Z’ev X Jenerik

12/10/08
Block Cambodia
Art … aRt … arT
People bicker and argue day and night about what they consider art. There are those who
believe art must be visually pleasing and there are others who believe art must reflect the
technical skill of the artist, but the question should not be "What is art?" The question should be
"Why is Art?" Art can have no definition because it is an
opinionated practice. One thing is sure though; art is made
for a reason, because even accidental art is still achieved it
the effort to do something. Every piece of art has a "why"
behind the "what," even if the artist doesn’t know what it
is. For example, the out-ward explanation as to why the
tagger (left) is spray painting the wall might be;
compulsion, the urge to get one's voice out, or a dare
administered by his friends. I can only guess why the piece
was created, as I am not the artist. Whether the piece is art
or not isn’t the proper question to query, because what one
may interpret as vandalism is anther's free expression. But, there can only be one "why" for this
art piece. Different answers maybe, but the artist has the only answers. He knows the only true
"why."
Because of its subjectivity, there is no answer to the question "what is art?" Right? …
Wrong. I am now going to consciously contradict myself because logically, there are exceptions
to every rule, even in a definition stating there is no definition (remind
you of the chaos theory?). "Nothing invokes no emotion, for
indifference in itself is an emotion. It therefore makes sense that Art in
any form invokes emotion in people, even if that emotion is being
unfazed." Emotion has no opposite, because every form of emotion has
a tangible counterpart. Take this paperclip (right), what does it make
you think of? Doesn't it make you feel some thing? It must, and try as
you might to be difficult, you cannot deny this rule: Everything evokes
an emotion. Especially when others are wrong.
Today I read a blog called "Art is in the eye of the moneyholder" by Chris Wesley. He
had some interesting points to raise, and some generalizations I agree with, but he also had some
things to say that I didn't really agree with. Art is subjective, agree. Artists think differently,
agree. Art for one may not be art to another, agree. Art that is easy to complete is not art,
disagree. What may be easy for him may not be easy for another. Does it devalue someone else’s
efforts just because he can make something similar more quickly? Is his art not art if Picasso
could do it easily? We are all different, as he said, so his generalization entails that our work
cannot be compared to another’s' or held to a standard. I don't mean to jump on his opinion, I am
just pointing out a logical contradiction.
Art is something made with a purpose or for a reason and evokes an emotion. Art is not
determined by the artistic ability of the artist. I know it sound indecisive to say that “Art is
whatever you want it to be” but it is an unfortunate truth. I think tagging isn’t art, it is just
vandalism and teenage angst, but there are people who would disagree. They would rise
amazing points that I would never had guessed existed, or they would fail to convince me that
what they do is not shit. Regardless, a cliché is a cliché for a reason. Art is subjective, but it
must still bow before the almighty powers of logic and reasoning. Muahahaha!