I define "art" as something I (the proverbial unskilled layman) couldn't do in a weekend.
I was in a Syndey art museum recently, and there are a lot of beautiful art paintings I couldn't create in a thousand years. There are a few proudly displayed "things" that I could create in a couple hours with zero skill. I have no idea what people see in those "things".
>I define "art" as something I (the proverbial unskilled layman) couldn't do in a weekend.
Art is also about context. Look at prehistoric cave paintings: I have no technical skill as an artist, but I could easily recreate the paintings myself. But does that mean they're not art? Of course not. To take another example, how about the hasty sketches of a soldier in the trenches in the First World War?
I only use such a stark example to prove the point that technical skill isn't all that makes art art. If you don't know what people see in these "things" then perhaps you just need to look a little more carefully. A lot of modern art is taking the mundane, that which we are used to, and challenging our assumptions about it. Assumptions that we didn't even know we had.
I'm not commenting on this post in particular, but all too often I see this dismissive attitude towards modern art, and I think it's unfair and deserves more careful consideration.
Consider a painting I saw on TV a while back that is suspected of being done by da Vinci. If the experts concur, it would be worth millions. If they do not concur, it would be worth $20,000 because it's old. If joe starving artist down the street painted it, it would be worth $500 at best.
Art has always been a fuzzy term. My personal interpretation, today at least, is that what you're referring to is "craft", the ability to skillfully manipulate materials to either create something attractive or a piece of art. "Art" on the other hand is the act of creating something with the intent of provoking thought through a new perspective. (I realise you could use that definition to describe a report ;) but that's the best I got...)
Comments
I define "art" as something I (the proverbial unskilled layman) couldn't do in a weekend.
I was in a Syndey art museum recently, and there are a lot of beautiful art paintings I couldn't create in a thousand years. There are a few proudly displayed "things" that I could create in a couple hours with zero skill. I have no idea what people see in those "things".
>I define "art" as something I (the proverbial unskilled layman) couldn't do in a weekend.
Art is also about context. Look at prehistoric cave paintings: I have no technical skill as an artist, but I could easily recreate the paintings myself. But does that mean they're not art? Of course not. To take another example, how about the hasty sketches of a soldier in the trenches in the First World War?
I only use such a stark example to prove the point that technical skill isn't all that makes art art. If you don't know what people see in these "things" then perhaps you just need to look a little more carefully. A lot of modern art is taking the mundane, that which we are used to, and challenging our assumptions about it. Assumptions that we didn't even know we had.
I'm not commenting on this post in particular, but all too often I see this dismissive attitude towards modern art, and I think it's unfair and deserves more careful consideration.
Consider a painting I saw on TV a while back that is suspected of being done by da Vinci. If the experts concur, it would be worth millions. If they do not concur, it would be worth $20,000 because it's old. If joe starving artist down the street painted it, it would be worth $500 at best.
The exact same painting.
>I define "art" as something I (the proverbial unskilled layman) couldn't do in a weekend.
This doesn't seem a very robust definition. Do you think things like aircraft carriers and landfills are art?
Art has always been a fuzzy term. My personal interpretation, today at least, is that what you're referring to is "craft", the ability to skillfully manipulate materials to either create something attractive or a piece of art. "Art" on the other hand is the act of creating something with the intent of provoking thought through a new perspective. (I realise you could use that definition to describe a report ;) but that's the best I got...)
Couldn't _replicate_ in a weekend, or couldn't have _created_ in a weekend (including conceiving of it in the first place)?
Any fast typist could retype any of the great works of literature in a weekend. That's not the same as being able to write them.
"I define "art" as something I (the proverbial unskilled layman) couldn't do in a weekend."
Your definition is somewhat myopic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsider_art