Art is Art -or is it not?

It seemed it was once a lot easier to say what is art. Art was not democratic, it was something rich patrons paid skilled craftsmen to create for them. Kings and Clerics decided was or wasn't art.

One example of the power of the patron was from an art exhibition in New York City. All of the paintings were from the Spanish Colonial era and made in the vast territories of what was then New Spain. The majority of the images were larger than life-size portraits of powerful men but one room was exclusively religious art.

The exhibitor keep the religious painting behind glass not because the painting were fragile but because they were toxic. These paintings were dazzling brilliant objects heavily accented in gold leaf and mercury pigments. The story goes they were all made by murderers. That convicts were given a choice between execution or making art, with the full understanding that working with mercury will slowly kill you within the next 4 to 8 years. Of course there was the promise of redemption thru repentance.

As ordinary people gained access to art, to both experience it and create it, the boundaries of art expanded outward and the definition of art became fuzzy. In 1916 the Dada art movement began. Some people might argue that Dada isn't so much an art movement but an attempt to deconstruct art and break down any of the final boundaries that separate art form everyday life.  The argument is any work that alters, highlights or changes in the context of any object or experience for aesthetic purposes is then art.  I feel most arguments about art go good with wine.

The Dadaists are most identified with one of the earliest pieces done by Marcel Duchamp, The Fountain.  The once humble urinal that was signed R. Mutt and probably put on display as a practical joke became one of the landmark pieces of 20th century art.

As one artist said "art is anything that gets you thinking, talking and sharing the experience". Today The Fountain can be seen in several museums around the world because Marcel Duchamp had eleven authorized reproductions made from 1950 - 1964.  And yes they are each insured for millions of dollars each and no it is not appreciated if you try to use the urinal for its original purpose -several performance artist in the past tried and these days you'll just be arrested disorderly conduct and such.  It's kind of funny being the idea behind The Fountain was to "de-deify" the artist, it started as a piece of anti-art that became fine art. 

 

You have to be very secure about yourself to be an artist or even have strong opinions about art. But speaking of urinals I salvaged one from a demolition site and gave it to James Enders, a pop artist in Pottstown PA.  He plans to fill it with ice and use it as a beer cooler at his next gallery opening.  It will be called "The Oasis".

The question of art is difficult because so much of art is about context instead of substance. If I showed a child's drawing of butterfly you might say it's cute.  If I told you it was the last act of a child who died from a long chronic illness, suddenly that same picture has tremendous emotional impact. Then again if told you it was an early Picasso, your first thought might be how much money is it worth?

Context both frames and pollutes our ideas of beauty and meaning.  One time in a writers group , one of the members told this story about a movie screen play he wrote. The screen play had won a prize in one of the larger sponsored writing contests.  The writer was invited to an awards dinner in Los Angles to receive his prize and so he went. It was very nice dinner and representatives form a Hollywood studio asked to meet with him the next day.  The Writer was ecstatic, finally recognition and maybe success.

The meeting didn't go as he expected. There were half a dozen people from the studio, they all read a copy of the screen play. They all seemed to have liked it but it was hard to tell because no one said anything particularly positive or negative about the story. Instead each made some bland non-committed statement and then asked the others what do they think?   This went on for over an hour, maybe even two hours.  In that room full of movie executives none of these people seem to be comfortable saying what they thought or was sure of what people would like to see in a movie.  No one wanted to take a risk but that might say much more about the movie industry than art.

Without some of the old conventions to fall back on people feel adrift when they look at art that challenges them.  In some ways it's oppressing (or at least intimidating) instead of liberating. It like taking chickens that have been raised in a factory henhouse and leaving them outside in the barnyard. The chickens begin to get edgy and can't wait to get back in the henhouse.       

Last weekend I went an art show that just opened at a small local gallery, Studio B in Boyertown PA. The theme of the show is Happy Little Trees. It's juried show and most if not all of the artists are successful professionals.

There was another art show that I went to. I'm not going supply any background information. Here are a few examples of what I saw. Are they better than the show at Studio B ? What do you think? 

So do you still need context -or are you are you secure enough in your own sense of aesthetics to say what you like or don't like. Is it art or is it not?