022. https://society6.com/pillows/salvador-dali. 

“The Starry Night.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. Accessed June 28, 2022. https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Starry-Night.

Warhol, Andy. “Andy Warhol Quotes.” BrainyQuote. Xplore. Accessed June 28, 2022. https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/andy-warhol-quotes. 

Winterson, Jeanette. “The Look of Being Looked At.” Andy Warhol at Christie's. Accessed June 28, 2022. http://warhol.christies.com/the-look-of-being-looked-at/. 

Perspective 2: Expression of Identity

1. Introduction

There are many aspects of humanity that separate it from other species on Earth. But there is nothing quite as distinct as human expression. Whether emoting through physical communication, written language, art, or dance, the capacity and breadth of feeling can be both complex and passionate. The result of such capacity can be profound or trivial to our world, but it cannot even begin to make an impact without our unique ability to translate and position our internal emotions into the public domain. Although it may be tempting to believe that artists should be removed from their art because art originates from the natural world, in this paper I will argue that artists should not be removed from their art because art is not public domain. First, I will give background to this thesis, then I will present my argument, followed by explaining my premises and finally defending against possible objections.

2. Background

Humanity has an incredible history using the physical world to relay ones own inner world. From primitive peoples etchings along caves, to sculpted granite resembling mythological musings and imaginations, humans have exerted themselves as creators in their own right. These expressions mark more than a level of intelligence or creativity, they are a mark of the artist’s individuality, something which makes them separate from the plurality of a public domain. Our independent thoughts and perceptions of the world, form something distinctly unique from what others around us may experience. When asserting this reflection into the physical world through expressive means, such as art, we are relaying a sense of our own self and identity into a public domain. Within this dimension, our identity can be questioned and judged, just as it may be without pulling ourselves into a form of art. But this is the nature of art and the nature of being an artist; being and originating of private domain to be relayed in the public domain. No amount of praise or scrutiny on a piece of art or even on an artist can detour from the fact that art is of the artist. They cannot truly be separate, for one cannot exist without the other.

3. Argument

My argument that artists should not be removed from their art is as follows:

1. If artists should be removed from their art, then art is public domain. (Basic)

2. Art is not public domain. (Basic)

C. Artists should not be removed from their art. (1, 2 MT)

4. Validity

I will now show that this argument is unquestionably valid.

Dictionary:

A = Artists should be removed from their art.

P = Art is public domain.

Symbolized Argument:

1. A => P (Basic)

2. ~P (Basic)

C. ~A (1, 2 MT)

Truth Table:

A	P	1. A => P	2. ~P	C. ~A
T	T	T	F	F
T	F	T	T	F
F	T	F	F	T
F	F	T	T	T

5. Explanation of Premises

My first basic premise states that if artists should be removed from their art, then art is public domain. As, if anything is of the public domain, it should not be assigned to specific individual, ie. the artist. It is logical to assume that this is true because, by definition, an artist is a singular person, whereas the public domain would consist of all peoples within the context of some public, such as a society, country, or planet.

My second basic premise asserts that art is not public domain as it is evident that art belongs to its creator, the individual or the artist. Without the artist to adapt their emotions, perceptions, and identity through whatever medium, the expression of art would have never been formed. Without the creator, there is simply nothing to assign even to a public domain. Art may seem to be a public domain by its ability to express aspects of what we view in this domain (commerce, social change) or in its power to produce pleasure, pain, grief, happiness, arousal, controversy, criticism, laughter, etc. in people of the public domain. But these effects are do to its being of cause. Art could not hold this ability if it were not for the mind, mastery, and intention of the artist which was able to bring these reactions about through their work.

6. Defense of Most Controversial Premise

My most controversial premise of those above is that art is not public domain. Because this is highly controversial, I will further defend this using the following sub-argument:

1. If art is public domain, then art is not private domain. (Basic)

2. Art is private domain. (Basic)

C. Therefore, art is not public domain. (1, 2 DS)Dictionary:

R = Art is private domain.

P = Art is public domain.

Symbolized Argument:

1. P => ~R (Basic)

2. R (Basic)

C. ~P (1, 2 MT)

Truth Table:

R	P	~R	1. P => ~R	2. R	C. ~P
T	T	F	T	T	F
T	F	F	T	T	T
F	T	T	T	F	F
F	F	T	F	F	T

7. Objections

The most likely objection to my argument is that artists should be removed from their art because art is of a public domain. When viewing art as a product of a creator, it is possible that we are overlooking what art really is or could be if it were to stand alone and separate from the artist. In associating the artist's identity with the identity of art, one is to assume that art has similar origins to the identity of the individual, which is immensely impacted by the physical world. Where, the same argument that a creator deserves ownership of what they have created could stand in relation to the public domain and an artist, thereby encompassing the artist's art. In this way, there is nothing that does not belong to the public domain.

In response to this objection, I would reply that artists should not be removed from their art because the art is public domain, in the above reason, is indirect. Directly, artists produce their work. Everything is of the physical world, and it is no denying that everything is then in some sense of public domain. However, there are aspects of our independent experiences that do not openly involve the physical world, such as thoughts and dreams. Art allows for these private experiences to live through physical means, thereby opening them up to being in the public domain. They may have been inspired, influenced, or created with the aid of physical properties of the public domain but they express a private domain and are founded by that domain. Thus being of a private domain.

As an objection to my second premise in my sub-argument, my opponent might object by claiming that art is not private domain. Beyond it being from or of a public domain, art, when treated as ‘private domain’ is really just to say that it is treated as capital. In these instances, it is not art, it is a product. If art is said to be an expression, this identity seems to be set for sale and consumption by those of public domain. The only thing that this aspect protects are the right to control how it is distributed and interpreted. Assigning an artist to art allows for this narrative to be manipulated because, more often than not, the artist's historical background plays into the story that the art is supposed to sell. In this way, the arts relationship to the artist also expresses how the artist is just as much of a product as it is, being used for some narrative in its dissemination to the public. Private, in this case, alludes to whoever is governing the dominant messaging that both artist and art are transferring in some space and time. In neither occurrence does art or the artist exclusively hold in the private sense, to themselves or in their own, by ownership or creation.

In response to this objection, I would reply that even in these nuances of art holding in some aspect of private domain or public domain, the fact that art is private domain is not negated. Whether or not some private authority works to control a public opinion does not prove that it does, in fact, control the totality of a public opinion. Every individual, in their own right, has the potential and ability to form their own interpretations and conceptions of themselves, others, and the world. No amount of judgment of art can remove the truth of its essence in the private dominion from it. The relationship between the artist and their art will always hold, despite convolutions of the public, even in such private matters of commerce.

8. Conclusion

In conclusion, artists should not be removed from their art because art is not public domain. Using the sense that a public domain refers to commerce, distracts from the fact that there is an undeniable link between an artist and their art, which solely originates from the artists private domain. No matter how an artist arrives at their inspiration for their work, their creations are necessarily theirs and born from their minds alone. There may be examples of influences that naturally impact us all, but ultimately, individuals are as such: individual. And our expressions express that fact.

Work Cited

“Artist Definition and Meaning.” Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster. Accessed June 28, 2022. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artist.

Colier, Nancy. “Why Your Thoughts Are Not Real.” Psychology Today. Sussex Publishers. Accessed June 28, 2022. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inviting-monkey-tea/201308/why-your-thoughts-are-not-real.

Daniel, James Rushing. “Art and Capital Have Become Nearly Indistinguishable.” Jacobin.

Accessed June 28, 2022. https://jacobin.com/2021/11/art-market-financialization-commodify-currency-museums-assets-capital.

“History of Art.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, June 23, 2022. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_art.

“How Does Art Influence Society?” Reference. IAC Publishing. Accessed June 28, 2022. https://www.reference.com/world-view/art-influence-society-466abce706f18fd0.

Lydiate, Henry. “Reputation: Art & Artists.” Artquest. Accessed June 28, 2022. https://artquest.org.uk/artlaw-article/reputation-art-artists/.

“What Is the Artist's Role in Society?” Artwork Archive. Accessed June 28, 2022. https://www.artworkarchive.com/blog/what-is-the-artist-s-role-in-society.

Wolchover, Natalie. “What Distinguishes Humans from Other Animals?” LiveScience. Purch,

July 3, 2011. https://www.livescience.com/33376-humans-other-animals-distinguishing-mental-abilities.html.