Yesterday I visited the Queen West Art Crawl -- a street festival where artists from different disciplines exhibit their art-work and hope to sell some. This led me back to a thought that appears occasionally in my mind. What is art and why does something, that might appeal to me may not have the same effect on someone else and vice-versa?
I have been also mulling over the question of what is “abstract art”. There are some modern artists whose work produces an inexplicable effect and there are others whose work I hesitate to call “art”.
I once saw a documentary about a 5 year old prodigy who paints abstract art:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3701484.stm
The documentary clearly showed two schools of thought: Artists who go to great lengths and details for realistic painting and the other that find expression of a feeling through a bunch of what may seem like scribbles to an untrained eye (scribbles that even a 5 year old is capable of). (I am no “art guru”, hence the humility in the choice of words. :))
I was once visiting the Art Gallery of Ontario (AGO) that has some interesting pieces and one of them was by Yoko Ono. I couldn’t understand it. It was a needle mounted on a glass pedestal. It was supposed to express anti-war or peace sentiment. I was confused.
There are things that pretend to be art and there are some that are clearly traditionally artistic. This led me to do some research in this subject and I came across a website for “fluxus” art. I like how they don’t hide behind the heaviosity. Please read:
http://www.artnotart.com/fluxus/
http://www.artnotart.com/fluxus/dhiggins-childshistory.html
Here are some abstracts that one may find debatable:
http://www.abstractmodernart.com/AA_Site/pages/misc/gallery.html
To summarize, I think all art is an expression or an impression of the artist’s mind. However, some seem to be planned, purposeful pieces and others seem more like accidents and yet others could be what they call “happy” accidents – they are accidents but they create a dramatic effect.
And some are nothing but scribbles pretending to be “art”.
These are my thought anyways. I would love a good debate over this and sort things out.
2 comments:
Interesting post.
I cannot really claim to be an authority on any art form. Yet here is my two-cents worth :)
In my opinion, all art is subjective. All I can honestly say is whether 'I' like what has been presented to me as art or not.
Understanding art is another ball-game altogether. I take "understanding" art as when it stirs something inside me. It doesn't necessarily have to be something recognisable...a feeling with a name, or a thought that can be articulated...if I feel something, even if can't be described, I think I have "understood" it.
As for pretenders, I don't know if I can make them out or not. But I feel that my heart will know and will not be able to respond to what they present as art. And I find solace in the knowledge that, even if I cannot make it out as pretense, they who do it, know.
Phew ! The comment is about as long as the post ! :) Your turn now...
Yes I agree. I was amazed at an "art" movement which was termed as Fluxus art. It was basically "mocking" the over realistic art forms that existed during the renaissance.
My only issue is that, if an everyday wash-basin is presented in an art gallery as a piece of "art"... don't try to find any deeper meanings in it. It IS a wash-basin and nothing more. And that is why I liked the fluxus website... no hiding behind walls of seemingly deeper meanings.
Yes, you could admire the person who engineered it and people who put it together etc...
Post a Comment