The Great Debate: What’s Art and What’s Not?
What is art? Such a ridiculous question.
This question just leads to an endless stream of other questions.
What’s good art? What’s bad art? What is art for? Who should make art? Should art be political? Should art be tangible? Should art be vulgar, beautiful, or messy?
Honestly, who cares?
I had an art history professor once, who on the first day of class, picked up a chair, and put it on a desk. She then asked the class, “Is this art?” Almost unanimously, the class responded no, with a few stragglers that decided not to say one way or the other.
“Why not?” she asked.
Most people said, “Because it’s ugly.” Or “Because it’s just a chair.”
But she pressed on. “Art can’t be ugly? Art can’t be functional? Don’t you think the person who made this chair had a design and vision in mind?”
It’s a fair question and an interesting one at that. Why would we consider a chair, something we sit on every day and never even think twice about, a piece of art?
Look at the picture below. On the left is a picture of a folding chair from Walmart’s website. On the right is picture of a work of art titled, MMPI (Self-Portrait in Yellow) by Tony Oursler on display in the Milwaukee Art Museum.
Someone has decided that Ousler’s self-portrait is art. But why?
In my opinion, art is something that elicits some type of emotional response and makes people think. Art is a reflection of the society around you or a reflection of yourself. When I look at the picture on the left, I don’t really feel anything. When I see the one on the right, I feel confused. Why is the chair upside down? Why is it balanced on that horribly creepy babydoll head? That may be a very simplified explanation, but that’s how I see it.
So honestly, I think it’s up to you whether or not something is art. Next time you look at something and you think, that’s stupid, I could make that, try to focus on how you feel and not whether or not you could paint a square canvas white.
Now, onto some controversy.
Have you ever heard of the piece, Fountain, by Marcel Duchamp? Duchamp enraged the art world in 1917 with this piece. And what is it you ask? It’s literally a urinal signed “R. Mutt.”
The entire story behind this piece is very interesting and definitely worth a quick read, but no matter what you think of it, Fountain is still worth an estimated 2.5 million dollars. So what do you think, is it art or not?
The question, “what is art” is something that even our Federal Government struggles with. This leads us to another one of my controversial favorites — Piss Christ by Andres Serrano. In 1987, Andres Serrano was the recipient of a $15,000 individual artist grant awarded by the National Endowment for the Arts. You can see the piece below —
In the case of Serrano’s work, many felt as though they were being personally attacked as Christians. A personalized attack on Christianity failed to agree with taxpayers who saw it as — by extension — their money being spent on this “disgusting” piece of art.
This controversy led to years of debate regarding arts funding. If it’s not art, should the government fund it? If it is art, but it’s controversial, should the government be funding it? Interesting stuff, man. And funnily enough, the National Endowment for the Arts doesn’t allocate individual artist grants anymore. Coincidence? Ha.
This week’s challenge: Let me know in the comments — What do you think is art? What does art mean? Maybe most importantly, when you look at art, how does it make you feel?
