3 ms·
I have a relatively simple rule about what is and isn't art. It doesn't have to be everyone's rule--it's just my rule: Nothing is objectively art; art is alway
by SiVal 12y ago
I have a relatively simple rule about what is and isn't art. It doesn't have to be everyone's rule--it's just my rule:
Nothing is objectively art; art is always in the eye of the beholder, but it's only real art to someone if they would want it even if no one else ever saw it.
Take a toilet nailed to the wall. If the person who created this thing would have done so if he had known that no one else would ever see it, if he would have nailed the toilet to his own wall at home knowing that he was the only one who would ever see it just because HE HIMSELF wanted to look at it, then it really is art to him. It's not any art that I'm interested in, but that doesn't matter. All art is subjective. It is a genuine expression of his own esthetic desires. It IS art to him.
But if he would never consider such a thing for himself, if it's only part of a show he puts on for others in hopes of getting paid ("it speaks to the inhumanity of corporate greed...blah, blah" he explains greedily), then it's just a commercial product. If it's nothing he would have any interest in without the audience, but it's about getting attention, not money, then it's a publicity stunt, not art. To the artist, it's not art. (If it really is art to the artist, it can ALSO be a commercial product or publicity stunt while remaining art to him.)
And if the wealthy customer would have no interest in it if he couldn't show off his "statement" to others, then it's not art to him, either. It's some sort of signalling, or a commercial investment, or whatever, but it's not art to him. And if potential buyers knew that it was not even art to the artist, what might that mean to them?
Of course, I can't be sure what really is in someone else's mind, but if I doubt that the artist would sincerely want this poo-covered crucifix in his own living room for his private enjoyment, nor that the rich people swooning over its deep meaning would care if they couldn't show off their depth to their friends, it means I'm doubting that this piece of junk is really art to anybody.
- johnchristopher 12y ago> But if he would never consider such a thing for himself, if it's only part of a show he puts on for others in hopes of getting paid ("it speaks to the inhumanity of corporate greed...blah, blah" he explains greedily), You seem to be referring to Marcel Duchamp's Fountain (the urinal) and if so you are missing the point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readymades_of_Marcel_Duchamp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readymades_of_Marcel_Duchamp > Take a toilet nailed to the wall. If the person who created this thing would have done so if he had known that no one else would ever see it, if he would have nailed the toilet to his own wall at home knowing that he was the only one who would ever see it just because HE HIMSELF wanted to look at it, then it really is art to him. It's not any art that I'm interested in, but that doesn't matter. All art is subjective. It is a genuine expression of his own esthetic desires. It IS art to him. Art is a statement and you can't isolate that statement in a vacuum that would cut it from its historical perspective. > Nothing is objectively art; art is always in the eye of the beholder, but it's only real art to someone if they would want it even if no one else ever saw it. Of course, but the context around the piece of art is indeed objective.