Real or Reproduction?
Google defines art as: 1. The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture,: 'the art of the Renaissance' and 2.Works produced by such skill and imagination.
Art occurs naturally in this fantastic world around us. Flowers bloom in a myriad of breathtaking colors; we pick them, sell them, buy them, and display them. Trees bud, grow foliage, go barren, and return to life in a span of a year; we photograph them, sell the pics, buy them, and display them. Birds flaunt dazzling colors during fight, flight, or fancy; we paint them, sell the painting, buy them, and display them.
The flower, tree, or bird does not grow due to imagination, nor does it have anything to do with human creative skill so, by definition, is it still art?
During my travels I have taken an infinite number of photos, sometimes in places where, quite frankly, you could not take a bad photo. When someone gives me a compliment for those photos, is it because I created art, or because I pushed a button at the right place, right time?
Having said that, I have some dear friends who take incredible photos, the likes of which I could only dream of snapping, yet they call it a 'hobby' and refuse to call themselves photographers, even less artists.
If dogs can play poker
- then why can’t chimps, elephants, or even trees create art?
… but should it be called art?
It’s one thing to admire nature working its magic when using a palette of hues and supply of materials, but it’s a different box of crayons when galleries are selling ‘artwork’ made by – well, non-humans.
Chimps, elephants, and maybe even squids have been given art supplies, assisted, or sometimes trained in order to promote, produce and sell various pieces of art. One artist ties pens to tree branches and lets the wind draw delicate patterns onto the canvas propped below.
Sure dollars raised from the sales of these ‘pieces’ often go to worthy causes such as starving artists, charities, or foundations but, although they are unique, my question is, ‘should they be advertized as ‘works of art’?’
Then we have the artists themselves, going the distance for their cause, their calling, their life’s work. This day and age it’s a necessary yet tricky task to stand-out and be an original in any line of work, especially the creative fields, so do some artists go too far?
Art is meant to stir, arouse, or awaken something inside the spectator, but one wonders if the viewer ever speculates if the artist is simply indulging his own twisted fetish and calling it by that familiar ‘A’ name?
Programs, galleries, and the media have pushed Art in so many different directions that one wonders if there are any boundaries left to cross or stay away from? From creating million dollar masterpieces by urinating or vomiting on them, to simply taking a photo of their unmade bed, art for art sake is starting to take on a life of its own. Galleries have displayed doodles by 22 months olds, human/animal excrement (pop poop?) or body parts, non-visible art (yep, that’s not a typo – you buy a ‘description’ of what the artist is imagining), and even a piece of real fruit placed on the windowsill of a gallery.
Although I adore creativity blended with a twist of ingenuity, all I can ask myself here is, as an artist, does this help or hinder my task and/or reputation?
What does Andy think? “Art is what you can get away with.” (Andy Warhol)
Something to ponder further, methinks!
