"What is Art" "What defines Art" "What can be considered Art"
I hate these questions. Or, I did. Or, I hate the direction discussions go whenever they're brought up. But either way I hate them and I'm going to try and explain why.
These questions aren't necessarily useless, because it can be very good to get people to break down [some of] their preconceptions surrounding art as a Medium (important), and to witness how quickly their preconceived definitions fall apart. However, in most cases -particularly the classrooms they happen in- , the conversation inevitably dies somewhere horrifically boring: Art is expression, art is some kind of medium applied to some kind of base and given some kind of meaning - but worst of all: art is something that sparks dialogue between art, artist and audience. And everyone walks away having slightly shifted their point of view of thinking Duchamp was a dumb hack and conceptual art is stupid.
Now none of this is necessarily /wrong/, though I personally find it not only misleading, but at best: limiting, and at worst: in direct service of Capital.
Why's that exactly? Because starting or ending the conversation with some variation of "Art is what you make of it" or "Art lives for it's audience" or "Art is something that imparts a message" limits the understanding of Art by presuming the need for it:
1: To be Consumed
2: To serve a greater meaning
3: To be intentional
4: To be witnessed
This is a disservice to artists, Art, and Me, because I hate having to defend Conceptual Contemporary Art and "Bad" Art to the public and especially!!! to other artists!!
So, switching gears, for a sec: I want to ponder language. What is a language? What is a word? You might say something like: They are both things spoken and or written in order to convey thoughts, concepts or feelings from one person to another. I'm not a linguist, I don't know what conversations linguists and anthropologists have, but is that all? I know I have plenty of drafts and thoughts and personal terms that are not meant for anyone but me, that are only ever in conversation with myself. Do words and language exist purely for communication between two entities? Plenty of things communicate without language. For us to arrive at language, is there something else it satisfies? Is there perhaps, something else it is rooted in?
I can't help but feel something primal, magical, and euphoric is lost when we fail to first consider Art as the ancient, foundational, spiritual, profoundly human thing that it is. Art has long been a powerful means of parsing and validating our very existence, our awareness of others and ourselves, a tool of observation and introspection, a sacred act of creation. We know Art is the foundation of written word, is it not also the foundation of language itself? [Anthropologists hmu].
When you think of Art as [Proto?]Language, it becomes much easier, in my opinion, to understand the existence of - the need for - conceptual art, abstract art, "bad" art, "ugly" art and the like. It no longer needs to be Intentional, or Witnessed, or Purposeful or Consumable. It does not need to exist to be liked or adored or even seen at all. Language, while certainly useful, also just is. Like a thought or a sentence, Art may be incomplete, imperfect, or just because.
Anyway, go make something! Right now! Scribble on a paper and seal it in a folder or envelope all without looking! Burn it! Knit completely at random! Sew together scraps of fabric every which way! Experience And Explore The Ancient Arcana Of Creation, That Which Is Etched Into The Very Depths Of Your Human Soul!
