Hi there, back again!
I introduced myself before (including the fact that I like bears). Now, I wanted to share some content with you.
This is also a short essay on Art - or my take on it. Opinions welcome!
When is something Art?
The question itself may not even be that important - I didn’t spend much time on it before. But I never introduced myself in this way either. So why not expand a little on the topic?
Art to me comes down to two things:
For something to be a work of Art, others have to appreciate as a thing of beauty.
Beauty here means: the work has to possess some kind of striking, stunning quality: whatever it is, it must somehow move those that appreciate it.
To explain why simple beauty isn't enough, consider sunsets. Sunsets are almost undeniably beautiful.
Selling sunset postcards as Art however is a No-Go, regardless of print quality.
This is not because we’re nocturnal animals (Sorry Tom Ford) - It’s because sunset imagery is everywhere.
When something strikes you again and again, it loses its power to move you (exception for bear paws). Art and repetition are at odds - which explains the premium we place on originality – else we simply get jaded.
Eventually, we simply can't help but long for something new.
The role of Taste
As said, an experience repeated endlessly becomes powerless. But the opposite exists too: some things can't hit you if you don't know what you're looking for.
In this context, you could think about the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon. This is the name for something most of us have experienced: you learn something new and then you hear/see it somewhere else at random soon after.
It feels like a coincidence - but it isn’t. You just wouldn’t notice these moments before.
So back to Art, when you think all museums are full of shit – perhaps you simply don't know where to look.
The subjectivity of Art
When small groups of people come together and decide what qualifies as Art, I do believe excrement can make its way into the museum. Sometimes literally.
I enjoy visiting Modern Art Museums (city trips) because the work is often surprising as well as beautiful and then it works for me. But the avant-garde has a tendency to concentrate in cliques and when they get too small, work evolves along closely, almost privately shared narratives. The result of this dynamic can be completely powerless.
The way I see it, the etymology of avant-garde says it all: there's no harm in being ahead of the curve, but the mainstream should be able to follow what you're doing eventually. If your work lacks any conceivable appeal to outsiders (and if that includes nearly everyone), perhaps your work just deserves to be mauled by a bear.
Art or not. Where I stand.
I just enjoy striking visual imagery. I definitely wouldn’t call it capital-A full blown Art. But that’s also because I feel it shouldn’t be up to me in the first place.
When it comes to originality, you have to do what you can. Without formal training and exposure to so much art online, I can’t even tell how many ideas I may or may not have reused. The availability of editing software and quality cameras also means everyone gets a shot at creating something beautiful. This is great. It's not possible for all of us to be original all the time. And that's okay too.
The Democracy of Beauty
The benefit of taking it easy is that I’m not focused on denominations. Ultimately it doesn't even matter what I think - it's up to you. Beauty isn’t determined by intentions, and it can't be denied by a few - we all have our say in the end.
Fellow Steemians,
Till next time we meet.
