what is art? who am i?

[keryx]

Is there a global, universal definition of art in your mind?

Is that definition somehow apart from Art or high art or whatever one might call it?

NPR was talking to some guys yesterday morning. Some relatively random New Yorker and some other dude who was an art professional of some sort (historian? critic? professor?). The random guy was very certain that the Christo thing in Central Park wasn't Art (and you could tell he capitalized it in his head) and the professional art dude was very much of the opinion that there is no such thing as Art v. art.

I tend to agree with the latter. Art (no special caps) is pretty much anything that is created to move you. And anything created to move you pretty much does, in some way, if you actually pay attention to it. Christo's work, while pretentiously described, is arresting. End of story, I think.

I thought there was a weird class aspect to this at first, that the Man On The Street was all "that's not Art!" and the professor wasn't. But I think it was more a reactionary v. not reactionary thing, now that I've seen the Today Show (which is basically a media stand-in for the MOTS) getting all "yay, art" about the installation.

Comments

[drownophelia.livejournal.com]

i'm constantly drawn to the ani line : "art is why i get up in the morning. my definition ends there, y'know, it doesn't seem fair."

i find that the more people try to talk about art (or Art), the more pseudoesoteric and flaky they sound.

but that could just me reacting to having to sit through flaky photo major critiques reccently.

--la

[rackletang.livejournal.com]

I agree with you. Just because I don't "get" something that someone creates, doesn't make it not art.

[bizarrojack.livejournal.com]

This argument is driven by people's desire to disinclude things that are good enough. It would be nice to say "I love art" and mean "I love all art," in that fantasy-land sort of way. Not all art is "good," by which I mean "not good to me." You just can't please everyone, sometimes due to a fair assessment, and sometimes due to a total lack of understanding. Art, Romance, and um, ethnic food all seem to suffer this sort of discussion, all based on the presupposed shared value that it's all good, and it just isn't.

Of course it's art, although I will permit people to say that it's really shitty. Don't get me wrong, I wrote this before looking up what it is. It might also be really good, and the people who think it's shitty could be a bunch of morons.

[bizarrojack.livejournal.com]

ugh.... "disinclude things that AREN'T good enough."

[keryx.livejournal.com]

Funny you should say that - I had forgotten the part of the MOTS interview where he went slightly apeshit talking about how if anything could be art, we'd never know what was good and what wasn't. There was a definite emphasis in his speech on needing some sort of great all-agreed definition of Art, cause otherwise - EGADS! - people would have to just accept the range of individual opinions.

[originalenid.livejournal.com]

was one of those people ronald chase? i heard him on the rahdio last night but just the end bit. if so, he was my... mentorteacherguy and he's one big sonmabitch. he runs SF art and film and directs opera and he's got a good bit of hack in him, but he's a decent guy. SO INTERESTING! ;)

in my opinion: art is whatever one sees as art. i think.

[keryx.livejournal.com]

I don't remember. It was... I think it was on Morning Edition on Wednesday, but I can't recall either dude's name.

[keryx.livejournal.com]

Also, the vast hotness of your icon continually distracts me. Which might make it art, by my definition. :)

[snidegrrl.livejournal.com]

I heard that entire thing on NPR and when that guy said "wah wah we have to have definitions and frameworks under which to create art or it isn't worth anything! wah!" I thought, "shove it out your ass, guy" and I say this as someone who walks into most museums and goes, "so?".