Another project I'm working on has gotten me thinking about the nature of art. This isn't the first time I've considered that topic. While I was teaching at OSU, I took an Art class just for fun. On the first day of class, the instructor asked us to write a definition of art. This exercise has, I am sure, been repeated countless times over countless years in countless art classes, and for good reason. It is very effective. What is Art? People far more knowledgeable than I have wrestled less than satisfactorily with the question.

Several years ago, together with her two sisters and their significant others, my wife and I took the train to New York. It was just before the New Year, a wonderful time to visit the city. We were there to celebrate the eldest sister's 40th birthday. One of the day's activities was a brief visit to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. At one point, my brother-in-law -- a good guy named Jamie -- and I found ourselves standing before a large painting by Jackson Pollock. Jamie asked the question, "This is art?" I happen to love Pollock's work but I also understand the question. Anyone with kids has hung on their refrigerator "art" not entirely unlike a Pollock painting but the Met never came knocking on the door.

There is among many, particularly in the Western hemisphere, an innate bias against simplicity. Pollock is denigrated because many imagine that "I could have done that." Very few have such thoughts when viewing a Rembrandt. Thus, Rembrandt is superior because his art is deemed more difficult to implement. Similar judgements are made in other artistic realms. Beethoven is superior to the Beach Boys. Michelangelo is superior to Calder. Chippendale is superior to Greene & Greene. Such judgements, however, get to the heart of the question posed above: what is art?

In partial answer, I pose another question: Is art to be equated with skill? Everyday, around the world, people sit in museums before works of art and sketch them. Some do so quite skillfully. Does that make these sketches art? Is a cover version of Good Vibrations, even one that is perfectly executed, equal in artistry to the original? I submit that the answer to these questions is "No." Skillful implementation alone doesn't create art. Similarly, do we remember Rembrandt for his skill with a brush or for his vision, for the dark and forceful nature of his paintings? That, I think, is the crux of this line of reasoning. Art is in the vision, in the ability to create things unlike those that have existed previously. The copy is lacking because the vision is lacking in its creation.

Thus, those who criticize Arts & Crafts designs for being too simple are missing the point (or many points but certainly the point at hand). While they may be beautifully implemented, particularly the work of Greene & Greene, the real artistry in Arts & Crafts pieces is in the creation of new forms, forms that rebelled against the established order and provided alternatives to that order. Many have noted that knowing what to exclude from a design is equal in importance to knowing what to include. Score one for simplicity. And for those who, despite intense opposition, dared to let it guide their art.