The way I see it, if you intend for the work to be art, it's art.
That's why Marcel Duchamp's toilet signed R. Mutt is art. Never mind that it was ready-made.
So then, everything is art, right? No. It needs a sentient mind declaring it to be so.
Whether it is good or bad is up to the viewer.
See, there are two sides to the equation. The maker, and the viewer.
one makes, and the other is either moved, detests, applauds, or whatever by the work. It is the viewer that determines the quality of the art to them. So yes, the urinal signed by Marcel Duchamp IS art, but is it any good? That is the real question, not whether or not it IS art.
A final note. You know art can take on so many forms, but there's always an uproar when someone says digital art isn't fine art. I think people need to realize that fine art isn't a QUALITy that is placed upon art, but a FORM of art. Photographic art is protographic art, digital art is digital art, performance art is performance art. Fine art merely means that the materials used is paint, pencils, paper or canvas. It has nothing to do with the quality of the piece. Fine art can be bad too, even though it is "fine"
So that, in a nutshell is my definition of art. So when someone says to you, that's not art, tell them, yes it is, it's BAD, but it still is art. It's bad art. Or yes, it is, it's digital art. Or, yes, it's programmer art. it's BAD, but it's art.
That's my two cents.
5 comments:
Hi,Tiffanny,
I agree with you. The post writes on subjectivity and objectivity. Also, I do not say, "bad" at all. Thank you for sharing profound thoughts.
Kind regards, Sadami
Does it even need a viewer other than the artist themself? A hermit in a cave all alone can still make art right?
eric - yes! the artist is also the viewer!
Have you seen the shows about the massive amount of art collected by the Vogels? One of their pieces is of a rope tied in a knot and stapled to a canvas.
I used to work with a guy in an animation studio who said none of us working there were artists. That used to rub me the wrong way, of course. But it's the old argument: fine art, which is hung on a wall, over illustration/applied art, which is generally considered disposable art. Over the years I'm less and less clear on what makes something 'art'. A lot of it might have to do with the 'intention' rather than the finished product. But it's all subjective, like arguing about religions. One thing is clear to me; I don't fit into mainstream categories, or what's considered normal behavior, but being a 'creative artist' seems to fit me better than any other title. I'm not an accountant, or a construction worker, or a sales clerk, though I've done those jobs. I'm an artist, and that seems to make me the most comfortable when I say it. So I must be one.
Post a Comment