What is Art? Yes, the most fundamental question we deal with. Some might say "an esoteric argument", or even an heuristic discussion. Probably at best one that sparks a lot of discussion and disagreement. So perhaps at least elusive. Although that elusiveness seems to so thicken this bog we are in, making so many discussions about so many issues all the more complicated.
For example, many call themselves "artists" as if saying we are artists makes us artists. Though why so? We do what are billed and (on occasion) promoted as "art" shows, or "art & craft" shows (yes, you're way ahead of me .... defining art vs. craft!), we may refer to what we produce as "art" or "fine art". Many of us hope to sell what we make as "art" to "art" patrons, to have our works perceived as "art".
We hear expressions saying "art is in the eye of the beholder", implying perhaps that nothing is art until it is perceived as such. Although .... by whom? The person who creates it? Or the person who views it? The opinion of an "art critic"? If an "art critic" (I suppose that could be any of us) or "art expert" thinks something is art, but the public doesn't respond to it, or buy it, is it art? If I create what I think is art, but no one else ever does, is it art? If I create something say functional that I don't consider to be art but someone else does, is it art? Is a definition of "art" independent of what the creator of the piece considered it to be? When an archaeologist uncovers pottery bowls from a long-lost civilization, should it be considered "art" and put in an "art museum" versus a anthropology exhibit in another type of museum? I've heard artist colleagues say "everything that is created is art". Whoa!!! Is that possibly true? Everything? Is everything Picasso created art? Or Monet? Or Pollack? We hear expressions that "art is all around us", or shows with children's tents that say "where art begins". So is "art" in the creation, or the perception, or some mix?
There are also all those pesky words like "artistic", "artistry", etc. ..... implying something akin to "art" .... which is .... what again?
I've also heard the opposite, that we all create product and sell product. Maybe some of it will be considered art (again, by whom). Is this really what we do?
While I hope we might all chiming in with thoughts on this conceptual issue, functionally, there is another purpose to asking this. That is regarding art shows. Definitions of art vs. fine art, art. vs. craft, fine craft vs. traditional craft. The AFSB lists show composition by Fine Art, Fine Craft, and Traditional Craft. How are such categories defined? When a promoter uses a title of "Art Fair" or "Art Festival" (not withstanding the difference in implication perhaps between "fair" and "festival"), versus an "Art & Craft" show .... what does that mean? Can fine craft be considered art? Same for traditional craft? Is a category definition of "fine art" different from a definition of what some other form of "art" is?
More importantly perhaps, the functionality of determine what should be allowed in a show and what not (e.g., buy-sell), in what category should it be placed, and at what level of quality, expertise, originality to be considered eligible or worthy of being considered "art" and even just "in" the event? Whether we want them or not, all such processes concerning art shows have decision points. If we cannot eliminate objects being sold based on a definition of art or not-art, then it has to be based on something else, like definitions of categories or hand-made by the artist (though defining even those concepts need to be done, what level of input by others allowed, when does joint production become a collaboration, when does only one need to be present or both).
So what do you all think? And before someone just quotes a dictionary or art book, which is okay at some level, also say whether or not you agree with that definition and why.
In my reminiscent mode, I think back to a couple of examples. First is that of Norman Rockwell. Art critics didn't care for Norman Rockwell's work. In fact, in the book written by his son, Normal Rockwell was in therapy at the end of his life because of thde depression he suffered, brought about by all the negative comments made about his work. Some say because he was "commercial", successful in selling is work to the public and to corporate entities. Yet when I think of America's most notable painters, whose work captures so much of what we are as people, our emotions and reactions, he is on my very short list. Some even hold that against Ansel Adams, because again, he was commercially successful and sold to corporate entities. Odd. Isn't that the dream of most of us that want to do "art" as a career: to be successful enough to make a living at it? Or in our wildest dreams, wildly successful? To have the public love what we do, be touched and inspired by it, add it to their homes to do more than match the color of the sofa, wallpaper, paint, or carpeting?
I also think back to that episode of Murphy Brown where she entered a painting by her 7-year-old daughter who had done the painting at school as part of a class. Entered it into a museum show to make a point about the absurdity at some levels of "art critics" and their constant arguing what is and is not art. Which is exactly what happened at the opening, the two top art critics arguing over her daughter's piece, one saying they loved the way the "artist" used light, space, and color .... the other saying it was the most infantile, juvenile piece he had ever seen and had no business in any art museum or any other museum. While they were arguing, the piece was sold. When Murphy Brown went over to ask why the person bought the piece, their reply was "if the two top art critics in the city are arguing over it, then it has to be art". Just before blurting out that it belonged to her daughter, she asked how much the buyer had paid for the piece. $2500. Murphy decided silence was the appropriate response.
So what is art? Are we artists? Do we make art? How do we incorporate these concepts into defining art shows and categories? And decisions about what is juried in or not?
You need to be a member of Art Fair Insiders to add comments!
Good Question. As a glass mosaic artist, (or am I?) I receive e-mails about my "art" form from a number of different organizations. I have just learned that there is a new mosaic competition that I am most likely going to enter. Here is a segment of the invitation to apply...."Shields, Chief Curator of the Crocker Art Museum in Sacramento, California will serve as the exhibit’s juror. "I have long been intrigued by mosaics and am excited to see that the art form has expanded into something incredibly rich and diverse. I look forward to seeing how today's mosaicists have pushed the art form to create new and artful ways of expressing themselves."... Okay, so there is only ONE juror for this competition/exhibit. Do I think that reduces my chances? You bet! My work may not appeal to his personal tastes at all! My entry may remind him of his ex-wife's taste in curtains for all I know. The benefit of having more than one juror is that it keeps the competition fair. Or does it? Hopefully the juror/jurors will take into consideration design, quality, craftsmanship...but then if all entries are equally executed with regard to "craftsmanship," then the juror has no choice but to pick the winner based on personal taste. The guy above, Shields, says he wants to see how artists have "pushed" the art form. So does that mean that I have to "push" the art form to get his attention? That seems like a common reaction from critics...they want to see "how far" you can go with your medium...any medium..not just art, but literature, movies...it seems that art in any capacity is subject to the "snowball" effect. Once it's accepted as art, it's in, and there's no going back. For example, 100 years ago, Andy Warhol wouldn't have had a chance, but now, even in another 1000 years, there's no taking that away from him...what he meant to the art world, that is. I think that's pretty cool..the fact that all of us living today talking about this can really see the incredible way that art has evolved, and is evolving right now. I think that has to be part of the answer to your question, Ron, that art is simply moving, like water, and it's source is as big and as wide and as deep as the human imagination.
Ron Mellott said:
Great points DeMaris! Thank you for jumping in. I agree that a person's background, life's turmoils, remote physical location, sex of the creator of the work, age, physical or mental handicaps, any such information, should not influence how we view any work that might be in consideration as "art". The work before us has to stand on its own. If for no other reason than so much of what we view in consideration of being "art" does not have that information available. So to use it in some instances and not others seems to not be any criteria of value. For us not to use it in a personal viewing context is similar to how we expect, hope, jurors make the same determination in viewing our work .... we want a blind jury, to not recognize the artist by the work before them, not know our age, sex, race, height, weight, where we are from (i.e., how many artists feel they are penalized for being 'local' artists?) ... to see and judge the work on its own merits AS THEY PERCEIVE IT, solely what is before them? Based on whatever criteria or sensibilities, what education or experience they bring to the viewing, EVALUATING ON THE SAME CRITERIA WE WERE TOLD OUR WORK WOULD BE JUDGED ON in the application. If this is not a good idea, if all that ancillary information matters to determining whether or not something is art, then we have to do away with blind juries, because they will not allow good determinations because they are not considering all the information necessary.
So, question back to you DeMaris, taking your comments into the real world. In what way does any level of art education make any juror more or less qualified to judge work than anyone who just enjoys artwork, or buys artwork? If not, what qualifications, if any, should show promoters consider in selecting people to jury the artwork for their show? And ..... equally important if not moreso ..... how many jurors should be used if at best, even those art-educated jurors are only giving their opinion?
Great points DeMaris! Thank you for jumping in. I agree that a person's background, life's turmoils, remote physical location, sex of the creator of the work, age, physical or mental handicaps, any such information, should not influence how we view any work that might be in consideration as "art". The work before us has to stand on its own. If for no other reason than so much of what we view in consideration of being "art" does not have that information available. So to use it in some instances and not others seems to not be any criteria of value. For us not to use it in a personal viewing context is similar to how we expect, hope, jurors make the same determination in viewing our work .... we want a blind jury, to not recognize the artist by the work before them, not know our age, sex, race, height, weight, where we are from (i.e., how many artists feel they are penalized for being 'local' artists?) ... to see and judge the work on its own merits AS THEY PERCEIVE IT, solely what is before them? Based on whatever criteria or sensibilities, what education or experience they bring to the viewing, EVALUATING ON THE SAME CRITERIA WE WERE TOLD OUR WORK WOULD BE JUDGED ON in the application. If this is not a good idea, if all that ancillary information matters to determining whether or not something is art, then we have to do away with blind juries, because they will not allow good determinations because they are not considering all the information necessary.
So, question back to you DeMaris, taking your comments into the real world. In what way does any level of art education make any juror more or less qualified to judge work than anyone who just enjoys artwork, or buys artwork? If not, what qualifications, if any, should show promoters consider in selecting people to jury the artwork for their show? And ..... equally important if not moreso ..... how many jurors should be used if at best, even those art-educated jurors are only giving their opinion?
In my experience the jurors who have their resume' listed online or printed in a paper program all have at least one thing in common...an education. Not necessarily an art background, but a degree of some kind in this or that. Quoting you, Ron, "Do they understand "art" where we don't? Have they figured it out while we languish in the swamp of non-understanding?" I don't think so. In fact, I have at times wished I didn't have an "education" in art...I've wondered what it would be like to look at, say, a Jackson Pollock hanging next to a John Singer Sargent without the burden/influence of what I know about both men and see them as a woman who was from a remote village that had never been exposed to "art." Would I be moved by the duplication of the human image in the Sargent portrait, or would the Pollock be somehow tribal, familiar to me, and therefore more, or at least as appealing? I don't think the jurors have anything on us. I think the jurors are pawns doing the hard and unpleasant work of the show promotors. There are, after all, only so many booth spaces available!
Ron Mellott said:
No, as to how we feel about what we do, whether or not we are an artist or not, that is probably a personal feeling. Which you beautifully described Linda. Like you, I create what I am passionate about, moved by, what I see and how I see it. I create. What labels people put on it beyond that is not of my control.
Yet others do put labels on our work through the jury process, don't they? Also, as you so eloquently described, by the people who purchase your work, for one. That form of compliment is beauty that is both touching and exciting, to know we move people by what we see and capture and create.
As for the jury process part, that is where the theoretical becomes the practical. So who are "art experts"? What makes them qualified to make assessments? Is your work less "art" if they score it low? More "art" if they score it high? Probably doesn't matter, does it? What does matter is the assessment they make about whether you are in or out of a show, whether the public that comes to purchase your work finds you there or not. Especially if it is your market, where people love to see and purchase your work, however they construe your work. Whether or not perhaps you win that accolade or not, that prize money, that reinvite to a show you want to go back to. How is that decision made? On what criteria? Again, based on what experience by that juror? Specifically what qualifies them? They will use some criteria, some "definition" if you will, of why your work is good or not, acceptable or not, to decide if you are in or out. They will use something to make that decision. Why art experts at all? What do they bring to the table that is any more meaningful or important or critical than anyone else? Do they understand "art" where we don't? Have they figured it out while we languish in the swamp of non-understanding? And why does that jury process become the endpoint of the show? In what way does their decision of what work is and and what work is not in any way reflect the voice of the public/patrons that come to the event and spend money? In what way does it in any way reflect their tastes, or interests, or sensibilities, or likes or dislikes? Is that what the show is suppose to be about? An esoteric jury process possibly if not quite often disassociated from what the public wishes to see and buy? Is what jurors say really meaningful in that way? On target? Reflective of anything but personal tastes? Do you think the public cares at all what "art experts" say? If they come to buy your work again next year, and you're not there, do you really think they give a hoot about what any "juror" said or concluded about your work? Do you think they can make sense out of why one year you are in and the next two you are not? Should jurors be so empowered to determine what the public gets to see and where we get to exhibit our work or not?
I think not. As I've said previously, I'd rather have my fate, my livelihood, any determination about whether my work is likable or not, art or not, good or not, creative or not, food for the soul or not, made by the public, not by jurors. By people who spend their hard earned money for what they like to enrich their lives, not by wielders of merely personal opinion. While some of that may be inescapable, while that may be part of our reality, in my view it determines far too much of our success or lack thereof. And my contention is that is NOT where it belongs. Not now, not ever. Whatever role art critics and jurors may have in our society, determining your fate, mine, that of any artists should not be made by them. Are you okay with jurors having that power over your success or failure as an artist?
An individual I know recently posed a question to me. What "legacy"- my work-, will I leave the world when I'm gone? He was referring to a body of lifetime work. As we get older, we "the older of us " may ponder such questions. I don't do my work with any such thoughts like that in mind. I just try to get by. Make things I like with some thoughts as to what will sell thrown in and go on. I include the last part only because of necessity. If I was concerned about my work beyond my life-thats an EGO thing.
If we made things only because we think they will sell we have taken the "heart" part out. If we make things in an effort to leave some kind of legacy, the hearts out as well.
You asked
"So for ourselves, if we view each piece we make as art because that is what we strive for, that is what we look inside each time and try to use our heart, soul, mind to work as one to create a piece ..... does that make each piece we create art, regardless of how anyone else views it?"
YES- Its art to us the individual,creator if you will.
It can't be popularity and sales that dictate art.
If it sells its art?
If it doe not sell its not art?
Well I must not be an ARTIST! So what I create is not ART!
I sat through FOUR art fairs and sold three things I mistakenly thought was art.
It must be something else as yet to be defined.
I'm just kidding around here.
My work does not sell because? Its too visionary? Too far out there? Not popular"obviously"? Too unfamiliar?
It does not sell NOT because its not art. It might very simply be bad art. Still art though!
If promoters were concerned about what will sell, or was popular at the time, they would have a marketing consultant on the jury.
We have to look at our own work with marketing considerations kept in mind, because we do art fairs for a living. Has nothing to do with art. I don't have a benefactor that funds my work! If I did, I would not be doing art fairs!
I felt much more creative and free when I had a steady income from lithography. I did not care whether my work sold or not. I did care whether people liked it or not-ego thing. Was I making art then and not now? No. But having to think so much about selling it IS diluting the art part.
I have to go mow the lawn. Let whats left of my brain rest.
Ron Mellott said:
I'm not glad you struggle with it Greg, but glad to see you do find it important to think about, consider, and dwell on the subjects that influence your art, your career as an artists. So if we say that defining art is partly or wholly defined by the intent of the creator, then items created in historical times can almost never be considered art, can they? Because we rarely if ever will know what was in the heart or mind of the creator of the piece. If a French impressionist painter selling his painting on a sidewalk in Paris did so only because it was product, something people might consider pretty or interesting, to make money to live off of, didn't care themselves whether it was art to them or anyone else ........ we should then have no ability to describe it, consider it, as art at any later date, should we? The person creating it didn't consider it art.So for ourselves, if we view each piece we make as art because that is what we strive for, that is what we look inside each time and try to use our heart, soul, mind to work as one to create a piece ..... does that make each piece we create art, regardless of how anyone else views it? If it never sells despite hundreds of thousands of people buying it? Or if it only sells after we have discounted it (to get rid of it) to 1/10th the cost of what we originally were asking for it - THEN - can we consider it art because it did, finally, somehow, sell? If we call ourselves artists, does that imply that everything we create is art? Or can the words "Artist" and "art" survive separately?
As for heads spinning - yup. Me too. And given how long our species has been struggling with the question, I doubt we will make much headway on finding the answer, if it even exists.
But I still argue that this question has implications about art show, how they work, how they are structured, how decisions are made. And how we are part of and influenced by those decisions. in THOSE areas, if we are to survive and the venue of "art shows" make sense, that is where each time I suggest we need to pull the discussion into. Should shows let in buy-sell, should they let in "designed by", should they let in mass-produced, if categories are necessary, how are decisions made about what work goes into what category. Like photography. At what point, if any, does photography become "digital art"? Backing up one step, what is "digital art"? These are practical questions with significant implications for shows, art patrons, and artists. Am I wrong here?
I'm not glad you struggle with it Greg, but glad to see you do find it important to think about, consider, and dwell on the subjects that influence your art, your career as an artists.
So if we say that defining art is partly or wholly defined by the intent of the creator, then items created in historical times can almost never be considered art, can they? Because we rarely if ever will know what was in the heart or mind of the creator of the piece. If a French impressionist painter selling his painting on a sidewalk in Paris did so only because it was product, something people might consider pretty or interesting, to make money to live off of, didn't care themselves whether it was art to them or anyone else ........ we should then have no ability to describe it, consider it, as art at any later date, should we? The person creating it didn't consider it art.
So for ourselves, if we view each piece we make as art because that is what we strive for, that is what we look inside each time and try to use our heart, soul, mind to work as one to create a piece ..... does that make each piece we create art, regardless of how anyone else views it? If it never sells despite hundreds of thousands of people buying it? Or if it only sells after we have discounted it (to get rid of it) to 1/10th the cost of what we originally were asking for it - THEN - can we consider it art because it did, finally, somehow, sell? If we call ourselves artists, does that imply that everything we create is art? Or can the words "Artist" and "art" survive separately?
Linda ... so you were up past midnight ... hmmmmmm ..... know the feeling. Sometimes, just hard to turn the thoughts off, isn't it. Thanks to you and Greg for the posts.
A few "quick" things (good thing I never look up the definition of "quick" in the dicitionary) .........
Not to demean Webster's, but I strongly urge you to read some of the info on the links I posted, particularly the Stanford and Wikipedia links. They are both most interesting writing and raise points that are not only interesting, but you will see many of the questions people on this thread have been asking, raising, struggling with. We are not the first.
Second, pulling this discussion back into the practical realm of art shows, I repeat the question for you both and any others that read this thread to answer: given all that we are saying here of what art is, how is it defined, how is it recognized ........ of what particular value then is any type of "art expert" as a juror determining what work is in, what no, who gets to display, who doesn't, who gets to try to earn money at the event, who doesn't, who gets any level of award? What do they bring to the table that is so valuable beyond an opinion? Something that someone else not an "art expert" wouldn't? What makes their opinion so valuable to a show director? As an analogy, hopefully appropriate one, would you only want to see movies, or read books, that "movie critics" and "literature critics" gave two thumbs up to? And again, in the practical realm of art show .... do you really think the public feels better, safer, more appreciative, that some "art expert" decided what they got to see? Especially if they walk through the show and don't find any art they want to buy? Not because they have a Walmart mentalitty, but because the work was so overwhelmingly strange, exotic, esoteric, bizarre by their standards? Do you not ever walk through an art museum and leave thinking that as interesting as it may have been from a creativity standpoint, there was little you saw you would ever consider as "beautiful", or "enriching", or "moving" or communicating to you in any way shape or form? That you would ever consider buying, regardless of price, to put in your home or office to enrich your life?
Or because none of it matched your sofa?
I'm not suggesting the decision is easy or not highly variable, but our fates are part of the process and in saying that, so is the fate of the potential art buyers that come to the event, and thus the fate of the quality and long-term viability of the show. Because those decisions on what is in, what is out, determines all else, does it not?
Yes, decisions have to be made, I agree. Yes, categories are useful and I think a good thing. Some definitions, criteria, delineation, characterization of works, whatever word we use or arbitrary some may think it is, of work is necessary to put work not only into the show, but into categories if the purpose of the categories is to balance the show. Heck, as a photographer, I don't like at all doing shows where the percentage of photographers in the show is 20+ %. Nor seeing a show with 60% jewelry (yes, I actually did one where 50 of 79 "artists" were jewelers.
Hi Linda. Yep, my mind is spinning as well!
I think people encounter a kind of hump to get over when looking at "functional" work. Most seem to want to use it for something other than to just look at. Its kind of that "WalMart" thing. I have heard it! "We can get one at Target if all we're gonna do is put veggies on it. And cheaper!"
So Linda I think it's that kind of barrier or mind-set that keeps those mediums from being thought of as "art".
I think even photography runs into those types of problems. " I gotta camera and I'll shoot you a picture when we get home and it will be FREE!"
Is it "art" because I can't do it. And conversely, its not "art" because I think I can do it.
Oh, and I don't think a jury needs to define it. It could potentially ALL be "ART".
And let me say this again.
The jury needs to keep their likes and dislikes out of their thinking.
They need to look for CREATIVITY, UNIQUENESS and VISION.
Then look at SKILL in execution in the medium and CONSISTENCY in the body of work to make sure it was not all one big lucky mistake.
Linda Anderson said:
Greg....what about sculpture that is also functional - ie a beautifully sculpture that is also a fountain. Just because it is functional would you not call it art? Geez, between you and Ron my head is spinning. Great thoughts! How can there ever be a definative answer that any one jury could define?
Greg Heihn said:
Man Ron! Are you writing a thesis for your Masters or your Doctorate? Thats a complement by the way. I peeked at the Websters. Two of them. They seem to jump back and forth with one exception. The Artist definition contains the word "creativity" and also skilled. The Craftsman def is a skilled worker or artisan. So if one thinks along those lines I would go back to the quote-heart,brain and hands. The heart is the creative. Again using that as a guide, I would say most exhibitors at an art fair are indeed artists with of course, varying degrees of skill and creativity in their chosen mediums. The tougher question for me now is, the art itself part. Art in the traditional mediums and art in the more non-traditional mediums. Painting/sculpture etc being purely decorative. Other mediums coming from the functional use end. I personally struggle with this ALL the time in my medium. People have it in their minds to put something in my work! Therein lies the rub. "If it CAN be functional it is not art. If it is NOT functional it can be art. Is that part of it as well?
Greg....what about sculpture that is also functional - ie a beautifully sculpture that is also a fountain. Just because it is functional would you not call it art? Geez, between you and Ron my head is spinning. Great thoughts! How can there ever be a definative answer that any one jury could define?
Greg Heihn said:
Man Ron! Are you writing a thesis for your Masters or your Doctorate? Thats a complement by the way. I peeked at the Websters. Two of them. They seem to jump back and forth with one exception. The Artist definition contains the word "creativity" and also skilled. The Craftsman def is a skilled worker or artisan. So if one thinks along those lines I would go back to the quote-heart,brain and hands. The heart is the creative. Again using that as a guide, I would say most exhibitors at an art fair are indeed artists with of course, varying degrees of skill and creativity in their chosen mediums. The tougher question for me now is, the art itself part. Art in the traditional mediums and art in the more non-traditional mediums. Painting/sculpture etc being purely decorative. Other mediums coming from the functional use end. I personally struggle with this ALL the time in my medium. People have it in their minds to put something in my work! Therein lies the rub. "If it CAN be functional it is not art. If it is NOT functional it can be art. Is that part of it as well?
Replies
Ron Mellott said:
So, question back to you DeMaris, taking your comments into the real world. In what way does any level of art education make any juror more or less qualified to judge work than anyone who just enjoys artwork, or buys artwork? If not, what qualifications, if any, should show promoters consider in selecting people to jury the artwork for their show? And ..... equally important if not moreso ..... how many jurors should be used if at best, even those art-educated jurors are only giving their opinion?
Your turn.
Ron Mellott said:
If we made things only because we think they will sell we have taken the "heart" part out. If we make things in an effort to leave some kind of legacy, the hearts out as well.
You asked
"So for ourselves, if we view each piece we make as art because that is what we strive for, that is what we look inside each time and try to use our heart, soul, mind to work as one to create a piece ..... does that make each piece we create art, regardless of how anyone else views it?"
YES- Its art to us the individual,creator if you will.
It can't be popularity and sales that dictate art.
If it sells its art?
If it doe not sell its not art?
Well I must not be an ARTIST! So what I create is not ART!
I sat through FOUR art fairs and sold three things I mistakenly thought was art.
It must be something else as yet to be defined.
I'm just kidding around here.
My work does not sell because? Its too visionary? Too far out there? Not popular"obviously"? Too unfamiliar?
It does not sell NOT because its not art. It might very simply be bad art. Still art though!
If promoters were concerned about what will sell, or was popular at the time, they would have a marketing consultant on the jury.
We have to look at our own work with marketing considerations kept in mind, because we do art fairs for a living. Has nothing to do with art. I don't have a benefactor that funds my work! If I did, I would not be doing art fairs!
I felt much more creative and free when I had a steady income from lithography. I did not care whether my work sold or not. I did care whether people liked it or not-ego thing. Was I making art then and not now? No. But having to think so much about selling it IS diluting the art part.
I have to go mow the lawn. Let whats left of my brain rest.
Ron Mellott said:
But I still argue that this question has implications about art show, how they work, how they are structured, how decisions are made. And how we are part of and influenced by those decisions. in THOSE areas, if we are to survive and the venue of "art shows" make sense, that is where each time I suggest we need to pull the discussion into. Should shows let in buy-sell, should they let in "designed by", should they let in mass-produced, if categories are necessary, how are decisions made about what work goes into what category. Like photography. At what point, if any, does photography become "digital art"? Backing up one step, what is "digital art"? These are practical questions with significant implications for shows, art patrons, and artists. Am I wrong here?
So if we say that defining art is partly or wholly defined by the intent of the creator, then items created in historical times can almost never be considered art, can they? Because we rarely if ever will know what was in the heart or mind of the creator of the piece. If a French impressionist painter selling his painting on a sidewalk in Paris did so only because it was product, something people might consider pretty or interesting, to make money to live off of, didn't care themselves whether it was art to them or anyone else ........ we should then have no ability to describe it, consider it, as art at any later date, should we? The person creating it didn't consider it art.
So for ourselves, if we view each piece we make as art because that is what we strive for, that is what we look inside each time and try to use our heart, soul, mind to work as one to create a piece ..... does that make each piece we create art, regardless of how anyone else views it? If it never sells despite hundreds of thousands of people buying it? Or if it only sells after we have discounted it (to get rid of it) to 1/10th the cost of what we originally were asking for it - THEN - can we consider it art because it did, finally, somehow, sell? If we call ourselves artists, does that imply that everything we create is art? Or can the words "Artist" and "art" survive separately?
Linda ... so you were up past midnight ... hmmmmmm ..... know the feeling. Sometimes, just hard to turn the thoughts off, isn't it. Thanks to you and Greg for the posts.
A few "quick" things (good thing I never look up the definition of "quick" in the dicitionary) .........
Not to demean Webster's, but I strongly urge you to read some of the info on the links I posted, particularly the Stanford and Wikipedia links. They are both most interesting writing and raise points that are not only interesting, but you will see many of the questions people on this thread have been asking, raising, struggling with. We are not the first.
Second, pulling this discussion back into the practical realm of art shows, I repeat the question for you both and any others that read this thread to answer: given all that we are saying here of what art is, how is it defined, how is it recognized ........ of what particular value then is any type of "art expert" as a juror determining what work is in, what no, who gets to display, who doesn't, who gets to try to earn money at the event, who doesn't, who gets any level of award? What do they bring to the table that is so valuable beyond an opinion? Something that someone else not an "art expert" wouldn't? What makes their opinion so valuable to a show director? As an analogy, hopefully appropriate one, would you only want to see movies, or read books, that "movie critics" and "literature critics" gave two thumbs up to? And again, in the practical realm of art show .... do you really think the public feels better, safer, more appreciative, that some "art expert" decided what they got to see? Especially if they walk through the show and don't find any art they want to buy? Not because they have a Walmart mentalitty, but because the work was so overwhelmingly strange, exotic, esoteric, bizarre by their standards? Do you not ever walk through an art museum and leave thinking that as interesting as it may have been from a creativity standpoint, there was little you saw you would ever consider as "beautiful", or "enriching", or "moving" or communicating to you in any way shape or form? That you would ever consider buying, regardless of price, to put in your home or office to enrich your life?
Or because none of it matched your sofa?
I'm not suggesting the decision is easy or not highly variable, but our fates are part of the process and in saying that, so is the fate of the potential art buyers that come to the event, and thus the fate of the quality and long-term viability of the show. Because those decisions on what is in, what is out, determines all else, does it not?
Yes, decisions have to be made, I agree. Yes, categories are useful and I think a good thing. Some definitions, criteria, delineation, characterization of works, whatever word we use or arbitrary some may think it is, of work is necessary to put work not only into the show, but into categories if the purpose of the categories is to balance the show. Heck, as a photographer, I don't like at all doing shows where the percentage of photographers in the show is 20+ %. Nor seeing a show with 60% jewelry (yes, I actually did one where 50 of 79 "artists" were jewelers.
I think people encounter a kind of hump to get over when looking at "functional" work. Most seem to want to use it for something other than to just look at. Its kind of that "WalMart" thing. I have heard it! "We can get one at Target if all we're gonna do is put veggies on it. And cheaper!"
So Linda I think it's that kind of barrier or mind-set that keeps those mediums from being thought of as "art".
I think even photography runs into those types of problems. " I gotta camera and I'll shoot you a picture when we get home and it will be FREE!"
Is it "art" because I can't do it. And conversely, its not "art" because I think I can do it.
Oh, and I don't think a jury needs to define it. It could potentially ALL be "ART".
And let me say this again.
The jury needs to keep their likes and dislikes out of their thinking.
They need to look for CREATIVITY, UNIQUENESS and VISION.
Then look at SKILL in execution in the medium and CONSISTENCY in the body of work to make sure it was not all one big lucky mistake.
Linda Anderson said:
Greg Heihn said:
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 5 Next