Friday, December 12, 2003

Defining Art #351-A


Upon rereading what I wrote yesterday (scroll down) I realized that I was just a tad disjointed. Maybe the excitement of starting a BLOG got to me. Apologies. So, now I�ll try and keep myself focused. Wish me luck.

I have a pretty much open and inclusive definition of Art. If it makes you think, it is Art. Pretty much keeps me on my toes. It does not mean that everything that makes you think is Art, nor does it mean that if you�re thinking then the Art is good. But it is a fairly radical stance, and I�ve gotten myself into a number of heated discussions about it.

As the gallery is continuously and always being approached by new artists of every size shape and color, forcing myself into a position where I have to consider the possibility of anything being art is a good thing. On the flip side I end up seeing a whack of stuff that shouldn�t even grace a landfill.

The biggest problem I run into is with the other gatekeepers, the Museum curators, gallerists, Established (or emerging) Artists, bureaucrats, jury members, and critics. They all have a vested interest in not only defining what is and is not Art, but also in then telling you what is good Art.

Think about it for a second.

When was the last time you needed somebody to tell you what a movie was. When was the last time you nodded sagely and exclaimed, �Now I understand!� after reading a book review about an author you thought stunk? And since when do you need a PhD to turn on your CD player?

Take out the words �movie,� �book,� and replace them with art, and change that CD player you�re turning on into walking into a contemporary art gallery � get the picture? You (and everybody else I know) has a head on their shoulders, most of the time you use it quite well, why the disconnect when it comes to things you stick on the wall?

Links to this post:

Create a Link

    Your Ad Here

      << Home