The Great Debate

What is art? Is Photography art? Is Graphic Design an art form? If the artists hand never touches the piece is it still considered that artist’s creation? If they conceptualized it, visualized it, conveyed it to a group of facilitators or apprentices who in turn labored over the physical piece, then wasn’t that still art created by the artist?

It seems this debate has been going on for eons. Back in the caveman dwelling days I am sure there were those who did not agree with the cave paintings. Saying things like they were childlike in quality, the wrong blood was used to draw that buffalo, you needed to use buffalo blood but instead you used antelope. Well maybe there was a reason for that, like antelope blood had a better lasting quality on the rocks than did Buffalo, or maybe the viscosity was easier to paint with? Then there is the debate, of which tools were used to etch into the rocks, or the etchings were too animalistic leaning toward the hunter side and not enough was done to document the gatherers. Can you see where I am going here?

I however hearken back to my early college days when one of my professors posed this question and expressed their opinion on what made something art for them. They said, if you like it, if it evokes and emotion which is satisfying to you as an individual even though you may not understand it, even if it evokes an emotion that is unsettling to you it is still a work of art, even if the artist never touched the piece themselves. Many printmakers create works that they have the pressmen produce. There are many artists from long ago whose signatures appear on a now famous panting, but may have had apprentices put brush strokes on the canvas. Is it still a painting by that artist?

I think that good art should evoke some sort of response from us. If it is visually appealing or if it causes you to discuss this with another individual or group then it may have served the purpose that the maker was trying to convey. One of the professors in the University I attended used to look at each drawing his students would bring in and no matter how good or bad the quality was, he would first find the good in it. Even if this was obviously a rushed or unfinished piece, he would comment on their use of negative space, the quality of their mark making, comparisons to other artists who often had unfinished work. He would always say something positive and then give criticism.

His mindset seemed to be one of encouragement, building of their individual character, and finally teaching them to look at other artists who did similar work to encourage further exploration. I don’t think he had a single demoralizing bone in his body. In his more advanced courses he was a tough critic but that is justified at that stage of artistic training.

In my not so humble opinion, what is art and what is not art is very difficult to define. I think that if it is art to you then it works, if not then so be it. There was a time in my figure drawing course where we had discussion over one individuals drawing of a female form. This woman was crouched down and in almost a fetal position. The drawing was beautiful in my eyes, the lighting, technical quality, his use of various mark making, yet to others it struck a nerve that caused anger, feelings of abuse, demoralization of the female species. It was the lighting, the colors were muted and dark a little bit eerie. It was not his intention to upset anyone, it was a drawing of his girlfriend and both of them loved it. What happened here is it stirred up emotions of each person who viewed it, based on their own life experiences, the time and place it was viewed, and the moment in history where it was seen. All those things had to do with how it was perceived.

As you can see this discussion could go on and on and it should! I love hearing people’s take on things, the good, the bad and the ugly!

Hope you find yourself in a pleasant state of mind today!

Peace,

Michael