At 4/6/13 03:24 PM, LionzNTiggerz wrote:
I'm not saying that everything is a work of art just that it might be worthwhile entertaining the idea
I would like to respectfully take issue with this notion. I believe we as a culture have become a little too permissive and loose with the definition of "art", much to our detriment.
I think it would be beyond arrogant for me to assume that I had any better judgement in defining the term, in an exhaustive manner, than all of the much more brilliant people who've tried before me. Coming up with a set of rules for art is no simple task and, perhaps inherently so, impossible for any one individual to be qualified to do. But I am bold and I will give it a shot.
1. The Prime Rule: Art MUST communicate something from a discernible point of view.
A. The point of view does not have to be immediately obvious.
2. Technique is not art. It is the methodology by which artistic works are delivered into usable mediums.
3. "Art" is not a status term, it is a classification which has nothing to say about any measure of validity, cultural or personal, the work may or may not possess.
Now, some explanation and a call for discussion.
Rule one is, for me, the one truly essential rule. This brief list is surely not exhaustive nor would I consider anything on here beyond question....except rule one. It MUST be a communication. This naturally implies point of view AND subject. I would argue the rule does thusly exclude many forms of abstraction as art forms, and I am perfectly comfortable with this. As rule three states, art is not a status term. A work not being artistic does not devalue it or take merit from it. But splashing colors and lines on paper, while perhaps a display of technique if colors were chosen with some thought and shape was considered, is still a display of technique. Abstraction does not communicate a discernible point of view. Being "open for interpretation", or pointlessly cryptic, is sophomorish and a clear indicator of lack of consideration for the subject.
Technique exhibitions and crafts can occasionally overlap with art. Obviously, according to rule two, one has to be in possession of some level of technique, however rudimentary, to be capable of expressing a point of view. To sing one must be able to speak. To paint one must have some basic understanding of color and form. But not all displays of technique are art.
Rule three is especially important, I believe. We tend to wish to use the concept of a work of art as being a status term. We use these status symbols to validate our own opinions, erroneously, and to behave with a pack animal mentality whereby status is contested against one another. This is the antithesis of communication! "Art" is a term of classification for a particular display of technique which communicates a discernible point of view. Nothing more.
I realize this methodology for approaching the subject pretty much removes the title of "art" from half, or more, of many of our favorite works or mediums. Again, art is not a status term, and this does not invalidate the worth or entertainment value of those works. With this stringent definition, we find we must set aside egotistical matters in an effort to more clearly communicate something of worth. We often turn to music to say the things which words alone are incapable of thoroughly expressing. We paint to give definition to things we see from a highly subjective point of view that defies meaningful verbal description.
I argue, it is time to put an end to the all-permissive definition of art and return a demand for quality, thoughtful, insightful self exploration and presentation to the various mediums. One does not have to be elitist about it, but there is no sin in holding to meaningful standards.
If you read this, I appreciate your time and consideration. Sorry for the book, but nothing is easy.