Oh dear, one of those saturday night in the pub discussions.
Most people will have had this convesation at one time or another (probably many times with different people - or even with the same people). Not wanting to miss out, here’s the result of mine.
The easy art, that no-one questions, seem to be fairly well defined. A statue, a scupture, a painting of a “thing” that you can easily identify: there’s very little argument about their “artiness”. How about other things, such as an abstract, or a particularly nice looking car? What makes one thing art and another thing not-art? Personally I have a few questions I ask myself whenever I’m in doubt about the status of some possible art. Starting with:
Is it trivial?
This is the pile of bricks question. While I agree there’s a talent in illustrating an aspect of an everyday item or situation, having that talent doesn’t make you an artist. It might make you a lot of money, or it might make you a social commentator but it lacks that certain creative something - that puts a piece beyond the “I could’ve done that” thought that it’s audience will think.
Next up, is it deliberate?
We’re starting to get contentious here. Is it abstract expressionism, or is it throwing a can of paint at a canvas (hands up: who thought “Jackson Polllock”, hmmm that’s just me and you over there in the corner - oh well.)? The problem I have is with the random element - I would like an artist to be able to describe how each element of their creation adds to the whole and if it was not there, or somehow different, that the piece would be a lesser work. When each action is a deliberate step: considered then executed I can understand the creative process. However when the artist is not in full control over this process the end result cannot be said to truly be a work of art: there was no initial vision of how the piece should end up.
Did the creator intend to make art?
Or was it their intention to build a car, or a bridge. When the end result is shown off and people say “that’s a work of art!”, are they right? No. Likewise, when an item is taken out of it’s everyday setting and put on a pedestal, does that make it art? Again, no. The reason I wouldn’t count these examples as art is that the original goal was to create something else. In some ways art (in any of it’s forms) should be the goal in itself, not a by-product of another mechanism. Now that doesn’t mean mundane items can’t or shouldn’t look nice or have aesthetic appeal, just that they ain’t art.
One other area that is disqualified by this, is the topic of computer or animal created “art”. Neither of these can set out with the intention of creating a piece of art cannot appreciate it’s appeal.
One final thought.
When all is said and done, it doesn’t really matter if something is art or not. If it makes you happy and you like it for itself, that’s the important point - not whether someone else looks down their nose and makes comments about it. Maybe they have studied the subject, or just (ahem) can’t keep their opinions to themselves, however that shouldn’t diminish the pleasure it gives.
