January 15, 2019
Help me out here. When you look at art, how do you judge if it’s good or not? Or, more importantly, whether it is truly art or not? I mean, I know when I like something, or dislike it. But I am often at a loss when I have to decide if something meets the criteria for being counted as good art. And sometimes I can’t figure out for the life of me if it’s art at all.
Of course I can do the relevant research, consulting those in the know, the experts, the books, the treatises, the critics. But that feels like cheating when I ask myself the simple question: is this or that painting, photograph, piece of music a work of art or not.
What should the criteria be? Beauty can’t be it – there are beautiful things that are not art, and art that is by no means beautiful. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines art as “something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings. Important ideas? That’s just kicking the can down the road by adding another concept that for the most part defies definition.
Should I be content with this? From the Stanford Encyclopedia: The definition of art is controversial in contemporary philosophy. Whether art can be defined has also been a matter of controversy. The philosophical usefulness of a definition of art has also been debated. Maybe that’s the solution: not useful to define it, so why bother – go back to the like or dislike, as a purely subjective phenomenon?
It all went through my head when I came across the work of South-Korean artist Jung Lee. She puts neon signs that spell single words, or phrases or whole stanzas into the landscape and then photographs them.
http://www.damnmagazine.net/2018/03/12/jung-lee-dwelling-with-neon-light/
There is certainly imagination, to come up with the concept. There is likely skill, if she crafts the signs themselves, or in the way she photographs them. They can, I guess, look beautiful if you like surprises in your natural environment, but we had already agreed anyhow that beauty is not a necessary condition.
What ideas are expressed? Is there some essential meaning conveyed in the combination of message of choice and placement in the landscape? Am I too dense to get it? I honestly find it obscure. What is the difference to graffiti words, put across the urban landscape? I actually went back to my own archives, selected somewhat similar landscapes that I had photographed across the years, and painted in the opposite messages, hoping to find some answers. No luck. To me, The End did not convey anything significantly different from The Start. Except that it came first, as a concept, a call, compared to my response. (And on a side note – the landscapes are called desolate in the description of her works, increasing the sense of enigma, perhaps. Note that all my “matching” landscapes were photographed during simple walks in the forests and the beach, and just made to look this way via manipulating of lighting.)
The Why question, why is something to be considered art, in the end met the Why Not…. I’m sure that will rile the serious folks among us, or reveal my ignorance, or both. Why not!
PS – Before I get accused of forgery… these montages were only made for purpose of making my point, not to imitate someone else’s ideas. Here is a link to the relevant psychology research: https://medium.com/@inna_13021/art-forgery-why-do-we-care-so-much-for-originals-7ec4d88fd241
Last time I offered Liszt’s Feux Follets (Irrlichter/Will-o-Whisps) it was played by Richter. Today: Ashkenzy’s version:
Lee Musgrave
As you know, there are different levels of art. For me, art at the highest level has integrity and an awareness of grace while it moves me emotionally and/or intellectually . . . and leaves me very thankful for the time I spent with it as well as very desirous of wanting to see more from this same artist.
This is a subject that I could write about on and on … and never reach the same sense of satisfaction I received from the artwork that inspired the writing in the first place.
Terry Thompson
Very interesting. Makes me think back to the 70’s when I was taught about the visceral quality and therefor uniqueness of the image in photography…without words . Lauguage brings it back to the anthropocentric and limits the perception to that world. OK, if that is the intension and there is craft that can support and qualify it as art. But, as most of my NY teachers explained, that is purely Anthoprocene, and only that, whereas non direction penetrates past the censor to the illogic and beauty of existence.( Think Jung, Minor White ), Even the most revered of the street photographers ( think Winnogrand , Bresson. ) Taught this to capable students.
That was a strong school in its day. Even signage in an image was frowned upon unless intended.
That ideal was abandoned to the capitalist reality of the overpopulated competition to be called an artist ( think Andy Warhol.) Human thought is now thought to be all there is to existence. I’m happy to disagree.
Sub-conscience, visceral reaction to Geometry, Non verbal synchronicity ( think Entanglement),
are still worthy goals.