What is art anyway?
Last night a person whose opinion I respect quite a bit made it clear he does not believe the Herky statues qualify as art. Here are two of my favorites:
Reflections of U
Reflection of What Matters Herky
I disagree with my friend. I get that these statues are not the equivalent of Michelangelo's David. I can understand not liking the Herky statues. That does not mean they are not art. What determines what is art?
First of all, there must be intent. There has to be an artist attempting to create art. Otherwise, it's hollow.
Second, it must invoke an emotional reaction in a viewer. It does not matter what the emotion is - sorrow, joy, love, fear - it's all good. And even more importantly, it does not matter who that viewer is. That is something that is often lost when we start saying this is art and this is not art. If we dismiss the opinions of each other in the search for art, we dismiss each other's humanity.
So getting back to the Herky statues. Clearly, there was intent to create art. As for emotional reaction...my almost four year old daughter loved the Herkys. She loved the differences of each one. She laughed and smiled and wouldn't stop talking about them. Clearly, they evoked the emotion of joy within her. They may end up being some of her earliest memories of art. And that's just fine with me.
posted by Matt @ 9:42 AM
10 comments
10 Comments:
oooooh...what is art? I wrote a 5 page paper on that in college, a paper I was quite proud of.
Simple answer...anything and everything is art, it's opinion, impossible to define.
I'm just going to stop there otherwise I could go on and on and on...but that's the simple answer.
Someone saying "that does not qualify as art" is ridiculous to me...
(Kimber again)
My kids love Herkey! If they like it, it must be art.
Matt S here. In terms of personal aesthetics, as well as being a tolerable human being, it's best to be inclusive when defining art. For the purpose of a good brisk conversation, it's more fun to exclude stuff.
Not having kids, I don't like the Herkys much. There seems to be a connection between the two. They might still be art.
It is true that in many ways "art" is purely subjective but clearly even the "nonelitists" draw a line somewhere. So yes, I draw the line in a very different place than others sometimes but gussied up trademarked mascots feels like a pretty comfortable line for me.
I acknowledge they may be amusing and entertaining to some people and that some of the creators may have had the intent to "artify" them but they are still a team mascot underneath it all. I doubt anyone would classify the person inside a herky costume as a performance artist, would they?
I get that no one likes to have the things they like and appreciate devalued as non-art, but entertainment has it's value as well.
As for the definition of art.
Intent. very tricky one. we shouldn't have to interview someone to make the distinction but otherwise we're left with our judgement as to their intent. sometimes you can tell, sometimes you can't.
Emotional response. a little too broad for me. The list of things I can come up with that have indeterminite intent and provoke an emotional response from a canolli to a fun amusement park ride are limitless.
For me that is the prerequisite for entertainment but to qualify as art for me it also has to either question or attempt to allow us better understand, ourselves or the world around us.
At least that's what I think.
(Matt S again)
Here's a good capsule definition: If the creator says it's art, it's art. "Art" is a value-neutral term referring to nothing more than the expression of a deliberate creative impulse. Actual quality is impossible to define objectively (and therefore fun to argue about, provided you aren't taking yourself seriously).
Greenman,
I would most definately call someone inside a herky, or any costume, performance art. They are putting on a show and performing for the crowd. They aren't just walking around like they would normally and talking to their friends and sitting with a hotdog and watching the game, no they're in that costume to perform. Very much performance art, but then...it's all subjective, so to me it's performance art.
Something can only be art if it makes us question ourselves or the world around us? That may be your opinion, but I don't agree with that.
I could spit on a canvas once a day for a month, wait for it to dry or maybe put some laquer over it and I am most certainly entitled to call that art, and some jackass somewhere would buy it from me I can most guarantee that.
I don't see how you can't admit that anything can be art and it's all in the eye of the beholder. There is no line to draw, everything can be "defined" as art, but then I don't think you can accurately define art.
It may be a "gussied up trademark mascot" but it's art. Someone made that with materials, that's easily definable as art. Just because someone paints a picture and it happens to be the pepsi logo, doesn't mean that's not art because it's not their original thought, they still painted the thing, it's still art.
The problem is we have one word that can mean anything. For me things can be bettered qualified if we acknowledge there is an inherent difference between "Guernica" and a pepsi logo. They both have value but they have different values. Choosing to refer to some of these things as entertainment doesn't devalue them it just clarifies what the value is. I sense that for some people the idea of not considering them art in my lexicon devalues them entirely but that seems to be to be based on your judgement and definition of "art", not mine.
This is one of the better discussions to ever take place on my blog. Thanks, guys.
(Matt "Art Vs. Garfunkel" S again)
So in the Pepsi/Guernica comparison, what value set are you using to differentiate them? I think I agree with you in that case, using my perception of the creator's intent as my guideline, but I'm curious anyway. If it's created to serve a commercial interest and little attempt is made to present a point of view (a corporate logo, most of my freelance game writing), then I agree that it isn't art. If the creator was trying to Do Something -- as opposed to trying to Say Something, a much harder task -- I think that's enough to qualify as art. Maybe not good art, but as Theodore Sturgeon pointed out, 90% of what we create is crap.
I don't think whether someone says something is entertainment or is not art devalues anything for me. I'm still going to think something is art whether someone agrees with me or not.
I think there is a distinct different between "Guernica" and a Pepsi logo. And yes, they do have different values but to me it doesn't make one more "art" than another.
It's still art no matter how it's presented. If someone took anything and did something with it, than to me, that's art. I don't care if it's for a corporate purpose or to hang in their kids room, it's still art. If someone took a logo made by someone else and put it into a flashy print or tv ad, they still made art with that ad, that still took artistic talent to make that ad.
I don't know if I'm either not making sense or I'm not getting your two guys' point, but I can't seem to see if we agree on anything or not! lol
Post a Comment
<< Home