Are medieval manuscripts considered art? Can art be made by accident?
The definition of art is bound up in socio-cultural-political context that can create a set of dominant values/biases and varies based on what aesthetic values (composition, form, and color) are upheld/practiced in different cultures. I think there is something to be said also about color and compositional theories that determine what is beautiful to human perception in the natural world to better understand how that translates to our notions of what is art, or rather what is beautiful, there are perhaps universal rules or qualities we can also assign. Certainly medieval manuscripts contain an aesthetic appeal, balance of form, color and composition that draws the eye and even affects us on an emotional level. When we learn about their context, the purpose of these texts, the process of making them, the craft and skill invested in them, they enhance our appreciation of them as artworks when we uncover more about their nature and origins. There is certainly a difference between artistic creativity and skilled craft. I think many people are trained in painting and illustration or other artistic talents and do become famous artists, however there are also people who approach art more abstractly and conceptually. Today we see contemporary artists doing performance and installation artworks that defy and challenge conventions and traditions of art and often the meaning or cultural significance of them is not held in their aesthetic appeal.
I don’t think that art can be made by accident. What we tend to see is some intention and deliberateness behind the making of art. The idea of ‘art imitating life imitating art’ blurs the lines of art and life however when we frame a moment/event of life and invite an observer to look upon it with a certain gaze or within the context of ‘art’ it changes the relationship to that piece of ‘life unfolding’.