Does it have
to have meaning, or even a purpose? Yes and no. There could be a massive mural
downtown in the city that the creator or group of creators designed to have
this incredibly metaphoric criticism of the political views of the baby boomer
generation that they painted and showcased specifically on a Thursday afternoon
after a rain shower, but that does not guarantee that any other passersby will
understand it to that extent, or at all. Then again, that very same mural could
have been created just because it looks nice, and it makes the dingy party of
town feel brighter and more welcoming. Meaning and purpose does not define art,
nor does it take away from it.
While realism in art is a beautiful
thing that is incredibly telling of an artist’s personal taste, style, talent,
and skill, it is just another style of work. It is not the only style of work,
which is what matters. A piece does not have to have a realistic style to be
successful, and in some art mediums, realism the way we imagine it is unattainable (take some aspects of 2D digital media for example). If realism is
unattainable, does that devalue the piece of work? Take Picasso, for instance,
and then compare his work to that of da Vinci’s. Both are well known artist’s
and pioneers of their styles with work worth more money than imaginable now.
One has a very stylistic way of crafting, while the other was an expert at life
drawing. Then take them and compare them to digital masterminds like Shepard Fairey and Henri Cartier-Bresson. Do you see what I mean?
When it comes to trained
professionals versus hobbyists and even children, there is no argument that art
is still art. What a surprise! Each of these groups of creators are making
things deliberately for money, for fun, or just to learn and get better. People
without formal training can be brilliant crafters, and children can even have
prodigal concepts and methods of execution. Even if they don’t, who is really
going to tell a child or untrained person that their piece of artwork doesn’t
count because of their age or lack of education?
So, “what is art?”
Well, the easy answer is
“subjective.” Art is very subjective because it is very different. From period
differences to differences in style, age, creator, location, and medium among
many other methods and criteria used to “define” art, there is no other way to
call it, but “different.” Actually, that’s not true. Art is creative, visual,
physical, watchable, taste-able, deliberate, and accidental. Art is what the
maker chooses, and what the viewer reinforces.
( The above was written for an Art History II assignment for university that was to define art in your own personal way while meeting a few criteria points. I mentioned meaning/purpose, realism, and the being who created the piece out of several topic points provided. While the writing does make a bit more sense in the context of the assignment, I did like the way it sounded as a standalone sort of blog post, too. )
