Art?

An example of something that I consider to be"art." This untitled piece by Felix Gonzales-Torres is hanging on my wall right now, not only because I like the way it looks, but because of the vision that the artist had when creating it.

The internet is one helluva place.  Not three hours after I last saw Michele, she had already posted an entry about a conversation that we had today.  Of course, then, I have to respond – both because I need to present my point of view and because I need to write more entries.  Here we go.

My idea of what constitutes art is quite liberal, as opposed to Michele, who openly says we should “be critical of what we accept as art.”  I find it very difficult to draw a definitive line between “art” and “not art” -  I just tried to write my own definition, and came up blank.  Near as I can tell, Michele’s definition of art centers on the aesthetics of the piece and technical ability of the artist, based on her analysis of Duchamp and Malevich’s work.  I, however, consider art to be just as much about the ideas, concepts, and processes behind the product as the product itself.  And never mind that aesthetics is entirely subjective.  One point I was discussing with Michele earlier today was that just as much (if not more) conceptualization, consideration, and meaningful thought went into designing something like a factory (widely considered to be “not art”) as did something like the David (widely considered “art”).  Even a factory could be the aesthetic ideal for an engineer, while something with a more “classical,” “artistic” aesthetic would be the ideal for someone like my grandmother.

Case in point: I personally quite liked the Malevich piece that Michele posted under the “not art” category.  My personal aesthetic gravitates more towards minimalism, in both form and color.  I’d imagine that piece would be quite impressive in person.  Nothing gets you thinking about What It All Means quite like a giant black hole (which is actually quite a maximal thing, eh?).  Oh but there I go talking about “meaning” and “concepts” again.

Simply put, I argue exactly the opposite of Michele: we should be very liberal with what we consider art.  Humans are extremely thoughtful, and everything we create is an expression of ourselves.  Regardless of whether it’s a painting or a parking lot, any human creation will have something meaningful to say about its creator.

Oh, and of course, this is all in the name of healthy, happy, constructive dialogue.  In no way is this a personal attack on Michele – or to use her words “I don’t mean to bust” on her.  Anyone else with an opinion (or who needs another entry) is welcome to join in.