ART?
What is art? I love this question, and I think what I love and find so fascinating about it is that I don’t know. Everyone who is interested in art - speaking very generally here, and covering most of the population of the world I’d say – seems to have their own slightly personalized view or concept on its definition and all that it encompasses or defines.
I have just turned round and asked a person sitting near me what they think of art and what ideas they think surround it. Her immediate statement was that it was an ‘expression of self’. To her (this has been condensed), art invoked the concepts of creativity and structure, structure which had to communicate a message or intent. This intent gives art parameters she said and separates it out as a human activity of communicating an idea.
Some valid and interesting ideas, however, I think art can be broader than that. Does it have to have purposeful structure; can’t it be more random than that? If I step in wet paint on the way out of my front door and saunter down the road, subconsciously leaving a trail of footprints behind me… is that art? Staying with this ‘footprints’ idea, if I walk down a deserted beach leaving my footprints in the sand, then turn round, notice that the trail of footprints look beautiful and take a photograph of them... is it the footprints, the object that is the art, or is it the actual physical, intentional process of pushing down on the button that will open the shutter of the camera that is art? Can one exist without the other? Does art have to have this two part process, not only of creation but also of recognition to make it art? Does art have to be recognized or can it just simply be created? And finally, the big question today, is it plagiarism if someone recognizes and then uses art someone else has created… someone else’s footprints in the sand…
I have just turned round and asked a person sitting near me what they think of art and what ideas they think surround it. Her immediate statement was that it was an ‘expression of self’. To her (this has been condensed), art invoked the concepts of creativity and structure, structure which had to communicate a message or intent. This intent gives art parameters she said and separates it out as a human activity of communicating an idea.
Some valid and interesting ideas, however, I think art can be broader than that. Does it have to have purposeful structure; can’t it be more random than that? If I step in wet paint on the way out of my front door and saunter down the road, subconsciously leaving a trail of footprints behind me… is that art? Staying with this ‘footprints’ idea, if I walk down a deserted beach leaving my footprints in the sand, then turn round, notice that the trail of footprints look beautiful and take a photograph of them... is it the footprints, the object that is the art, or is it the actual physical, intentional process of pushing down on the button that will open the shutter of the camera that is art? Can one exist without the other? Does art have to have this two part process, not only of creation but also of recognition to make it art? Does art have to be recognized or can it just simply be created? And finally, the big question today, is it plagiarism if someone recognizes and then uses art someone else has created… someone else’s footprints in the sand…
posted by Reuben at 9:33 am
1 Comments:
Hi Rhianna, just read you comments on my post. I totally agree with you that 'art' is a very contested term and that everyone has their own understanding of both what it is and what it encompasses. While those are two totally different things or questions I think theyre so related at the same time. To sort of answer your question, yes, I do think 'art' is broarder than what the girl sitting next to me thought - however, thats my opinion.
Im fascinated to hear other peoples ideas on it though and on its sister issues of ownership as well.
Reuben
Post a Comment
<< Home