Are Websites Art?

[Space Patroller]

While most websites are promotional of a business, cause or idea and there is certainly an art ot building them, many relate to some aspect of fiction such as literature, movies TV programs or the like.

These can have different characteristics. Some can be descriptive or informational while other, like mine, have a strong experiential/interactive bent and may break all the conventionas rules to get that done.

So are websites art or aesthetically significant?

[bluey]

While most websites are promotional of a business, cause or idea and there is certainly an art ot building them, many relate to some aspect of fiction such as literature, movies TV programs or the like.

These can have different characteristics. Some can be descriptive or informational while other, like mine, have a strong experiential/interactive bent and may break all the conventionas rules to get that done.

So are websites art or aesthetically significant?

I've been reading The Romantic Manifesto where Rand states that art is "a selective recreation of reality according to the artist's metaphysical value judgments". She says that one defining characteristic of art is that it have no utilitarian value but simply be an end in itself. So if your website is there to provide a platform for publishing your blog articles, for example, then no, according to Objectivism this wouldn't be art.

Hopefully that helps as a short answer. I'm still reading the book and I don't think I completely understand the distinction yet. I guess basically according to Rand maybe 2% of the stuff that's presented to us as art today actually qualifies as "real" art. I'm starting to think that maybe I've never actually seen any art, just a bunch of crap that is supposed to be "artistic", and that's why I can't tell the difference

[Grant]

I've been reading The Romantic Manifesto where Rand states that art is "a selective recreation of reality according to the artist's metaphysical value judgments". She says that one defining characteristic of art is that it have no utilitarian value but simply be an end in itself. So if your website is there to provide a platform for publishing your blog articles, for example, then no, according to Objectivism this wouldn't be art.

Hopefully that helps as a short answer. I'm still reading the book and I don't think I completely understand the distinction yet. I guess basically according to Rand maybe 2% of the stuff that's presented to us as art today actually qualifies as "real" art. I'm starting to think that maybe I've never actually seen any art, just a bunch of crap that is supposed to be "artistic", and that's why I can't tell the difference

Websites, likes books or movies, are merely a medium. They are not in themselves artwork. For instance, if a book contains a fictional story, then that story is art. If on the other hand, it is a non-fiction book, then there's no art involved. The book itself (i.e. pages bound together) is not art. In the same way, websites sometimes contain artwork in the form of stories or paintings(see www.2advanced.com), but the websites themselves are not art. They are merely a medium through which one is able to portray art.

[softwareNerd]

I guess basically according to Rand maybe 2% of the stuff that's presented to us as art today actually qualifies as "real" art.

Actually, I don't think Rand draws the boundaries of art much narrower than the usual traditional sense. Things like literature, painting and music are pretty traditionally thought of as art, and Rand would agree. The decorative arts are closely related, but usually have a different motivation than "pure" art.

It's also important to remember that, classifying something as being art or not being art does not affect its reality, or its meaning, or its usefulness.

[Jill]

I haven't read The Romantic Manifesto yet, but the even by conventional standards the answer is no. It's webdesign. Design follows the "form follows function" rule while the fine arts don't.

[adrock3215]

For instance, if a book contains a fictional story, then that story is art. If on the other hand, it is a non-fiction book, then there's no art involved.

I'm not so sure that "there's no art involved" in writing non-fiction. It seems that surely one can label a work of non-fiction "artistic" in the sense that it has aesthetic merit, i.e. it is well-written. Take, for instance, Edward Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Gibbon had to isolate the important historical facts and integrate them into a story, or a narrative, of the Roman Empire's decline. If anyone has read this great work you would know that he does it very well, and at times artistically. Also consider many of the more artistically-merited philosophers that write non-fiction in prose that can almost be classified as poetic, such as Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, parts of Plato, etc.

Your characterization "If...it is a non-fiction book, then there's no art involved" is an terrific oversimplification that needs to be re-evaluated.

Edited February 25, 2009 by adrock3215

[DavidV]

Design follows the "form follows function" rule while the fine arts don't.

I agree with you, but I don't think Ayn Rand did, since she viewed architecture as art. See this thread for more.

[softwareNerd]

... Ayn Rand ... viewed architecture as art. See this thread for more.

I suspect there's some misunderstanding here. Unfortunately, that thread does not provide any quotes, but simply mentions the essay "Art and Cognition". I suppose one would have to look into that to understand. If anyone has read it more recently or can provide some relevant quotes, it would help.

[softwareNerd]

From the essay mentioned above, here's the main snippet.

Architecture is in a class by itself, because it combines art with a utilitarian purpose and does not re-create reality, but creates a structure for man's habitation or use, expressing man's values. (There are also the performing arts, whose medium is the person of the artist; we shall discuss them later. )

From skimming the rest, I would simply repeat that Rand's view of "what is art" does not appear to be any narrower or wider than the typical conception: i.e. there is nothing very radical in the referents she points to as being art. What is novel is what she identifies as being the common characteristic of these referents. Edited February 25, 2009 by softwareNerd

[agrippa1]

I think she mis-speaks when she says, "... it combines art with a utilitarian purpose and does not re-create reality, but creates a structure ..."

Architecture is utilitarian, but as she says, it combines art, that is, it does re-create reality according to the values of the architect, but within the constraints of physics, and the functional requirements of the structure.

Obvious examples are Wright's "Falling Water" and the Johnson Soap building, clearly abstract recreations of nature, and a blurring of the lines between sculpture and building design. If I remember correctly, Rand goes to some length in The Fountainhead describing how many aspects of traditional architecture recreate earlier architectural forms, which originally recreated natural forms.

Websites are also utilitarian, and, like architecture, they can combine art with function, and so could be considered art. (I don't think Rand intended to argue that the "architecture" of tract housing represents a form of art) I guess it would have to be a value judgment, whether a particular website "is" art.