Webster's definition of art is "skill acquired by experience, study, or observation ... the conscious use of skill and creative imagination esp. in the production of aesthetic objects." Leaves the door wide open, doesn't it? So, since I teach beginning oil painting, I hear these words a lot , "I'm not an artist." My point is this ... If you take a blank piece of paper, canvas, a hunk of clay, etc., and create something on a regular basis, then you are an artist. Art is in the eye of the beholder.
Following that thought, how do we censor (ooh, I use that term very carefully!) explicit and/or crude art? Should we? I believe the answer to be yes, even though I know there is a very fine line. I simply do not want to view something that makes me cringe. Why is it necessary to create that type of "art?" That leads to another question ... Does there have to be a philosophical meaning behind each creation? And, if so, what is philosophical about lude or crude work? Now, what do you think?
About Me
- Inez Hudson Art Tales
- Moving to Florida has enabled me to jump into painting in a way I never thought I would realize. It has always been my dream to paint, and, to live ones dream is a blessing from above.
Facebook Badge
Since you bring it up, I'm reading the book 'Just Kids' by Patti Smith about her life with Robert Mapplethorpe whose lewd "in your face" photography along with Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" set the National Endowment for The Arts on it's ear in the 1980's and caused me to wonder....is it art?
ReplyDeleteIs art just indescribable and you can call anything art..like even toilet paper?
To me it's not art. It's 'in your face', I can do this and call it art. My auntie calls it 'nail in a block of wood'.
I'm still conflicted, though, when I have to give an opinion. Secretly I think it's just toilet paper.