Dpp1978
Posts: 1035
Joined: 2/4/2006
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: adambatman82
I dont understand why that alone cannot be celebrated tho (in that specific case, which most of us seem to acknowledge as an impressive technical feat). Care to explain?
But that would be a slightly different discussion. There are plenty of impressive technical feats which, while admirable, are not readily classified as "art".
Personally I believe the definition of art has become far too broad in one way and much too narrow in another.
The legal definition of art is, broadly speaking (as there are, as with anything remotely legal, myriad minutiae), anything done by an artist with the intention that it is to be art. This is astonishingly broad by necessity as copyright, which is the key legal protection available to artists, has to cover the bad as well as the sublime. As a court is no place to discern artistic value the definition has to encompass all works which could potentially be called art without worrying about aesthetic merit. It purposely does not require an artist prove his qualification to be called such, as for legal purposes it is all but irrelevant.
As such the definition is perfectly reasonable within its remit but hopelessly naive outside it.
Sadly it seems to me that, at least for a significant number of people, this approach (or something very much like it) is the default starting point for discussing who is or isn't an artist and by extension what is or isn't art. By that standard anyone can claim to be an artist merely by professing they are, and all that remains once such declaration is made is whether they are a good artist or a poor artist. I feel it is too broad to have any real meaning.
Perversely, this approach leads to where I think the definition has become too narrow. I believe anything can be elevated to art, even the most mundane thing, if done with consummate skill and artistry; whether or not the maker professes to be an artist. Using this measure it is the end product and/or the journey to produce it that is key, not the intention.
The likes of da Vinci, Van Gough, Picasso, Dali and yes, even Rothko were painters (among other things) but it was the quality of the work that they produced that made them artists; not the affectations and eccentricities they may have enshrouded their personae with.
Any numpty with a camera is a de facto photographer, but very few can use it in such a way as to be artists.
Give me the same tools they had and I might produce something not unpleasant to look at, but it wouldn't be art and I would not pretend to be, or pretentious enough to call myself, an artist.
Similarly there are those with no pretension of being artists whose work is so perfect an example of its kind to transcend itself to become a work of art. Many of these are skilled craftsmen (and women) going about their trade creating works mundane of function, but beautiful none the less for it.
This little diatribe does nothing of course to answer the question, "what is art?"
I am certainly not qualified to answer it. But then again the question itself is all but pointless. It is so subjective that any attempt to quantify it is destined to fail. It is entirely because a definition is so elusive that that which it defines is so potent to the beholder.
Sure a theorist can come up with rules and theories to attempt to shape critical appraisals, but art will not be restrained by such crude mechanisms. A work can follow all the rules and despite this (or perhaps because of this) can be bereft of that magical quality that great art contains. Another work can throw all the rules out, defy all conventions and be an unqualified masterpiece.
I guess the crux of the matter is where something is so personal; where feelings one way or the other are so subjective, trying to fit them into neat little categories is pointless. Unfortunately that is something we, as humans, are programmed to do at a primal level.
There was a big hue and cry when Roger Ebert stated that video games could never be art. Those who take video games very seriously became very upset and many words were written on how Ebert was wrong (in often less than polite terms) across the length and breadth of the internet.
What they failed to understand is that just because someone has a different opinion to you that doesn't mean yours is somehow diminished.
Opinion is a strange thing. It can seem incredibly authoritative but can almost always be attacked by those with an opposing view. I have long felt the term "objective opinion" (which is one much used at such times and one I'm very likely guilty of using when attempting to make a point) is a bit of a contradiction. The two parts, objective and opinion, are in most cases mutually exclusive. You can have objective data, and can form your opinion based on it, but that does not make your opinion any less subjective.
As such even the most learned body can have opinions which are easily undermined; especially when they venture outside their comfort zone.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't have our opinions and feel strongly about them. It doesn't mean we shouldn't debate them vigorously and defend them when challenged.
What it does mean is that we must accept that not everyone feels the same way we do about the things upon which we feel strongly. It also means that sometimes the best we can hope for is a stalemate; an agreement to differ. There are times when fighting over these things; even if we feel strongly about them, like a dog with a bone becomes not only counter productive, but it defies all reason.
My observations above are not definitive, and I fully expect others to challenge them with their own. It is even possible some observation will be so persuasive as to make me re-think my own opinion. I would not take this as a defeat for my arguments: more as a victory for my ability to grow as a person as I learn and reflect upon that which I learn.
To think any other way is to invite dogmatism. And that is the death knell to all reasoned debate.
|
Printable Version
RE: If you think Damien Hirst is mad.... - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread