Why Art History?

The word "Art" may be one of the most ubiquitous words in our current vocabulary, yet perhaps the most cliché. While you will likely not find a consensus on the meaning and definition of the word "Art," hardly any period in human history has passed without man fashioning or creating what we might call art.

Indeed, it is difficult to understand what unites architecture, poetry, painting, sculpture, and music under a single term—Art. However, man’s insistence on prioritizing these disciplines and integrating them as elements of his civilization—despite the constant friction between them and philosophy, religion, and science—makes it impossible to overlook the study of the artistic condition as a phenomenon with its own concepts and frameworks.

You might visit a museum to find a medieval ceramic jar displayed side-by-side with a gigantic, carved wooden gate, and in the adjacent room, a contemporary painting with unintelligible features. You might smile the smile of a contemplative observer, only to quickly escape the hall before the visitors around you discover the falsity of that smile.

Truly, museums, exhibition halls, or art academies are not necessarily certificates of the quality or importance of the exhibits. Rather, they carry within them the human desire to hoard what guarantees civilization its memory and culture. What is this vessel capable of—and most durable in—containing that responsibility better than artworks? What is the element that unites these arts? And can this element survive in the age of "commercial" art and Artificial Intelligence?

What is Art?

Before the 18th century—prior to the emergence of museums and galleries, it was not easy to access any work of art, especially visual works, to study or even view them. The matter was limited to enjoying them in religious contexts like mosques and churches, or perhaps royal ceremonies. However, this did not prevent humans from continuing their artistic expression even if the "viewership" was scarce.

The word Art in English traces back to the Latin Ars and the Greek Techne. However, the word did not originally possess the direct connotation we use today regarding Fine Arts (such as painting, sculpture, music, and literature). The word "art" previously served other, more general skills such as medicine, gardening, grammar, rhetoric, literature, and manual crafts like carpentry. This may be why the "Faculty of Arts" in English retains its name, as the term was applied to many civilizational and cultural activities.

Nevertheless, a conscious distinction was made in human heritage between manual crafts and what we call Fine Arts using other terms, such as Arts of Imitation (Mimesis), used by Plato and Aristotle to refer to arts like painting, poetry, music, and tragedy. The implication of the term is clear: they considered these arts merely an imitation of nature.

Plato sees truth in three forms:

1. The Absolute Truth: Formulated by God (The Forms), which is absolute, eternal, infinite, and non-material. Its only method of perception is the mind (absolute knowledge).

2. Sensory Particulars: A copy of the absolute Forms, such as a bed made by a carpenter. Although it holds some utility for humans and some knowledge for the maker, it is merely a copy of the divine absolute original (the concept of the bed).

3. The Artistic Image: (Poetry or painting), which is merely a copy of the earthly copy. The artist in traditional arts is just an imitator who could not even grasp the craft mastered by the maker. In Plato’s expression, the artist is "twice removed from the truth." The poet (like Homer) is unaware of the reality of the battles, wisdom, and epics he sings of, nor is the painter aware of how to manufacture the bed he painted from only one angle.

Plato also condemns the idea of a crowd gathering in a theater or before a poet to have negative emotions recounted to them—emotions far removed from their true feelings. Just as a person should not dwell in their grief but try to exit it by prioritizing reason, what is the logic in attempting to import other negative emotions through poetry, painting, or theater? Imitative arts, in his view, often address the dark, negative side of the human soul.

On the other hand, in his dialogue with Ion, Plato presents (through Socrates) his vision of the Divine Source of art. He attempts to convince Ion, a rhapsode specializing in reciting Homer, that art (poetry) has a divine source unconnected to the poet's craft or talent. He likens the artistic process to a magnet that attracts iron rings one after another, where each becomes a source of attraction for the next. The Muse is the magnet that attracts the poet, who then attracts the Rhapsode, who in turn attracts the audience.

The Middle Ages

In the European Middle Ages, dominated by Christian philosophy and Neoplatonism, the term Liberal Arts was used to refer to mental arts. These were divided into two types of sciences:

• The Trivium: The three sciences of language (Grammar, Rhetoric, Logic).

• The Quadrivium: The four sciences of Mathematics (Arithmetic, Geometry, Astronomy, and Music—whose study was linked to math, contrary to our modern understanding).

The other term was Mechanical Arts, referring to manual arts which included categories like weapon making, trade, metalworks, alchemy, and agriculture. The saint and philosopher Bonaventure defined dramatic arts as works aiming to console man and provide pleasure, grouping them with mechanical skills.

Bonaventure divides the "Lights" of knowledge into four types:

1. The Light of Mechanical Skill: Helps man appreciate arts and crafts.

2. The Light of Sense Perception: Helps us know natural forms through senses.

3. The Light of Philosophical Knowledge: An internal light helping us grasp abstract concepts and intellectual truths through investigating inner and hidden causes.

4. The Light of Sacred Scripture: The highest light, leading to the knowledge of redemptive truths in a way that transcends logic and rationality.

Despite the vast gap between Divine Knowledge and Mechanical Knowledge, Bonaventure decides that we can find divine wisdom in the arts of imitation, as their sole purpose is the production of artworks. We can find the "eternal generation" and the incarnation of the "Word" and the union of the soul with God. This holds true if we consider the artist's skill, the artwork's impact, and the employment of qualities derived from that work. His writings contain many comparisons between God’s creation of man and the artist’s creation of the artwork, attempting to root the reasons for creation as the union of the human soul with its Creator. Thus, the artistic process itself—whether creating or receiving—is on a path guiding man toward union with his Lord.

The Islamic Perspective

For Muslims, nothing indicates their understanding of art as an imitation of nature more than the evidence prohibiting the depiction of anything with a soul (Taswir). Al-Nawawi went as far as prohibiting the depiction of living beings, viewing it as an attempt to emulate the Creator's fashioning of His creation. Despite this prohibitory view, some distance the suspicion of banning pictorial art from Islam itself, linking it instead to the rejection of polytheism and resistance to idolaters; if it is for decoration, there is no issue.

Nevertheless, Muslims did not hesitate to use imagery in their books (miniatures), an idea adopted from the Persians and Byzantines. This is, of course, in addition to their exquisite vegetal ornamentation in architecture, such as Muqarnas and Arabesque. This prompted the English art historian Waldemar Januszczak to call Islamic architecture the "Architecture of Paradise," as if they wanted to create an earthly paradise in their buildings to bring them closer to the Paradise of their Lord.

On another side, Arabs applied the term "Industry" (Sina'a) to Imitative Arts like poetry and painting, seemingly placing Nature in opposition to Industry. Abu Hayyan al-Tawhidi narrates in Al-Muqabasat that he was with a group listening to a young singer of such exquisite skill that his companions swayed and were enchanted. He said to them:

"Tell me, in your current state, why did Nature need Industry (Art)? We know that Industry imitates Nature and seeks to join and approach it, despite falling short of it? It only imitated it, followed its sketch, and tracked its footprints due to its lower rank."

None of his companions could explain Nature's need for Industry, so al-Tawhidi continued:

"Nature’s rank is below the rank of the Soul; it accepts its effects, obeys its command, is completed by its perfection... Music is inherent in the Soul... If a musician encounters a receptive nature... he pours upon it the support of Reason and Soul... giving it a beloved form. Thus, Nature needed Industry because it reached its perfection from the side of the Rational Soul through the medium of the originated Industry... seeking completion in what it takes, and perfection in what it gives."

This text indicates that Arabs understood Art as Man (The Soul) added to Nature, and through this goal, Industry (Art) transcends. French Renaissance philosopher Blaise Pascal and English philosopher Francis Bacon had sayings with similar meanings.

The 18th Century

The 18th century is considered a transformation period in art theory. The term Aesthetics was coined by the German philosopher Alexander Baumgarten to establish an independent science for the study of beauty and arts. The word is derived from the Greek Aesthesis, meaning "perception" or "sensation."

The second important matter of this period is that it served as an entry point for the Hierarchy of Art. We know there are "high" arts falling under Fine Arts (Beaux Arts). Writers attribute this term to the French writer Charles Batteux, who coined it to elevate certain arts (Painting, Sculpture, Architecture, Poetry, Music) against others deemed "Applied Arts." Although he was not the first to divide arts, we cannot deny that these are the specific arts that spring to mind when hearing the term "Art" (with a capital A).

Immanuel Kant, in his book Critique of Judgment, compares three types of human judgment:

1. The Agreeable: A purely subjective judgment where a person finds something suitable for them personally without objective logical reasons.

2. The Good: A general judgment based on rational reasons/morals.

3. The Aesthetic (The Beautiful): It is subjective in reality but possesses an implied universality unsupported by logic.

When a person likes the color purple, they consider it "agreeable" to themselves and do not aspire for universality. But if they declare a statue or building "Beautiful," they expect—despite the inability to provide objective reasons—that this judgment should be the general judgment (even if they know it isn't). Kant says: "When he puts a thing on a pedestal and calls it beautiful, he demands the same delight from others. He judges not merely for himself, but for all men, and then speaks of beauty as if it were a property of the things." He also notes that aesthetic judgment resembles logical judgment in that it can be presupposed to be valid for everyone, yet this universality cannot arise from concepts (abstract ideas), for there is no transition from concepts to the feeling of pleasure or pain.

Significantly, the Subjectivity of Art for Kant means that the judgment of beauty relies on the feeling of pleasure and pain in the subject, not a quality inherent in the object.

Kant defines Taste as: "The faculty of judging of an object or a method of representing it by an entirely disinterested satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The object of such satisfaction is called beautiful."

Thus, Art (part of the Beautiful) is judged without any direct or indirect utilitarian interest other than the aesthetic pleasure it imparts. As he famously said: "Art is purposiveness without purpose."

Aesthetic Theories

The Spanish philosopher George Santayana was not convinced by the term "Aesthetics." He formulated a strong philosophy of art emphasizing two meanings: a general meaning and a specific meaning that makes art merely a response to pleasure (pleasure of senses and imagination) without Truth having any entry. He seemingly agreed with Kant that the artistic process is self-sufficient without an ulterior goal, and that the value of artistic activity is independent of individual or social circumstances. He even elevated aesthetic values above moral values due to their independence from utilitarian judgment.

Santayana defined beauty as "pleasure objectified." He asserted three constituents of beauty:

1. Material: The first pillar. The Parthenon would not have the same aesthetic effect if not made of marble.

2. Form: He discusses the effect of abstract forms (e.g., the circle evoking purity vs. the oval). He explains the passion for Symmetrical Forms via the theory of "Unity in Variety."

3. Expression: The collection of emotional effects that imbue the aesthetic content with specific emotional significance, varying according to the memories and associations generated in the viewer's mind.

Leo Tolstoy, the renowned Russian novelist, objected to the purely aesthetic view of art. He claimed such a view equates to seeing food only as pleasure without considering its nutritional benefit. He formulated a theory that Art is a means of social interaction: just as language is the means to exchange thoughts, Art is the means to exchange feelings and experiences.

Malraux and The Rejection of Imitation

A trend emerged to separate Art from the concept of "Mimesis" (Imitation). The French novelist André Malraux emphasized that we cannot penetrate the essence of artistic creation unless we exclude every tendency that claims mere imitation. He argued that Western culture is the only one that thought resemblance was a "fundamental factor in art," whereas imitation remained unknown in Africa, the Pacific Islands, Ancient Egypt, and Mesopotamia. Even when an artist tries to imitate, they inevitably dye the work with their point of view.

Malraux asserts that the reason great artworks excite us is never because they are derived from life or extracted from reality. Art is not nature viewed through a temperament, unless music is the nightingale heard through a temperament!

For Malraux, artistic creation is an independent goal; an independent human will. He says: "The sunset that excites our admiration in a painting is not a beautiful sunset, but the sunset painted by a great artist."

There is nothing in the lives of artists to testify that the desire to create arose from being affected by a landscape; rather, what sparks talent is the emotion felt in youth regarding other excellent artworks. The artist screams: "I too will be an artist." This means the origin of the artist's vision is the "World of Art," not the "World of Nature." What pleases us in Rembrandt’s The Slaughtered Ox is not the carcass, but the artistic presence that turns the painting into a moving symphony of form. Nature, for Malraux, is a servant to Art, not the reverse. Art is humanity's tool to conquer death—a language transcending cultures and time.

The Formalist Theory

No one attacked the theories of imitation as much as the Englishman Clive Bell in his Formalist Theory. He did not stop at denying the imitative nature of art but rejected most works that tried to imitate reality or convey ideas. Bell accepted as Art only works containing what he called "Significant Form."

He defines Significant Form in visual arts as: "These combinations and arrangements of lines and colors... that stir our Aesthetic Emotion."

He used "Aesthetic Emotion" to distinguish it from the word "Beautiful," which might be applied to natural things like a flower. For Bell, a work is Art if it contains Significant Form; it is not Art if it lacks it. There is no good or bad art; it is either Art or Non-Art.

Aesthetic Emotion is a unique state accompanying the viewing of real art. Although subjective, it is a value. Bell defines it as a "Quality," like the quality of "Redness." Qualities cannot be proven; they are known by intuition. Thus, Bell elevates the artistic state to the rank of absolute, non-material values. He also lifts the artwork above moral judgment; or rather, all art is moral because artworks are direct means to "The Good."

Bell says: "We are all familiar with pictures that interest us and excite our admiration, but do not move us as works of art. To this class belongs what I call 'Descriptive Painting'... strictly speaking, it is not a work of art."

Commenting on Frith’s famous painting Paddington Station, he notes that lines and colors are used to recount anecdotes and suggest ideas, not to provoke aesthetic emotion. Such works are merely recording/documenting and can be replaced by photography or cinema. He adds: "Using art as a means to the emotions of life is like using a telescope to read the news."

Primitive Art, as a general rule, is good art because it is free from descriptive qualities. In Sumerian, Ancient Egyptian, or Archaic Greek art, you find three qualities: absence of representation, absence of technical swagger, and the presence of sublime, impressive form. Formal significance loses itself when occupied with accurate representation. From here, we find ideas that theorized formalist movements like Symbolism, Fauvism, Expressionism, Cubism, and Surrealism.

According to his pure Formalist theory, Bell claims it is unnecessary to study art history or the artist's life to appreciate art. The artwork must remain isolated from its context as long as Significant Form is present.

Conclusion

We did not intend to list every human attempt to theorize what we call "Art," but to explore how man attempted to set rules and interpretations for one of the most critical elements used to preserve his culture, extend his roots, and defy time. Neither religions nor sciences have had that terrible ability to keep pace with time as artworks—works intended by man to survive and influence.