What is art? Joe

Joseph Millard

Cornelia Oliver

11/19/2013

     Art has been, in modern context, on this planet for over 60,000 years. It has changed and continues to change in its definition and context. It is a very difficult thing to try and define, since so many different forms have been generally accepted as art, though a general theme is, "Art is art if an artist deems it so". A person must recognize the existence of art and what hand people play in making art, then after that, is when art has a tendency to be made. The term art is usually applied for pieces made either, not for the purpose of purchase through a mass market and doesn't explicitly serve a utilitarian purpose. That being said, some art has been established that HAS been sold for mass market and HAS been made that does serve a utility. 

   An artist is a person that recognizes that they make art. An artist could be a person that occasionally will paint, but spends their days putting computers together. An artist is a title and with titles come certain expectations and duties. An athlete that doesn't use their body for sports or physical activity wouldn't be considered and athlete by societal standards, but does that change what that one person thinks of themselves? What value is there in claiming to be something and/or being recognized as a title? Does it affect what a person does or doesn't do? Should a person be defined solely by their vocation, disposition, or nature? 

   The relevance of art has been questioned from its inception and forced to fit within societal guidelines, yet it has also broken out of the constraints of communal thought to change perception. Art will always remain relevant; as long as people create boundaries, guidelines, and rule it is through the revolution of art that people can peacefully object to what is taken for granted, taken as the norm. Art is as necessary to life as any other form of communication as it is through communicating with other people that ideas can be shared and spread.

  Art is assessed through many different criteria, whether or not that is a good thing or bad. It can fall into different categories where, based on those guidelines, can be graded and fall into "bad" or "good". All art SHOULD be approached with a sense of altruism, with the sole intent of assessing a piece to be helping the artist think about other perspectives and ideas to help them with understanding, so future pieces can change as quickly as the person changes with it. Art should be so altruistic that there are no good or bad pieces of art, but that isn't what happens; when a person latches onto an idea ostensibly, then they have stopped growing and have created guidelines for themselves. Ideas should be malleable and subject to change as more information becomes available. It is through these people, that do not change and cannot accept change in a COMPLETELY open way that Art is deemed bad or good, though artist intent is something else entirely. If an artist deems something bad, for the intent of being a bad piece of art, then is it bad? How do you assess? Within a category of art that has rules? As something new? Does it challenge any sort of convention? If so, does that make it a good piece of art? And when it comes to forms of art (high or low), the only clear distinction should be how the artist perceives what they do. Does a cartoonist look up to a vivid expressionist? Does a sculptor look upon paintings with a longing to be born into the life of a painter? It is up to the artist how they want to view themselves, and if an illustrator wants to change how her work is viewed in the light of 'High or Low', then it is up to her how to proceed. As for me, no, I don't think of high or low art as being different. Just different perceptions of the same thing.