Um, can anyone explain this to me?
Several years ago, a friend and I were discussing the definition of "art." He's a high-school art teacher who studied at the Art Institute of Chicago, so he's certainly got more credentials on this subject that I do. At the time, the Art Guys were in the headlines (though they seem to have disappeared since then...), and he spent a good half hour trying to convince me that two guys wearing business suits emblazoned with the logos of paid corporate sponsors were actually making art.
I'm willing to be pretty flexible about the definition of art. Can I define it? Not precisely. But (like Pierre Bourdieu) I acknowledge that it's a form of expression with an important place in a democratic society.
So, being very generous in answering the "Is this art?" question, I'm left with the "Is this good art question?" And I do think it's possible--and important--to make a distinction here. "Good art" isn't synonymous with "art that I like"; there's a lot of stuff out there that I dislike but still think is good. Good art, I think, has to do or say something that makes us pause and reflect and maybe look at something in a different way.
A few weeks ago, I came across this piece. Is it art? Sure. But is it good art? I just can't see it.
I'm willing to be pretty flexible about the definition of art. Can I define it? Not precisely. But (like Pierre Bourdieu) I acknowledge that it's a form of expression with an important place in a democratic society.
So, being very generous in answering the "Is this art?" question, I'm left with the "Is this good art question?" And I do think it's possible--and important--to make a distinction here. "Good art" isn't synonymous with "art that I like"; there's a lot of stuff out there that I dislike but still think is good. Good art, I think, has to do or say something that makes us pause and reflect and maybe look at something in a different way.
A few weeks ago, I came across this piece. Is it art? Sure. But is it good art? I just can't see it.
2 Comments:
Well, first of all, I agree wholeheartedly. Second of all, as someone who was involved in the fine arts, I'm going to say "No, it's not good art." Here is why:
Art is supposed to evoke some sort of response from the beholder, even if that response is hatred. Really, art is not for the artist's benefit. I'm not saying that an artist can't take pride or enjoyment out of his/her creation. But in this case, this art was created solely for the artist's benefit. It's the artist's way of explaining his art. Well if any artist believes that his/her art needs to be explained -- at all -- then it's not good art.
Moreover, the artist admits that he's paying homage to yet another artist who did the same thing (but with a dead rabbit and not a cow). Ok, so, Mr. Artist, not only are you devaluing your own art by showing how unexplainable it is, but you are not even being personally inventive or creative about it. Which if he was, then that itself might be an art form.
Maybe he feels like he's declaring: "Ha! Screw you, retarded art appreciator! I'm saying that you are as dumb as a cow! See? You don't get it! HAHAHAHA. I seriously RULE!" But it comes across as a lame (a VERY lame) and weak, and STRETCHED effort. This artist is only dealing with himself. As if the larger world doesn't exist for him or doesn't matter to him. Which is really sad.
Now, Serrano's Piss Christ is another story.... Do I like it? No. Is it art? Yes. But is it good art? YES. Because the artist is saying "up yours," in a startling, confrontational, unique, visceral, provokative, personal (and about 109840 other adjectives) way that 2 half-naked dudes and a cow just DON'T. Serrano's art rips convention from your belly and throws uncomfortable imagery and introspection down your throat. You are compelled to look and deal with it.
Go, Gina!
I'm no longer in touch with the guy who teaches high-school art, but if I ever hear from him again, I'm going to sic you on him! :)
Post a Comment
<< Home