"Should a piece be able to stand on its own, without title or description?'
We were looking at a large long hard case/container lined with foam and packed with: books, a sword, a bell, an eye ball, a cigarette, a corn cob pipe, a fluorescent tube, and many other things...
It was a physical expression of theatre, specifically the Hunchback of Notre Dame (which was one of the books in the case), created with a certain amount of stream of conscience word association, but then incarnated into actual objects. This was made clear in the description posted on the wall. It was an expression of a kit that could instantly become theatre if you just added people...
I am quite comfortable dealing with the audacity of art - that is to say "it is defined by the artist..." I am comfortable with the complexity and context which inspire a person to declare something art and do not feel the need to always understand. I feel free to look and react, to both read and also not read as I am inspired, interested, horrified, and confused. Some art I appreciate at first glance other pieces I appreciate with reflection and contemplation of the process and context out of which it arises...
I personally love writing about my art. It is almost as much fun as creating it. Although you should know that it is rather infrequent that what I write was consciously within my brain when I began creating. I like writing about my art because it is as much an opportunity to discover what I have done as it is to explain it. Although, in any explanation or creation I am certain I will wind up revealing who I am.
"What people see, eventually, is only what's really inside them" - Thomas Ruff
"It is invariably one's self that one collects" - Jean Baudrillard
What defines/makes something Art?
What is something that should be considered Art?
What is something that should not?
What are defining features of Art?
Must Art mean something? Whose definition is primary?
These reflections make me think of our conversation on the bus about knowing truth through the experience of art (in reference to Gilead). But do you think you can feel comfortable enough with a piece to call it art while having absolutely no understanding? Sometimes I feel I gain understanding that would be shattered with words, but the pieces I don't understand at all I feel I need to understand at least in part before I can (with sincerity) call it art...
ReplyDeletePost modern abstract would claim no "meaning" but to just exist "art for the sake of art"... I have both created and enjoyed abstract art with varying levels of understood meaning... so I think, no, I am not sure one must necessarily "understand" at least not cognitively, in order for something to be "art". I often find meaning post creation in stuff I do, however I would be absolutely prepared to call it art before I have "understood" it... So for me I think I would define art more related to intentional creativity, regardless of "explicit" meaning or "understanding"... Does that make sense? Did I misunderstand you?
ReplyDeleteYou are getting at another aspect of things though too. Who gets to declare something art? Is it the artist? The viewer? The Academy/Gallery? How many people have to agree before it's officially art? Does one have to create "official" art to be an "artist"?
I think both the artist and viewer must come to a mutal agreement that the artists piece is well art. I don't think art as to have "meaning" but for me for something to be called "art" requires skill. That is to say an artist must possess an ability greater than that of his peers to communicate in whatever medium he/she choosese They must be skilled at creating something with a purpose no no purpose. So for me, if some guy bought a guitar and leaned up against a wall. I would not call that art because well there was no effort other than paying $200 involved. Not to mention any skill. To my that says you didn't try. Now if that artist took a photo of that guitar or prehaphs dismantled it and reshaped it or used as to create something orginal or did something well, different with it - then I would consider that art.
ReplyDeleteYes. the classic leaning guitar... or the bagel on the window sill... I would agree that this type of art usually requires a greater sense of meaning/idea/purpose before one can justify it as art but I think it can definitely be art...
ReplyDeleteWhile skill is certainly of great value... I less willing to use it to define "art", many great artists have mediocre "skill" and many highly skilled people are mediocre artists... (Think Bob Dylan, The Beatles etc. vs. American Idol) Art and artists are defined more by their creativity and ability to create rather than the skill they do it with...
Finally, while understandable, I am uncertain about measuring artistic value based on effort... Sometimes a painting, or a poem or whatever comes really easily and quickly... sometimes I can work forever on stuff and it still doesn't work... Finally, one must also measure the time and energy that one devotes to art and creativity throughout life that has allowed the creation of the most recent piece... whether that is a Bagel on a window sill, or a symphony or a painting... It is difficult to quantify what went into and allowed a particular creative act.
fair enough. I understand that, how difficult it is quantify creativity. I guess though skill communicates effort. with the Guitar example I want to see something that communicates and intentional desire for art. Leaning a guitar against a wall could never be art for me because I feel in that case the credit should go to the maker of the guitar because well he created something time and effort and thought went into it. I guess I liken a gutiar leaning against a wall to me buying a priceless painting and thinking people should call me artistic because I hung 3 cm to the left on my wall instead of people. People's first thought of that woundn't be where I hung it it would be the painting. In the same way when I see something like a guitar on a wall i think of the time and care and detail someone put into the guitar. If I see against the wall - think big deal- someone left it there just like someone would look at my painting i hung just place on the wall
ReplyDeleteAs someone who largely does not understand art, or have much of a history in the area, here are my responses to your initial questions.
ReplyDeleteI think art does not necessarily need to stand on its own. I think the use of language ought not to be excluded from the "piece". To limit the "art" as different from the description places non-human limitations on the art. Descriptions are a regular part of human existence. I for one would not understand half the art I have seen without the descriptions.
I, however, would go on to say that art does not need to be described, or a consensus arrived at as to what it means. I would state intention as the deciding factor of what constitutes art and what is not art. I would put the onus on the creator of the art to have intention in creating it.
I do not think art must mean anything. Art, for me, thrives from me putting my private perspective onto a piece of art. Whether the part of self I use is the intellect of attempting to understand what the artist meant or the inclusion of my personal experience on a farm being projected onto a painting of a farm, ultimately it is a reflection of myself and my private experience and perspective projected into a public forum. Due to this, and the variety of private experiences that make up humanity, a piece of art will have a plethora of meaning making it indefinable.