Art and Function in a T-Shirt Essay

Defining and evaluating artistic and aesthetic value has often been a problematic task. This is because aesthetic judgements are subjective and are influenced by prevailing cultural, economic, political, and social norms. Hence, the definition of art remains a contested domain between those who believe in â€Å"high art† and the advocates of artistic and cultural relativism. (Danto 35) The difficulty in ascribing aesthetic value to objects is evident in the fact that relativism, with its focus on the individual subjective experience, would render anything and everything as artforms since humans ultimately attach meanings to objects they possess. Changes in culture and socio-economic conditions also alter and influence the very standards by which the aesthetic value of art forms and other objects are judged. For instance, in judging a t-shirt with Bob Marley’s face printed on it on the front through the use of the silkscreen method, one easily dismisses it as a non-art when judged according to the traditional notions of fine art. This is because the t-shirt and the print on it do not express artistic creativity, which is a prerequisite for objects to be considered art forms. The t-shirt and the print, which can be replicated many times over by any one with knowledge on silk screen printing, do not possess relevant canonic properties of art such as unity, complexity, and intensity which could evoke intense human experiences and therefore, aesthetic appreciation (Goldman 185). The sight of the t-shirt does not stir up feelings of beauty nor does its fabric hold anything extraordinary for the senses. The print on the t-shirt does not convey a particular style to capture attention or cause pain or pleasure, at least not in the way that beholding Picasso’s paintings evoke wonder, mystery, and other psychological sentiments arising purely from the painter’s use of style, colors, and the imagination. Likewise, the t-shirt with the print on it was created not for the purpose of being admired as an art. As such, the t-shirt is not valuable in itself but gains value for its function to humans, contrary to traditional visual and other forms of art. Art forms are valued for their artistic worth or for their ability to command a definite blending of particular perceptual and sensory elements from the audience (Goldman 188). On the other hand, subjecting the t-shirt to evaluation based on the principles of aesthetic value leads to interesting results. The t-shirt with Bob Marley’s face printed on it clearly fulfills two aesthetic principles. First, the t-shirt becomes a medium for the image of Bob Marley, a cultural icon in reggae music and in the historical struggle of Jamaicans. In this case, the t-shirt with Bob Marley’s image transcends its status as an object worn by humans to cover themselves and becomes an expression of the values of reggae and Jamaican culture in a manner similar to cultural artifacts. Second, the t-shirt itself may be valued by an individual for the sentiments attached to the shirt. It could have been given as a gift for an occasion or has been worn to events associated with feelings of happiness which make the t-shirt valuable to the individual because of the memories of joyous times spent while wearing it. Thus, other people might consider the same t-shirt aesthetically valuable. Fenner observes that objects do not have intrinsic aesthetic value; rather it is the subjective experience of humans that create aesthetic value for objects, particularly the expectation of pleasure from an object (122). Those who appreciate and know Bob Marley may value his image on the t-shirt and subsequently feel pleasure or the elevation of other feelings associated with Bob Marley’s musical contribution and historical roots. As such, the t-shirt may be appreciated by people who share a cultural affinity with Jamaica or of the counterculture that Bob Marley represents. The value of Bob Marley’s silkscreened image extends to the t-shirt which carries it and reinforces the value of the shirt for its owner. The t-shirt, donned by the owner, can therefore be considered the medium for the expression of individuality and creativity of the wearer. Wearing Bob Marley may be a political or cultural statement for a particular culture, particularly as a representation of the struggle against apartheid or against conventional popular music and the culture it represents. Hence, the appreciation of Jamaican culture or reggae music becomes another definitive aspect of the aesthetic experience that may be separate from the experiences attached to the t-shirt as an object. Likewise, neither the fact that the t-shirt was not created for the sake of art nor its low economic worth prevents it from being categorized as an art form. Fenner notes that the presence of traditional aesthetic properties do not necessarily lead to an aesthetic experience or to the creation of an aesthetic value (121). Hence, the audience can view a pricey painting without feeling any connection with it which would make the painting worthless in terms of evoking a subjective experience of appreciation for creativity or imagination. On the other hand, the same audience may behold the image on a shirt and feel an instant connection, a feeling of intense emotions from memories or meanings attached to the object of attention. It is clear that the traditional definitions of art and the accompanying distinction and stratification between â€Å"high art† and â€Å"lowbrow art† has slowly been eroded with the rise of cultural relativism and postmodern theory. Doubtless, the rigid formality of art has come under attack even within various artists’ circles itself that ascribe to the fluidity and less structured styles of postmodern culture. Thus, even an ordinary t-shirt can now be considered an art form when, after critical analysis, it is able to fulfill the principles of aesthetic value. Works Cited: Fenner, David E.W. The Aesthetic Attitude. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press, 1996. Goldman, Alan. â€Å"Beardsley’s Legacy: The Theory of Aesthetic Value.† The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 63.2 (2005): 185-190.