]]>
]]>
Prof. Aievoli
Sofie Hoff
Book of Kells
September 25, 2014
Is the Book of Kells truly art or design?
My initial impression was that the Book of Kells is art. After realizing the weight of the types, the symbols and lettering I felt an urge to call it design. But after I studied the book closer, really looked close up at the metaphorical detailing and the extremely thoughtful composition and being amazed by the craftwork behind it, I would like to correct myself by rather calling it both art and design. Knowing more about the meaning behind it, why it was made and how it was used instinctively and frivolously makes me wanting to call it art. But just like the discussion about what art truly is, so will this discussion about whether this first illuminated manuscript known to us today is art or not go on for eternity. It is an endless discussion that will vary just as greatly and for as long as there are people having an opinion about it. Because what is art really and what is really design? Simply put design has a purpose and art provokes emotional responses. In order to better determine what the Book of Kells might be more or less of, allow me to start off by breaking down a few terms a little so that this complex discussion can become slightly easier to grasp. Let us look closer at the origin of the book, the purpose and its use and the obvious visual. Let us further compare this to the use, the purpose and the differences between art and design and let us not forget about the differences between now and then. I will support my theories and statements about art and design by mainly referencing to Hume and Kant’s thoughts on philosophy of art from Theodore Gracyk’s analysis of “Hume and Kant: Summary and Comparison”.
Way before the art of printmaking was discovered in Europe, the Book of Kells was made and so by hand. A piece like the Book of Kells, made by hand, was and still is being considered an art form today. Without a doubt, it would not have been handmade today. The book would not have been art if it would have been done today. It would have been designed and mass-produced. In my opinion, this mass-producing society that we are a part of today does not produce significantly many pieces of high-quality fine art.
The fact that the Book of Kells was made over a thousand years ago adds an intriguing history to a dead object. Since the history is not entirely known to us, this consequently adds a level of mystery to the concept of the book. The book’s purpose was to simply convert pilgrims to Christianity, by enlighten them with an illuminated manuscript. The book’s recognizable Celtic symbols, iconic drawings and pictorial structure caught the attention of the pilgrims and the sacred beauty of the illustrations was purposefully made in order to sweep them off their feet. “There is nothing that makes its way more directly to the soul than beauty,” emphasizes Thomas Gracyk by quoting Joseph Addison in his analysis.
In similarity to pure art, a certain degree of sacredness was intentionally applied to the object. The purpose of art is many but besides representing the real world, feelings or pure beauty, the conceptual elements of art can also be viewed as a form of religion. Art and especially good art provokes emotions and touches one deeply. Without the additional level of sacredness and mystery the magic of the art will be lost and that is where I personally believe design steps in. Design has a single purpose much more simple, straight forward and obvious than art. It has rules to be followed in order to ease the connections of the invisible dots and to increase the possibility for as many as possible to understand what is being visually presented. For me, design is something that follows rules of what works or not much stricter than art, if not completely. As expressed in Thomas Gracyk’s analysis, “imagination is stifled once we grasp the organizing concept or rule.” In other words, the artist makes art outside the box while the designer stick to the rules and guidelines inside the box, metaphorically speaking. Thus by using the rules of basic design, I fully believe it is possible expand the purpose and the design’s use and to create a piece of art. I believe that as soon as there is a hint of magic to the piece, whatever the object, concept or context might be, it automatically gives it a potential to be art. Ultimately, it is all about the individual and for people to decide for themselves what magic, beauty and art truly is.
As mentioned before, what art respective design is truly is a question that can be discussed and argued endlessly since “art does not depend on any inferences we make from established rules” (Gracyk). There are no rights or wrongs when it comes to art, due solely to the individual’s experiences. Hume elaborates on the complication emphasizing that the beauty of art is just as unique and complex as the interpretations of our feelings and emotions and the response that those creates. What the Book of Kells was doing was to draw attention from a certain group of people and by offering them extraordinary beauty and enlightening knowledge. The fact that the knowledge on its hand was designed to distort their beliefs and to convert their faiths has little to do with the actual discussion whether the Book is design or art. I believe it is the visual beauty and how to interpret that beauty in its pure form that is the key in this matter. To once again refer to Hume and Kant, the “aesthetic properties [of art] are not objective” and therefore “seem beyond debate or discussion.” Though from my personal point of view and put in a perspective of today’s values and ordinariness, the Book of Kells is both art and design. Due to its concept, its historical meaning and applied mystery, I decide to believe it is more art than design.
Bibliography
Gracyk, Theodore. “Philosophy of Art, Hume and Kant: Summary and Comparison.” Http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk. 15 Feb. 2006. Web. 25 Sept. 2014. <http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20of%20art/hume_and_kant.htm>.
Heller, Steven. History of Graphic Design. 2005
]]>Book of Kells, Art or Design?
Alecia Weiterschan
History of Visual Communications
Professor Aievoli
09/22/2014
Abstract
In this essay I examined the debate between whether the Book of Kells is represented as a work of art or design. I defined the context of art and design; also discussed the historical time period the book was created. By doing so, this allowed me to elaborate on its significance and purpose. Based off of Hume and Kant’s theories and my own formal opinion, I have concluded the Book of Kells was primarily created as a design. In the religious realm of Christianity, leaders felt it was necessary to deflect pagans from their religion. In order to do so they produced the Book of Kells in hopes of converting them to Christianity. They deliberately incorporated pagan artwork to manipulate them into reading their book. Separate from the purpose of the Book of Kells, I believe the design is art and I appreciate their inventiveness.
The Book of Kells served a sacramental purpose, instituted for the church. It consisted of the first four books of the New Testament, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. When the book was developed, paganism was prominent. The function was primarily to convert pagans to Christianity, although it is an illuminated manuscript of western calligraphy. The ongoing debate with the Book of Kells is whether it is constituted as a work of art or design. In order to establish an opinion one must consider the definition of both. The fine arts are thought to be an expression of an individual’s artistic ability that then evokes an emotional response from their audience. On the contrary a design is created with the intentions of marketing a certain idea or object for others to desire. With that in mind, I have formed an opinion that the Book of Kells is essentially a design. But I cannot deny that the artists whom created this piece have an elevated skill in fine arts. I appreciate the work presented and do believe when the design is separated from its context it is art.
In Aesthetic theories of David Hume and Immanuel Kant, it was noted that both contest art to be used as a promotion for religious doctrine. I am critical of their opinion because at this particular time the age of Enlightenment was notorious. This caused their opinions to be bias on anything considered religious, which I find unjust. What I do agree with is Hume’s idea that beauty causes pleasure in the mind and there is no response that is superior to another. With this my opinion holds true, I appreciate the art created in the Book of kells. It is well crafted and is equipped with such detail it would be hard to duplicate. On the contrary the work does not coincide with my usual taste and as Hume wrote there are unavoidable prejudices. For example natural preference, generational difference and culture. If I were present when the Book of Kells was created I would assume that I would find it more appealing. The book was encrypted with Celtic design and other iconic Irish emblems that would please most humans within that culture and time period. But I believe that is what the designers had in mind when creating the book. They knew what their society was embracing at the time and the aesthetics they found pleasing. Icons used in pagan traditions were also integrated in hopes of attracting pagans into reading the book and converting them to Christianity. It was a strategic move that was planned for a purpose. By which both Hume and Kant define as a design.
In Kant’s Theory he sees the world as a complex “manifold” of sensations. Meaning everything we think we feel is from a preconceived emotion that we already experienced. When dealing with art, one must separate prior judgments with what they see. By doing so you’re able to respond aesthetically and form your own opinion. When looking at the Book of Kells separate from my knowledge I see art, I see the artists detailed brush strokes, pristine calligraphy, and an abundance of vibrant colors. But as Kant then illustrates that when you form an aesthetic judgment we create an opinion on human cognition rather then the object. This is exactly what I did in my previous statement; I described my opinion based on the artist’s craftsmanship. It all seems contradicting to me and I can’t seem to find a solid answer between Hume and Kant. If we judge art, it is apparent that we are viewing it from our own personal taste. Regardless of any preconceived notions, I know what I find appealing and what I don’t.
When Kant discusses beauty he believes it to be a “finer feeling”. He emphasizes nature as an important object of taste. He also states that reducing art to a mere display of beautiful form would suggest that the artworks content is an unnecessary addition. But from the knowledge I have acquired, almost all art has content or an underlying meaning. Whether it is Salvador Dali’s “The Persistence of Memory” or Jacob Lawrence “The Migration of the Negros”, they all have content. If you were to look at these paintings with little background information it would be harder to understand the work itself. Instinctually we ask. What is it? Or what is the purpose of this piece? And we place little emphasis on the actual work itself. On the contrary in graphic design for example you can almost always tell what the principle is without having to ask questions.
Hume and Kant though have tried to distinguish art and design into two separate categories. What they argue is that fine art creates pleasure and entertainment. Design on the other hand is for an intellectual interest and to market an idea or object. In my opinion design can also be perceived as art. There are numerous accounts where a logo or design appeals to me and evokes pleasure. Even if the primary function of the design is intended to sell an item I can see beauty. Judging the Book of Kells I believe its primary existence was a design. It was created for another purpose rather then for gratification. I don’t necessarily find it appealing but I do appreciate it as a piece of artwork separate from its meaning.
Bibliography
Theodore, Gracyk. Philosophy of art, “Aesthetic theories of David Hume and
Immanuel Kant”. 2004. http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20of%20art/hume_and_kant.htm
]]>
Read and review visual communications from antiquity – Book of Kells for example. Decide if it is truly art or design. Other examples from the text and within the prescribed timeline are acceptable. Read a synopsis of Hume and Kant’s theories of beauty and art. Using the formal historical text as a basis students are asked to present the example then reflect upon the example’s place as art or design based of the supplemental readings.
Due Date: 9/28/17
]]>