Last week, the campus, along with the Daily Beacon, was roiled with the debate over the value of Thomas Kinkade’s artwork, spawning many questions concerning the role of art.

Does the artist’s intention provide the artistic quality of a piece or is it the audience’s reception that defines its artistic value? Does mass, commercial production of a work completely negate artistry, or does it help an artist spread his or her message to a wider public? Is the purpose of art simply to reflect, in this case on an unrealistic world, or should its goals always be geared toward embracing and handling certain ideas, controversies and beliefs?

In short, what is art?

Last Thursday, senior Sonia Jackson handled the issue very well in her letter to the editor of the Beacon. She said that an artist’s intentions first need to be defined before the value of his or her art is decided upon.

Yet, even if we know and understand an artist’s intentions, there is still controversy. For instance, Kinkade’s intentions might be considered artistic, but do his creations adequately reflect the artistic quality of those intentions? And if not, are his intentions alone strong enough to hold the weight of what Jackson calls “true art”?

Perhaps we have forgotten how many elements are available for us to judge a piece of art.

First, there’s the view that either the artist or his audience defines an art work and its role. Could it not be both — the procedure by which the artist creates the work as well as the reception of a certain audience? And what if, as often happens, an artist intends a creation for one purpose, but then it is used by the public for another that is completely different? Is one role more important than another, or perhaps, is the value of both roles equally important within different contexts?

Then there’s the problem of audience. In many pop and R&B circles, Ornette Coleman isn’t placed very high on the art quality chart; yet, in many musical avant-garde circles like Coleman’s or Coltrane’s, or even in some straight-ahead jazz communities, pop and R&B are considered a waste of time.

And what about aesthetic-specific art versus goal-oriented art? Is there a place for art simply “for art’s sake,” or should art always be a hidden expression of a higher idea, controversy or belief? For instance, should genre fiction be heralded as art and should music and movies in the dollar bin be considered artistic as well?

This gives rise to another question: Is artistic quality decided by judging a piece solely from an artistic standpoint or does economic success, social popularity or political clout have a place in determining the function of art? Obviously, the artistic value of the Dixie Chicks is in some part determined by their valiant political struggles, but are they really better musicians than legends Sonny Rollins, Chick Corea, the late Michael Brecker or Kenny Garrett? (Remember that the big four awards for musical artistry at the Grammys transcend all genres; yet, there was not a single nomination for any jazz artist in these categories.)

And even if we are able to pull some sort of loose standard out of this mess, should we rate art on a scale (and how wide?) or should we simply divide potential art into a few categories like art, almost art and not art? How do we decide?

Maybe we shouldn’t.

With all the issues and ideas artists have uncovered and dealt with over the millennia of human history, one poet, John Keats, has provided an answer that seems sufficient in dealing with art and its role — negative capability.

Negative capability is the acceptance, many times by artists themselves, that certain issues cannot be resolved, that the gray area of art and life is simply just that, a gray area. Keats’ idea of open-mindedness and acceptance of two or more conflicting ideas at once brings to the table a whole new set of options within the debate over artistic value.

Perhaps, with so many elements to judge art by, some of which I still haven’t mentioned, we should subject a piece of art to all kinds of criticism, scrutiny and judgment, to get our bearings as an audience and then take a step back in order to accept the fact that no one determination can define what art really is.

In this way, maybe Kinkade’s work can be both accepted and denied, according to which measure is used to judge artistic value, and the work will still remain what it was to begin with — over-priced, mass-produced but idealistic art work.