This is somewhat like an extension of ‘where’s the art?’ 

A few days back, my Language Arts teacher held yet another discussion in class, but unlike previous sessions, I found my(self) ass perpetually off the chair, hand raised high like the next Hermione Granger.

It was quite a surprise, really, when our teacher walked into class and announced that we would be discussing the question: what is art?

(and here i thought we would never touch on my favourite subject. Last year, in objection to yet another year of expository essays and the complete expulsion of narratives from the curriculum, I asked our teacher what we would be tested on (in the bid to prove that expository essays were not a fair way to test students) 

She replied that we would be tested on our general knowledge (and that’s where I went AHA!)

to which I said, but then that’s not a good way, because what I consider general knowledge would not be what yours is made out of, and since your general knowledge isn’t anything that I a)know b)interested in then how can you call it general knowledge (and therefore test me on it)? your questions would never be on the mona lisa, or jackson pollock and thankfully not: what is an installation?

I’m sad to add that, I think I lost the argument… )

but going back to the point, I was terribly excited and I couldn’t stop grinning from ear to ear. But when it came to the actual discussion it was far from what I expected, mainly because whenever my classmate pinned a criteria that art must have before it could be considered ‘art’ I could recall some vague painting or installation that refuted this statement. for example:

Art must be pretty – One and Three Chairs (it’s just neat, orderly – what’s so pretty about it?)

Art must have meaning/ concept/ cheem thought - portraits? many portraits (like in the Renaissance period had not much thought to it, other than simply capturing the person’s looks, money, status, etc. and was basically a means for artists to earn money

Art must be something special, something that is difficult to do, of a certain technical difficulty (if not everyone could be artists!) (my classmates didn’t say this, but it’s other people’s opinions that I’ve read elsewhere) – Jackson Pollock; tell me, which one of you cannot take a bucket of paint and splash it over canvas? or throw junk onto the canvas and stick it on? in fact isn’t that what kids do best? (wihtout the canvas)

so what is art?

The problem with trying to define art is that it has evolved over past centuries, constantly evolving. New forms or branches of art have developed, each challenging the definition of art.

My personal opinion is that there are many different kinds of art, and therefore each kind would have its own judging criteria. It is hard to create a set of rules and expect all works of art to fall neatly into them. There are so many different art movements, and even then not every art piece follows a movement, so when we judge what is good art or bad art, or whether it can even be considered art, we must take into consideration the background of the artist, the time of the work, and (if there is) the art movement the piece falls in. Only then can we judge the work, and define what it is, based on other previous artists or similar works.

For example I think we can safely say there are two main kinds of art: the decorative kind and the kind with a message to bring across.

In the first kind, the art is just there to be pretty, and is often what we hang in our living rooms. It is still a valid form of art, as it tries to express and capture beauty. Only then, in this kind of art, does the ‘rule’ of art must be beautiful apply, that it has to be of a certain technical standard.

As for the second kind, art is no longer purely for looking at. As the viewer, we have to go one step further to understand what the work is trying to convey. In this category, art becomes a medium through which the artist expresses his thoughts and feelings, it becomes the ‘voice’. It doesn’t even have to be a message like: war is wrong! we should never go to war! rather the artist can be trying to express a sensation, or explore a notion (e.g. what is life?) and there might not necessarily be a resolution where the artist goes: aha! this is what life is.

Art cannot just be about beauty anymore, in fact having the artwork look beautiful could take away the original meaning of the work, especially if it is supposed to have blood and gore. What is and important criteria for this work then, is for it to be accessible. The viewer, the ordinary layman should be able to understand what the work is about, or at least form some idea as to what the message is.

Of course, not everyone can understand what the work is trying to say, but I think for the artist, as long as someone can appreciate it, that would be great. ^^ (or is it just me hoping someone can understand my coursework? haha)

*

well anyway for the discussion, our teacher concluded that for something to be an artwork it must be innovative, creative, or at least be the first of it’s kind.. once again like pollock, anyone can splash paint on a surface, but he was the first one who thought of it, and proceeded to do it.