Pretty simply, "art" (in terms of visual art, for the most part) should be 'showing' me something that I can grasp or comprehend as a representation of something else, be it something real or something purely out of someone's mind. I do not believe that Pollock's splatters are 'art', nor the wrapping of a thousand yards of fabric around various statues and/or local points of interest (there was an artsy couple doing this a few years ago). Seemingly random globs of clay or sticks of wood are not 'art' - one of the sculptures that dot the Brock campus has a name to it that is forgotten by most, who simply call it "The March of the French-Fry Men".
Art *should* inspire awe and capture the nobility or the chaos of a moment, a place, or an event. Alternately, it should give us insight into the imagination of the artist as it gives us his 'impression' of a situation or his vision of a world that exists only in his/her own mind and that he wishes to share.
A can of excrement labelled 'essence of artist' is not 'art' in and of itself, nor should it be labelled and marketed as such.
A red rectangle on white canvas is not art. It's practice, not *art*.
Art *should* inspire awe and capture the nobility or the chaos of a moment, a place, or an event. Alternately, it should give us insight into the imagination of the artist as it gives us his 'impression' of a situation or his vision of a world that exists only in his/her own mind and that he wishes to share.
A can of excrement labelled 'essence of artist' is not 'art' in and of itself, nor should it be labelled and marketed as such.
A red rectangle on white canvas is not art. It's practice, not *art*.
Reply
Leave a comment