Easter

[Ted Byrne]

Is the act of creating a new melody art? Always? Ever? Hmmm.... Is any scribble by me art? Suppose it was a random Picasso scribble? Warhol? s a random, misfiring of Ansel Adam's shutter an act of creating art?

If I package a camera behind a tiny hole in the box and arrange to have the shutter released at random when I ship it from here to say Denmark... are the exposures art?

Is that decision up to the beholder? Perhaps the decision on those random images from the shipped box become art when I chose some over others and then enhance their contents?

Yeah... it's tough to define it, but I knows it when I sees it, right? 

[habakuk]

Well, if art has something to do with creativity... then, yes, your idea with the random shutter on the trip to denmark is of course art. What else would it be? If art requires a certain amount of technical skills or craft, then who's the one who defines how much skills it takes?

What is the difference between craft and art? We had this discussion when we created the board logo... and I think it is a very intersting discussion.

The accidental release of a shutter might not be art. But if I decide to create art from the product of the accidental shutter release, then it will be art - regardless of how the "source" material has come into existence, no? When Picasso (and others) tried to let go of all the drawing skills he learned/acquired and wanted to go back to a pure child drawing style - (almost) free of bounds and mental restrictions - wasn't that art? If it was - then trying to get rid of all craftmanship is art as well, no?

cheers
®

[eob]

I've never studied art history formally, but I've spent considerable time among artists (painters, graphic artists and photographers). I've also worked for seven years at one of the national museums (as a documental photographer assisting conservation and restoration processes) where I have acquainted myself with works of many world-class artists in all fields of art. I have spent countless hours studying art on my own and discussing it with my artist-friends. Still, by no means I can consider myself an expert, so my response to this question by Ted is just a reflection of my personal experience/analysis of art. So, don't take my writing below as any kind of a benchmark, please...

There are different kinds of art. One of them is a conceptual art. That's the one where a creator might want to "package a camera behind a tiny hole in the box and arrange to have the shutter released at random when I ship it from here to say Denmark..." Another kind is a descriptive art where a creator might want to capture a fragment of the reality and enhance or modify it according to his/her artistic taste. Yet another one is the abstract art, where a creator uses reality only as a reference point for viewer's imagination and sensibility.

Works of art in each category may have profound impact or may leave a viewer with a bad aftertaste. To be considered an art, IMHO, the piece's content must meet certain high standards of thought, emotion and technical quality. All of those elements must be present. I would certainly not count "misfiring of Ansel Adam's shutter" as an act of art creation.

Kitsch is not the same as art and yet, creators of kitsch consider themselves artists, especially when that kitsch sells well. Therefore, I am far from declaring that everybody is an artist. I also can't agree with the statement saying that if you say your work is art, then it's art. Right or wrong, only the critics, museum curators and art historians can classify art as art. There can not be a democracy in this process because only a small percentage of a population possesses enough taste, intelligence, talent, education and experience needed for that kind of classification.

[Ted Byrne]

Well… yeah April, but….. 

1. There is more than a danger that the small world of “experts’ will suffer from inbreeding. Or the results of inbreeding. Too many parents inseminate their young in the "art-expert" world.

2. There is a tendency for the majority of  “experts” who define the existence of, and the importance of, art to not themselves posses the ability to create it.

3. There is a circle of economic dependency that develops around and among the “experts” to create and sustain income flows from their product… art. So that; critics, academics, art historians, curators, gallery owners/managers, collectors, framers, craft industry manufacturers, media people, and others are all part of subjectively defining their own value, their own worth… By that I mean this closely protected circle defines the “art” which creates the value which supports them all. Note… that artists are the fodder of these people but is rarely among them.  It’s the Circle of Life… at least in a lot of schools of arts and humanities.

- It is written in the I-Ching  that, “Whether there is food in the kitchen is not decided in the kitchen.”

Look, I edit and am a partner in a pretty influential magazine business. Guess who decides who is the art critic for those pubs? Guess who decides what the motives are for that critic? The mission? And in this case, the person who ultimately makes that set of strategic decisions has no "expert" certification of any sort…. Me.

4. One thing everyone agrees is that the art industry is about a subjective result. That’s a whole lot different from say the economics biz, the chemistry biz, the engineering biz, the accounting biz, the automobile biz, the …  well you get my point. Whether  an economist’s prediction is accurate or “good” can be rigorously tested…  outside of the economics profession. Ditto the physicists. Most fields create their product but its value can be rigorously evaluated by the common  man/woman in its use.

5. Art is one of the few fields where only a priesthood can judge… define… rank… evaluate… the product… and as I pointed out, few of the priests (“experts”) are themselves  sometimes craft workers, but rarely acclaimed artists. That is a tad odd, no? 

This whole art thing is a puzzlement wherever you poke at it, huh?

[habakuk]

Ted you raise important points. They lead me back to my interpretation of art being a process that can't be limited to only exist above a certain amount of creativity, craft or acceptance by experts or the public. But... there are two fundamentally different intentions in the way I interpret the word "art" and the way eob did. I wouldn't want to say one is right or wrong - they just are very different.

Or in other words: is an artist who feels like he's doing art already an artist? (I think yes. But that does not matter for the broader, maybe more commercial & academic definition of art.) If the same artist finds people who think his work is art, does that make him more of an artist? Why? If he fits the portfolio of a gallery owner with mainly commercial background, does that change his artistic quality or status?

questions over questions...

cheers
®