Yesterday started my class of art history. Though it remains somewhat fascinating subject (at least more so than mathematics or economics), it's also a bit of a disappointment. Two reasons for that:
#1 It's mostly history of paintings. Paintings (and much, much later, photographs) are, of course, a significant part of visual expression (which we study), but I'd have hoped for history of cinema to go along with it.
I did study a few courses of history of cinema while I was at open university, and I found it exciting.
I think that studying it would have benefited us as much as studying history of paintings.
#2 It's art history of Europe. Mostly. Okay, we live in Europe, but still. They have taught this to us before. We all are familiar with the Baroque and the Rococo and the Renaissance. Can't we be inspired by Japanese, Indian or Chinese art? Or why won't we study the Australian Aboriginal art, when study similar cave art in Europe nonetheless? Oh, Eurocentrism... The things we lose for you.
Anyway. We discussed a little about art. What is art, and so on. We all been through that conversation many times. But I thought I'd share some of my ideas.
It's often said that art is something that creates emotional response with the viewer. Or it's something that makes you think. But stirring emotions or delivering information is not enough, because almost anything can do that:
One can throw a bible in a toilet. You see it, and think "oh, there's a bible in the toilet". But is it art now? No, it's not.
Someone could throw a puppy in the oven, and then take a picture of it. Sure, looking at the puppy in the oven does make you sad. But it only makes you emotionally responsive person. Is the puppy in the oven a piece of art? No. It's a puppy in the oven. Take it off there!
Almost anything can create emotions or thoughts because we humans are feeling and thinking beings. But it's not enough to make to make something art. Existence of a reaction doesn't make the act an art form.
I think that neither is art a object. Not a single painting, film, book, cd or sculpture is art.
People nowadays easily qualify themselves as artists, if they happen to write a novel, or draw a picture, or sing well. And we know why. Being an artist does give one some glamour and prestige.
No. At least that's what they thought.
They weren't artists.
They were artisans. Craftsmen.
And they did handicraft, not art.
Ok. Saying that a sculpture like that is handicraft is a bit of a understatement. But the point is still there.
Artists create stuff. Painters and writers are on a same level as carpenters.
Object doesn't become art when it's inside a museum, nor when it's hung on the wall. It becomes a showpiece.
 |
| "Impression: Sunrise" by Monet. Beautiful painting, not art. |
Ok. What then is art?
I think that art is an experience. It's art if I watch it and get "the art experience" out of it.
It's something in between the object and the viewer, but is in neither. Art is a relationship.
I believe it's a bit like catharsis, but not as finished. If catharsis is a finished emotional state, "art experience" is something that ignites the process, and allows catharsis to happen. It's like a little enlightenment.
It's not a single emotion, nor a single idea. It's something greater and only barely perceivable by a mere human in a universe of astonishing beauty. It's what makes us grow towards good as persons.
But it's not a explosion in consciousness. It's a slow, peaceful opening of a door.
Our reactions to it differ. Some cry, others smile.
But if a object creates this art experience, does it make that object an art? Perhaps as individual perceives it. But there's no universal art.
To me, Mona Lisa isn't art. Experts have sold it to the world as the poster child of art, and perhaps that's what stopped it for ever being art for me.
Sure...
It's beautiful.
It's well made.
It's unique.
It has historical value.
But we have to separate beauty, fine craftsmanship, individuality and historical weight from art. They can be a part of artwork, but none of them makes an object art. There's a tons of great songs
Thus, "artist" should be regarded as a honorary title bestowed to few.
Bestowed by individual humans. Not by organisations. Not by experts and not by history. Not by the artist herself.
Today, I'm a mere artisan. But perhaps someday, to someone, I'm an artist.
J.
I heard that Bruce Springsteen will be touring in Finland. Hurrah! Springsteen's earlier show in the summer of '08 is the best gig I've ever been in.
Springsteen has had a huge influence on me. Rarely I've seen or heard art. Perhaps 15 times in my whole life. Here is two of Springsteen's three songs which I can recognize doubtless as works of art. Such a impact they've had in me.
Thunder Road:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJBYWgfIXdw&feature=plcp&context=C3cde139UDOEgsToPDskKU-RCbvFaiF5vvv_b4GlK-
Racing in the Street:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZTQc0-d5lA&feature=plcp&context=C31e4d51UDOEgsToPDskLG8mz71rhO3kL6Shn1orQ0
