The Critique as Art, or How Art May Not Be Art Until Someone Thinks That It Is
Remember when art used to be something? I mean, art was art, it was something that could be appreciated, even if you weren’t an art major. Art simply was. There was no debate over whether it was really art or not. It just was.
Then, art became, shall we say, more open to interpretation. One man’s garbage was another man’s art. Take a rotten orange peel, dry it, frame it, and, wow!, art.
Or is it?
Sometimes it seems as though any form of self-expression, no matter how meaningless or ridiculous, is considered important and artistic in some fashion. Or, do some people just have their minds way too open that any type of nonsense is revered as some sort of art form?
Certainly, no matter how ridiculous something may seem that is passed off as art, no doubt you will find some art critic somewhere that will explain in detailed fashion just why it is a piece of art.
That explanation is in and of itself an art form. Can there be any doubt of that? If you can look at a pile of rubbish and convince someone else that, yes, indeed, that is a piece of art, is that not an art in and of itself? And, in so doing, is that rubbish thus rendered as art, as though the artistic expression of the critic flows into that rubbish, thereby anointing it as art as if it had been art all along, merely waiting for someone to properly express it?
Then again, if a piece requires that someone else recognize it as art before it can be considered as art, was it really art to begin with? For, if the art must be explained, have you not failed as an artist to create art? Should art not speak to the people for which is was intended to be viewed? If your audience is only a select few, then it would no doubt be permissible if your work is understood by that audience. But, if you intend to reach a wider audience and that audience only becomes aware of the meaning of your art through the exposition of an art critic, have you not failed as an artist?
If you paint a horse, and people think that it’s a chihuahua, have you not failed as an artist? Likewise, if your art is not understood by its intended audience, have you not also failed as an artist?
Take humor, for example. A joke loses its impact if it must be explained, no?
Some artsy type people don’t like to think of failure, instead taking comfort in the idea that self-expression is a reward of its own, but such is not reality, is it? For what value is there in expressing yourself if no one understands what you are expressing?
I’m not afraid to say it. I appreciate art as an expression of the artist. But let’s face it - some artists are just having a laugh at us. Really. Piles of wasted food going bad or randomly placed rubbish is NOT art. It may also be an expression of the artist but it is a piece of crap - not art. In my opinion, if it can be confused with something that should be thrown away, then it’s not art. Unless of course, it is rubber vomit or something that was intentionally made to look like something to be thrown away.
So real stuff that should be thrown away is not art, but stuff made to look like stuff that should be thrown away is art? But what if the latter is made of the former?
.
I call it “Minimalist Commentary.” Although it appears to be only a period, it is much more than that. The lonely punctuation mark exemplifies the lack of substance in today’s Internet commentators, particularly those who post as “anonymous.” It is what we all want to say and what we don’t want to say. It evokes the deepest emotions while remaining incredibly shallow and empty. It stands as an end to no beginning. Zoom in closer and the appearance takes on the form of a black hole, that of which we all hope would suck the entirety of Internet trolls into the void of space.
Here’s some blank space to ponder that for a moment…
OK, now breathe deeply. carry on.
So, you’re a self-actualizing artist?