Artification: Transformation Processes Between Art and Non-Art

The field of art history has expanded significantly in recent decades, incorporating objects, practices, and manifestations that previously did not belong to the traditional artistic domain. In this context, the concept of “artification” emerges as a fundamental theoretical tool for understanding the processes by which elements not considered art are transformed into socially recognized artistic forms. This text examines the concept of artification, its theoretical foundations, the social processes involved, and the critical perspectives surrounding it.

What is artification?

The notion of artification manifests itself in various interconnected ways. First, the transformation of non-art into art constitutes the fundamental process in which something previously not recognized as art becomes art. The paradigmatic example is graffiti, which evolved from a practice considered vandalism to a legitimate form of artistic expression. The art-like modification refers to the transformation of non-artistic objects that acquire artistic characteristics or are influenced by ways of thinking and practices from the art world. This process may involve the acquisition of aesthetic qualities by everyday objects or a change in the social perception of these objects. Artification also involves a requalification and ennoblement that elevates the status of the elements involved. The object becomes art, the producer becomes an artist, manufacturing transforms into creation, and observers convert into an audience. Additionally, through artification, an object undergoes a transformation that increases its social prestige, leading to its acceptance as “art” and, consequently, its cultural legitimation. This process fundamentally depends on the collective belief in the superior value of art and the actions of legitimizing entities.

Researcher Roberta Shapiro, one of the main scholars of the concept, defines artification as the transformation of non-art into art, emphasizing that it is a complex social process involving the transfiguration of people, objects, and practices. For Shapiro, this process constantly redefines the boundaries between art and non-art, constructing new social worlds.

From a phenomenological perspective, artification involves two parallel processes: aestheticization, where objects acquire aesthetic value, and imagination, where they are perceived as similar to art, regardless of their original function.

What art theories influence artification?

The concept of artification is intrinsically related to various theories of art that attempt to define what constitutes an artistic work. Adam Andrzejewski, in his article “Framing Artification,” argues that any analysis of artificated objects must necessarily reference, at least implicitly, existing theories about the nature of art. He identifies two broad categories of theories that influence the understanding of artification:

Separation Theories

These theories postulate a fundamental distinction between works of art and non-artistic objects, establishing a clear separation between these categories, whether institutional, contextual, or ontological. When artification is analyzed from the perspective of these theories, a crucial question arises: how can an object that is not originally a work of art cross this categorical barrier and acquire a status “as art”?

Separation theories pose a theoretical challenge for artification: if there is a clear division between art and non-art, the artification process needs to explain precisely how this boundary can be crossed.

Continuum Theories

In contrast, these theories argue that the distinction between works of art and other objects is tenuous, proposing that there is no significant categorical division between them, but rather a spectrum of possibilities. In this perspective, artification raises another question: why wouldn’t artificated objects simply be classified as a special type of artwork, existing beyond the traditional boundaries of the institutionalized art world?

Andrzejewski emphasizes that the theory of artification itself is always interpreted through the prism of existing theories about works of art. Different theoretical approaches to art generate different understandings of the artification process:

• A historicist theory (such as Jerrold Levinson’s) would consider that artificated objects are created with the intention of being treated in a similar way to the art of the past;
• A functionalist theory (such as Monroe C. Beardsley’s) would understand artificated objects as those that elicit aesthetic experiences similar to those provoked by traditional art.

In his critical analysis, Andrzejewski proposes a definition of artification that seeks to be compatible with various theories of art: an artificated object would be one considered by a person, at a given moment, as if it were a work of art based on a specific theory, while that person maintains the conviction that the object is not, in fact, a conventional work of art.

Artification, therefore, cannot be dissociated from the various existing theories of art, developing in constant dialogue with them. It seeks to explain how objects and practices can transition to the domain of what is socially recognized as art, either through overcoming defined boundaries (Separation Theories) or recognizing a continuum between art and non-art (Continuum Theories).

What social processes define artification?

Artification is not an abstract phenomenon, but a set of concrete social processes that transform non-artistic elements into art. These processes are multifaceted and interconnected.

Transformation and Requalification

Artification goes beyond simple reclassification; it involves a profound transfiguration of objects, people, and practices. There is a requalification and ennoblement: the object is reinterpreted as art, the producer comes to be recognized as an artist, the manufacturing process is redefined as artistic creation, and observers are reconsidered as an appreciating audience.

Social and Institutional Legitimation

The process fundamentally depends on the collective belief in the superior value of art and the actions of legitimizing entities that function as “gatekeepers” of the artistic world. Museums, art critics, galleries, curators, and cultural institutions play a decisive role in legitimizing an object or practice as art, including it in exhibitions, specialized cultural discourse, and expanded social recognition.

Recontextualization

An object initially devoid of recognized artistic qualities undergoes a process of artification when it is displaced from its original context and inserted into an artistic or culturally significant space, such as a gallery or museum. This contextual change radically transforms the way the object is perceived. An emblematic example is the exhibition of indigenous artifacts in contemporary art museums, using exhibition resources typical of artistic shows, which fundamentally alters the perception of these objects.

Reinterpretation and Attribution of New Meanings

Objects can be reinterpreted or imbued with new meanings through an artistic perspective. Curators, critics, artists, and other cultural agents can highlight previously neglected aspects of an object – such as its form, function, or symbolism – encouraging the audience to contemplate it under a new aesthetic or conceptual perspective.

Creative Intervention

Artists frequently modify, repurpose, or reinterpret non-artistic objects, conferring artistic value through their creative intervention. This process significantly contributes to the acceptance of the object within the art system.

Differentiation of Functions and Emergence of New Actors

During the artification process, a differentiation of functions within a cultural field may occur, such as the individualization of creative work and the emergence of authority figures who claim artistic legitimacy. The emergence of new intermediaries or “art entrepreneurs” (such as art dealers, independent curators, specialized critics) is crucial for questioning established categories and offering new spaces for the artistic valuation of previously marginalized practices.

Normative and Legal Consolidation

Legal consolidation represents another significant stage in artification, exemplified by judicial cases that determine the artistic or utilitarian status of certain objects. The legal recognition of an artistic status has profound implications for the perception and cultural and economic value of a practice.

Emphasis on Expressive Activity

Artification reflects a paradigmatic shift in the conception of art, moving from emphasis on the artistic object to the valorization of art as activity and expression. The contemporary belief that all individuals possess an inner authenticity whose expressive realization is legitimate drives artification as a form of identity affirmation for individuals and groups.

It is important to emphasize that artification manifests not only as a symbolic transformation but implies concrete modifications in the physical characteristics of objects, social practices, forms of cooperation and organization, and the artifacts used. It is a simultaneously material, symbolic, and contextual process.

Favorable and critical perspectives on artification

The concept and process of artification elicit both favorable and critical perspectives, reflecting fundamental tensions in the contemporary artistic field.

Favorable Perspectives

Expansion of the concept of art: Artification is valued for challenging the traditional boundaries of art, democratizing access to artistic production and reception. By expanding the scope of what can be considered artistic, artification contributes to a more inclusive and dynamic understanding of art as a cultural phenomenon.

Stimulation of creativity and innovation: The process of artification fosters creativity and innovation, transforming everyday practices into artistic expressions and encouraging new forms of creative manifestation that transcend established categories.

Increase in cultural legitimacy: Artification can lead to the “museification” of marginalized contemporary works, increasing their legitimacy and cultural recognition. This process expands the artistic canon, incorporating expressions previously excluded from dominant narratives in art history.

Social impact and community engagement: Cultural and social organizations can use artification strategies to strengthen community ties, increase credibility with diverse audiences, and enhance their social impact. Artification frequently increases the emotional appeal and visibility of important social causes.

Aesthetic enrichment of everyday life: Artification is valued for enriching the aesthetic dimensions of everyday experience, applying artistic values and sensibilities to everyday objects and practices, contributing to a more refined perception of the cultural environment.

Individual expression and strengthening of social relations: Artification recognizes the human propensity to attribute aesthetic meaning to objects and experiences, which can promote a sense of creative agency, cooperation, and community belonging.

Critical Perspectives

Potential dilution of the value of art: Critics argue that indiscriminate artification can compromise the distinctive value of art, especially when applied uncritically in corporate or commercial contexts. There is a risk of trivializing the artistic experience when everything potentially comes to be considered art.

“Fabrication of the artificial” and loss of authenticity: Artification can be perceived as a “fabrication of the artificial,” with a depreciative connotation of commodification that would compromise the authenticity of cultural objects and practices. Critics question whether artification represents a genuine valorization or merely a superficial appropriation of aesthetic elements.

Need for critical aesthetic literacy: To responsibly navigate the transformative potential of artification, it becomes necessary to develop an aesthetic literacy that allows for critical evaluation of these processes, avoiding superficial or reductionist appropriations.

Reproduction of historical exclusions and hierarchies: Historically, the processes of defining what constitutes art (related to artification) frequently involved the dehumanization or misrepresentation of non-Western forms of expression, based on ethnocentric views. The risk persists of an asymmetry where Western aesthetic understanding is privileged over other cultural traditions.

Commodification and market forces: The expansion of art markets through artification can be predominantly driven by values of market singularity and authenticity, leading to the reclassification of cultural artifacts to meet commercial demands, sometimes obscuring their original cultural context and community meanings.

Deliberate resistance to artification: Certain groups or communities may consciously resist the artification of their practices, whether for pragmatic or ideological reasons, such as the desire to preserve an “underground” character in the name of cultural authenticity or as a form of protest against the commercialization of their expressions.

Final Considerations

Artification represents a fundamental theoretical concept for understanding the contemporary dynamics of transformation between the non-artistic and the artistic. By analyzing the social, institutional, and cultural processes by which objects and practices acquire artistic status, the concept offers a valuable perspective on the constructed and mutable nature of artistic categories.

The tensions between favorable and critical perspectives on artification reflect broader debates about the limits of art, its social function, and its relationship with other domains of human experience. Far from representing merely a neutral process of reclassification, artification involves fundamental questions of power, cultural legitimacy, and the construction of aesthetic value.

Understanding artification requires an interdisciplinary approach that considers both theories of art and the concrete social processes that transform the cultural status of objects and practices. As an analytical concept, artification invites us to continuously question established boundaries and recognize the dynamic and socially constructed character of what we call “art.”

Bibliographical References

Andrzejewski, A. (n.d.). Framing Artification.

Dissanayake, E. (2001). Becoming Homo Aestheticus: Sources of Aesthetic Imagination in Mother-Infant Interactions.

Goldstein, I. S. (n.d.). Da “representação das sobras” à “reantropofagia”: povos indígenas e arte contemporânea no Brasil.

Naukkarinen, O., & Saito, Y. (2012). Artification.

Shapiro, R. (2007). What Is Artification?

Shapiro, R., & Heinich, N. (2012). When is Artification?