Material per se
Perhaps we have to find another point of departure. As artistic materials cannot be listed conclusively, we can try to define material as such and then elaborate the special characteristics of artistic material. A widely-cited thinker in this context is Aristotle. Simply put, he breaks things up into matter and form. Following his concept of matter, however, we learn that it is not suitable for our purposes. Namely, his analysis quickly reveals a problem: “Matter can itself be divided into matter and form: for instance, bricks are made of clay, shaped into cuboid blocks. Again, clay has its own matter—mud, say—and so on. Eventually, if one pursues this hierarchy of matter far enough downwards, Aristotle believes that one will reach the four elements, earth, air, fire and water."(2) Contemporary thought arrives at similar results. Informed by findings in the natural sciences, the chain does not end at the four elements anymore but at particles and waves charged with energy. Such a concept of material does not help us much either in the context of art—material particles do not differ from each other, regardless whether they are in a spaceship or in Van Gogh’s self portrait.
