Pages

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

ART




Let's talk about art. A more disputed subject there has never been. Contentious seems to be more like it. People are still feuding over what is and what isn't qualified for such a "prestigous" label.

Art is useless. Art is what's not practical. Art's what nature didn't do. Art is accidental. Art must be constructed. Art is only art when it's on display. Art can't be understood. Art conveys information. Art is a way of understanding the world. Art is beautiful. Art can only be created by an artist... Can art only be created by human beings? Does art require intent? Who decides what is or isn't art? Is it the artist? The critic? The audience? Does the "artisticness" of something come from an innate quality, or is it merely something to be presented, after careful consideration? Why does a pretty picture need be labled "Art" at all? Can't it just be a pretty picture? ... And so on.

People have been wondering what art is since cavemen were drawing shit on the rock-walls. (But I bet critics were less critical back then!) Honestly, the whole mess of it disgusts me. What is art! What isn't art! Aesthetics who spend all their time philosophising art annoy me. They use their over-education to rationalize something which simply cannot be rationalized. Perception made concrete is not preception. You do not take opinion and turn it to fact.



I've been reading the biography of Oscar Wilde again. (Quite a good book, actually. The guy had one helluva interesting life.) He spent so much of his time promoting a form of aesthetics that was deeply entrenched in describing art so that we might surround ourselves with it. The thing I remember most clearly about it is that he seemed to believe that art must be dissident. Art had to rebel against society's molds through extravagance and rebelliousness. Art is individualism at it's most prominent.

Now, not to be a douchebag, but I disagree. I disagree with the whole history of art criticism, art philosophy, aesthetics and critics alike. I deny their opinions, theories, and conclusions. Because let me tell you friends, the honest answer would put them all out of work. Careers would tumble to the dust as useless. Whole schools of thought should lose relevancy like a tired old pop-song. And not just that, but even Almighty Critic would be rendered impotent. What is the true definition of art? What is this secret that could smother all sorts of puffed-up importance? You'll probably think of this as a lame answer, cheesy cop-out, too obvious to be true - but it's not, let me tell you...

Art, is whatever we say it is.





Begin.

6 footnotes:

Andruba said...

helluva... is that under the exclusion clause that isn't "hella?" Haha. hella... "That was a hella good pizza." Random sentence using hella. haha.

Zek J Evets said...

i think "helluva" is a close cousin to the "hella/hecka", but different enough to be useable on occasion.

Andruba said...

fair enough.

varmintspath said...

the minute you asked the question i had my answer, and kept reading to see if you came to the same conclusion which basically we did. this is how i put it. art is just like beauty it is in the eye of the beholder...

y said...

props for posting "fountain." that^ was pretty much what duchamp was trying to say.

Zek J Evets said...

@y: duchamp is dada-surrealist pansy who wishes he knew what art was/is. i posted it to show how ridiculous people make things, and then call it "art".

but thanks.