Posted by Bob - the Alien on October 30, 2002 at 12:10:00:
In Reply to: art is for real people posted by phunkle kitten on October 30, 2002 at 11:15:06:
"art can be done by anyone.."
This is very true. I've found that most people don't define art correctly because they get caught up in the concept of visual artists that are seen in galleries and museums. But that is only one small niche of what we call art. Art is really just your own personal way of expressing your passions. For some people, it is visual, for others it is music, or writing, and for some it is physical activities...it can really be anything. Whatever it is that lets you express your true self to the world, that is art.
Now, of course we can add more layers to that and start to put value judgments on what art is worthwhile. The usual criteria end up including such a range of things as external beauty, political or ethical statements, quality of craftsmanship, intellectual communication, or other such bunk. And while it is true that you must meet these criteria to make a living as an artist, that doesn't invalidate any art that doesn't fall into these realms. There is a big difference between art in general, and the professional/academic art world.
The Web has actually greatly expanded art in the world. Now anyone can share their art with the world. You are no longer limited to just showing your friends. This is a wonderful thing.
The danger here is that it has made the 'art world' even more critical of 'amateur' artists. I am seeing a gap. One one hand we have the art that we see at our friends homes, coffeeshops, and restuarants. On the other hand, there is the art that is accepted by the established art world. I have known many artists who struggle to bridge this gap, when they should not have to struggle so hard.
So the question in my mind has nothing to do with who can do art or how we define art. It is a question of how we show the rest of the world the value of all art, no matter how it would hold up to an academic critique.