If you, too, are baffled by what is art and what is not, how do you decide?
Are there works of art that, at first, you didn't consider worthy of the designation? If you later changed your mind, what led to seeing those works as art after all?
|
This past weekend, I had the opportunity to view lots of new art. Artist Judith Selby-Lang generously sent me a complimentary ticket, courtesy of SF ElectricWorks, to artMRKT San Francisco, a contemporary and modern art fair. Held on the edge of the bay at Ft. Mason, with a grand view of the Golden Gate Bridge, this event exhibited the work of artists represented by 70 galleries. Though most of the galleries are located on the west coast, others are scattered across North America and even as far away as London and Tel Aviv. As I walked around, stopping at one display after another, I found myself wondering again, How do we decide what is art? While there were not a lot of items I would consider placing in my home or studio, I couldn't help but be impressed by the innovative use of non-traditional sources: matchboxes, marine vinyl, video technology, recycled circuit boards, hay, even gun parts and bullets. I have to admit that I also was downright puzzled by the artistic merit of work I saw people exclaiming over. I won't make pronouncements here about what I valued or found questionable. An apt French expression is the best I can come up with: chacun à son goût--to each, his/her own taste or preference. Still, I couldn't help pondering, Who says what art is? And why is that a question so fraught with ambiguity? One of the significant changes to emerge from the major art movements of the 20th century is that nowadays anything goes in art, especially because every kind of material and medium is employed to convey an emotion, a political message, or other kind of statement. If you can exhibit outsized soup cans in a museum, then what can't you display as art? It's not like in the olden days, when the reigning academy classically set the rules and made the judgments. There's no longer a central authority that dictates what is art and what is not. Modern artists rebelled and broke out of that restrictive box. Isn't that what creativity is all about anyway? According to French artist Philippe Petit, it most certainly is. For those who were around in 1974, you might remember that he walked a high-wire between the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, for which he was immediately arrested. In a Wall Street Journal article citing his new book, Creativity: The Perfect Crime, he tells Barbara Chai, "You should learn the rules to be able to forget the rules...Unless you break those rules you’re not really going to create." So maybe the many items that confounded my aesthetic sensibility are simply examples of art that has gone beyond any earlier rules. I am reminded again of what has become a cliched expression, but still rings true: Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. So is art, with a slight twist: Art is in the mind of the beholder. Questions and Comments:
If you, too, are baffled by what is art and what is not, how do you decide? Are there works of art that, at first, you didn't consider worthy of the designation? If you later changed your mind, what led to seeing those works as art after all?
4 Comments
5/19/2014 09:42:25 am
In these post-Conceptual days there's an awful lot of simplistic thinking and making that justifies no matter what as art. Having been for so many years an "art critic," I have reached the point where I check in with the heart, mind and brain as well as with the seeing eye; if what I see continues to resonate with my consciousness, changes my way of seeing things, speaks to my heart, and stays with me, I call it art. If not, it makes little difference whether it's "art" or not? Metta to you, Peter
Reply
5/19/2014 12:46:31 pm
Thank you, Peter. I agree with your summation of post-conceptual days. Concept doesn't move me. It feels overly intellectual for what draws me to artwork. Rather, I have a kinesthetic response; something resonates in the body. However, I like the sound of your holistic approach--bringing the heart, mind, brain, and eye to bear on the experience.
Reply
The dictionary defines art as " the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power:" I'm looking at some of those "pieces" and wondering where is the creative skill, where is the imagination? Does a statement of fact printed onto paper and framed make it art? I think not. Good, bad or indifferent, I want to see skill, sensitivity, creativity, integrity, passion, and some soul in a piece of work before I'd call it art.
Reply
5/19/2014 12:55:08 pm
Hear, hear! Thanks, Charis, for opting for factors other than concept or shock value in considering what is art. Sometimes I wonder whether I'm simply not radical in my approach to art. But then I remember the Danish fairy tale about the emperor's new clothes, that is, the emperor actually has nothing on.
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Mirka KnasterI am a fiber/mixed-media artist with a decades-long career as a writer. Working with textiles and handmade paper from around the world and exploring the heart of art evoke my joy daily. *Blog continues on my website. Click link below for my recent posts.
Archives
March 2017
Categories
|