Posted by john on October 30, 2002 at 18:49:38:
In Reply to: Art is not for real people, Art IS real people. posted by Bob - the Alien on October 30, 2002 at 12:10:00:
: "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.
I agree with you on this. One thing that always gets to me is when people think art falls into these certain categories, namely: visual, musical/literary, and dance/performance. I guess in one definition these are the common usages of the term "art". But if art is truly an expression of one's passions, then anything can be raised to the level of art. Arranging flowers, customizing cars, clothing, makeup, cooking, even obscure things like gardening, rock-climbing, oration, and making fireworks. Some cultures have a much better grasp of this. I have to go with Japapnese as an example because I study it, but there is this concept that whatever one does should be a striving to be the best at it. To attain some higher truth through it. This is what was at the root of the Japanese work-ethic that was so amazing in the 80's (It really has less to do with work, because they don't work as much as Americans, it's a statistic). In that case art is anything that someone poors a conscious effort into, especially in an effort to attain or communicate a higher truth.