Do you know your Dada from you Mama?
Is it art? Is it good art?
& Who cares?
Is it art? Is it good art?
& Who cares?
The evaluation of art has become especially problematic since the 20th century. Upon its conception, Modern art has been based on rejecting tradition and breaking rules. But what happens when there are no more rules to break? When there is no more tradition? When anything and everything becomes acceptable as a work of art. More importantly, as both an artist and a collective member of society, why should I care?
First of all, what is art? How can we even begin to define it? Most artists of the present generation are interested in communicating an idea – commenting on life in all of its aspects – creating a work that illuminates the relationships between what we see and how we think. Bruce Nauman, a contemporary American artist, is quoted as saying, “It’s the intention that turns a staircase into a staircase as a work of art.” Nauman was a part of the Process Art Movement and finds inspiration in the activities, speech, and materials of everyday life. He has developed a simple, yet profound, notion for his work: “If I am an artist and I am in the studio, then whatever I’m doing in the studio must be art. At this point art becomes more of an activity and less of a product.” He is interested in the nature of communication, the inherent problems of language, and the role of the artist as a supposed communicator and manipulator of visual language. With this in mind he focuses on the way in which a process or activity can transform or become a work of art.
Ever since Marcel Duchamp took a urinal and entered it in an art show titled “The Fountain”, intent has been the sole requirement for something to be considered art. The question now isn’t “Is it art?” The question is “Is it good art?” Visual art is communication, it’s a visual language – there is a sender and a receiver. The artist is the originator of a concept or message and the viewer is the receiver of that message. However, they both must understand the same language for a dialog to take place, and this is where the problem begins. The artist can have all the intent in the world that what she/he presents is art, but if that message (intent) is not understood by the viewer is the piece still a work of art? To someone who understands the artist’s language it may very well be.
I’d like to digress for a moment and explore prehistoric art by citing an example that addresses Bruce Nauman's comment concerning intention. It used to be that the history of art started with the Woman of Wilendorf and the cave paintings circa 30,0000 BCE. However, "Gardener's Art Through the Ages" (2001 edition), sites a pebble from 3,000,000 BCE as possibly being the first example of art. The pebble was found at an archeological dig in Makapansgat South Africa. The pebble, although naturally formed, bears an uncanny resemblance of the human face and had to have been carried at least twenty miles to the site where it was found. This suggests that the Australopithecus individual who found the pebble recognized it as a miniature portrait, or at the very least, as something worth being valued. This simple recognition is an act of abstract thought. When we identify something as a work of art we are immediately distinguishing it. I don't think intent alone is enough to qualify a pi¬¬¬ece as art; a work of art is the manifestation of intent or inner vision, execution and communication. By inner vision I mean a vision of something that does not exist in our physical world; this may mean a totally novel construct or a juxtaposition of existing objects. Effective execution is utilizing media and technical skills to best translate this vision to the physical world. When this is successfully executed, the artists’ intent is (hopefully) communicated to the viewer. An understanding of intent through the visual language is key to communication.
In Esther Pasztory’s article “Thinking with Things” she reflects on the endless struggle to provide a definition for art by stating that “Theoretically, we all know what it is, but in fact we have no idea what we are talking about.” Pasztory goes on to provide alternative labels to replace the term “art”, none of which I felt were any more satisfactory or adequate. Art is the perfect term for art because it is such a broad and confusing topic – which brings me to my final point.
Why should I care about attempting to provide a definition for such a seemingly indefinable subject? Art in its simplest form is a discipline of one's own creativity. Technique, content, and every other aspect of art is simply that, an aspect of art. Art cannot be limited to what is acceptable and what is not. One of the truly great sides of art are the differences between the artists work and the people who ask, "is it art?" However, I am also reluctant to “cheapen” the meaning of art by applying it too broadly. And so the conundrum continues… This is why I care, because it develops and challenges thinking. I chose to be an artist not because it was easy or because I like to make pretty “things,” but because it is difficult – it challenged me and continues to challenge me because it is an ever-changing thing. I think of art as the bridge between our souls and the physical world. I see art as both an interaction between our psychological existence and our cultural expression of that existence. Thus, this can include challenging and sometimes disturbing imagery as well as the aesthetically pleasing. The artist's conceptual vision and his/her ability to translate this to an audience is what transforms the ordinary experience to a historically and culturally significant event. The text from an early neon work of Bruce Nauman proclaims: “The true artist helps the world by revealing mystic truths.” Essentially, the basic notion of the piece is emphasizing the way in which the audience, artist, and culture at large all contribute to the highest value and impact a work of art can/will have.
