My OperaArt is in the eye of the beholder
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 11:49:39 PM
Something that never seize to surprise me is what people are willing to discuss and how strongly they oppose people who disagree with them. There are quite a few topics that seems to instigate such reactions - of course discussions about faith, religion, warfare and politics in general may cause such debates. There are of course also a lot of other such subjects that may cause heated discussions, but one of the more surprising topics is: "what is art".
I guess what kind of reactions people have depends greatly on their background, social status, friends etc. I do not belong to any such social groups, but since I also sometimes work with graphical design and similar projects, it is difficult to avoid meeting people and artist with background from art.
For those who does not know me very well - if people ask me a question or wants my opinion, I always do my best to answer as truthfully I can without hurting anyone. But it is like asking for trouble - probably for both parties - if we get into topics like the before mentioned politics, religion etc. Or in other cases: art.
I have a very pragmatic attitude. There are very few things that are black and white, and I believe that the people who are unable - or unwilling - to see all the shades in between probably have an agenda of their own. This makes it of course rather counterproductive having any kind of discussion with them.
But when I get asked about art, what I feel about a certain picture, a sculpture, an artistic expression - be it a painting, composition, play - whatever, I tend to stick one very simple philosophy; I can not say what art is, but know it is when I see it.
I may of course be critisized for using a cop-out definition, but I am truly very surprised to see what some people accept and interpret as art. Stuffing animals and called it social critisism, turn a trashcan upside down next to an ashtray and refer to it as a bold statement against communism, having paintings with just one colour or one single line on the top or bottom of it. There are some things here that just screams the emperors new clothes to me. Art does not become more art because it use controversial elements. Of course, controversial elements does not make art less art either, but I believe the abilities of the artist that should be the defining factor.
Okay - so I am aware of the history behind a lot of these artworks and the artists. Yes, dadaism was an interesting direction, yes - a number of great artists have evolved and changed expression over the years - but regardless of how great the artist is; In my opinion art should still contain some evidence of artistic abilities. Putting a dried out tomato on a white plate and call it art does not make it any more artistic. Placed in a given context - perhaps, but even that may be stretching the term too far.
Art must have more integrity. In some ways I feel that the grafitti some kids puts up on walls have higher artistic merits and qualities than what many established artists manages to deliver. I say this because art - again in my opinion - should consist of at least two inseperable entities: the basic idea - and the craftmanship. And perhaps also uniqueness. Very often I feel that the idea is lacking and the craftmanship seems to be nonexistant. Of course, the artist may be a good craftsman - but if it does not show in the artwork, well - who cares about the artists abilities then?
These are of course all my very personal definitions, and judging from many of discussions I have had over the years, I am the one that sees things in black and white. So perhaps I am wrong - or it may very well be true that art is truly in the eye of beholder.
Fortunate is the person that can see everything in colours and not just in white and black and shades of grey.
I guess what kind of reactions people have depends greatly on their background, social status, friends etc. I do not belong to any such social groups, but since I also sometimes work with graphical design and similar projects, it is difficult to avoid meeting people and artist with background from art.
For those who does not know me very well - if people ask me a question or wants my opinion, I always do my best to answer as truthfully I can without hurting anyone. But it is like asking for trouble - probably for both parties - if we get into topics like the before mentioned politics, religion etc. Or in other cases: art.
I have a very pragmatic attitude. There are very few things that are black and white, and I believe that the people who are unable - or unwilling - to see all the shades in between probably have an agenda of their own. This makes it of course rather counterproductive having any kind of discussion with them.
But when I get asked about art, what I feel about a certain picture, a sculpture, an artistic expression - be it a painting, composition, play - whatever, I tend to stick one very simple philosophy; I can not say what art is, but know it is when I see it.
I may of course be critisized for using a cop-out definition, but I am truly very surprised to see what some people accept and interpret as art. Stuffing animals and called it social critisism, turn a trashcan upside down next to an ashtray and refer to it as a bold statement against communism, having paintings with just one colour or one single line on the top or bottom of it. There are some things here that just screams the emperors new clothes to me. Art does not become more art because it use controversial elements. Of course, controversial elements does not make art less art either, but I believe the abilities of the artist that should be the defining factor.
Okay - so I am aware of the history behind a lot of these artworks and the artists. Yes, dadaism was an interesting direction, yes - a number of great artists have evolved and changed expression over the years - but regardless of how great the artist is; In my opinion art should still contain some evidence of artistic abilities. Putting a dried out tomato on a white plate and call it art does not make it any more artistic. Placed in a given context - perhaps, but even that may be stretching the term too far.
Art must have more integrity. In some ways I feel that the grafitti some kids puts up on walls have higher artistic merits and qualities than what many established artists manages to deliver. I say this because art - again in my opinion - should consist of at least two inseperable entities: the basic idea - and the craftmanship. And perhaps also uniqueness. Very often I feel that the idea is lacking and the craftmanship seems to be nonexistant. Of course, the artist may be a good craftsman - but if it does not show in the artwork, well - who cares about the artists abilities then?
These are of course all my very personal definitions, and judging from many of discussions I have had over the years, I am the one that sees things in black and white. So perhaps I am wrong - or it may very well be true that art is truly in the eye of beholder.
Fortunate is the person that can see everything in colours and not just in white and black and shades of grey.
