Part 1 Project 1: art and ideas

Exercise 1: Fountain

My initial response to the piece

• Odd
• Funny
• Repulsive
• Gross
• Historical
• Sarcastic

Exercise 2: What is art?

• What is art?
• How do we know it is art?
• Who decides what is art?

Art, to me, is in the creative effort. Effort from thought, construction, perspective and from attention to detail. I don’t think someone necessarily has to understand a piece for it to be art, particularly as I believe art comes in numerous forms; poetry, literature, lyrics, melody, embroidery, collage, woodwork, engineering etc. Art is creativity and I think we can tell if something is art by considering the creative input from the artist. There’s really no black and white rules to what art is and I think anyone could look at something from a pattern in a building’s brickwork to the arrangement of petals on a peony and say that it’s art. I think in terms of contemporary art, a piece could be considered art by  an artist’s  process, effort, the result of the finished piece and what it might try to provoke in a viewer. Art is everywhere! But not necessarily created for creative purposes. So I think that it comes down to an individual’s perspective of their environment and what they’ve learned to consider in a piece. It is us, as humans, that decide if we see something as art or not. 

• Is it enough just to display a found objects and say this is art because it’s in an art gallery?

In some ways, yes. As I previously mentioned art can be found anywhere and everywhere. It’s created by someone or something, either man or nature or both. So it could still be considered art. 

But in other ways I can’t help but feel sometimes it can almost be a mockery in comparison to an artist putting in hard labour, imagination, and attention to a piece that was always intended to be a piece of art. I think that displaying objects could be a form of art but in a complete genre of its own. For example more like in a museum or as an observational peace. It’s not really comparable to a painting or drawing or sculpture, or something born out of creativity.

• Duchamp said he wanted to ‘put art back in the service of the mind.’ What do you think he meant by this?

Taking the statement at face value, I believe he was making a point that anything could be art because we are surrounded by shapes, forms, colours, compositions etc. But I believe it could be taken in two different ways. Firstly, he could be meaning that we need to redefine what art really is. He could be in a position where he is, in a way, frustrated by artists and their methods of "creating art" simply by using found objects as opposed to actually creating something from their own hands. 

Alternatively he could also be meaning that he wanted us to view the world in a more artistic view. He may have wanted to make the point that our minds need to process the world and our environment through an observation and with an appreciation from an artistic perspective. Considering his peace titled Fountain, I’m inclined to believe in the latter definition. I believe he wanted us to look art that is surrounding us even in the most mundane of every day objects.

• Is technical skill and important quality in art work?

In my personal opinion, I prefer artwork that displays skill in some way. I believe, generally, art can be far more appreciated and contemplated when we see what an artist can be capable of. Even in some ways what humanity can collectively produce thanks to the technical skills of the many. For example, using tools created by inventors, engineers, manufacturers etc. I find appeal in a piece of art that has been a result of experience, practice, dedication and talent as opposed to  a randomly found or selected object that has been constructed by someone or something else. I believe even the most unskilled of artists are still acquiring skills through creativity rather than collecting inanimate objects. It doesn’t have to be a masterpiece of great detail and of a certain level to be considered art. But having a skill in some shape or form to portray a message or perspective to the viewer is what I believe is art and what it’s all about. Even commercial types of art could be considered skilful, even if they don’t necessarily portray a message they could just be appealing to the viewer. But this in itself still requires some type of skill in acquiring the knowledge of what appeals to their audience. It Is also possible to say that an artist that simply displays found objects has used scale in terms of their thought process behind the piece. So skill is required in almost any form of art.

• Do you think art needs to move you emotionally?

Yes! In short, I do believe all art comes from emotion. Even making art is an emotional process in itself. Art is about perspective and expression as well as creativity. It is used as a therapy for many reasons due to its ties with emotion and its ability to often explain emotions that are otherwise difficult to explain. If an art piece has been displayed because the artist has chosen to share it, it’s usually for the reason it was created in the first place; to portray a message, or explain the thoughts, feelings and opinions that they had when they were producing the piece. So as a viewer, I believe even if it’s for a commercial print it is to insight something inside our emotional existence. Either persuading us that a product will bring us joy, or that the artist is trying to produce a piece to explain their suffering. Some people struggle to empathise or find compassion within other people. It’s usually a character trait to be able to do so. Art can be a bridge between people, when trying to explain emotions. It doesn’t have to be a cataclysmic wave of connection to a piece for it to be able to be connected to emotionally. It can be simplistic and joyful or enchanting and mysterious. Even subconsciously art is going to create an emotional response in the viewer whether they are aware of it or not. 

• Does art have to be unique?

Aside from the legalities of copyright laws and ‘art theft’, history can show us it's the more stylised and unique artists that are more renowned today. I find that art is a collection of the producer’s own tastes and studies of other artists, intermixed with their own skills and ideas. It would be hard to say that art HAS to be unique when even a ‘paint by numbers’ will have its own unique identity from its creator, for example one might be a result from someone who is meticulous about detail and ‘staying in the lines’ and another might be more of a looser style and colour combination. 

All art is a compilation of the artist's skills, even in terms of ‘found objects’. To see a piece directly copied from another artist could in itself be either a statement in the form of art or forgery, depending on the artist's audience and the original artist’s considerations. 

In summary, it’s my opinion that art is unique to the artist no matter what. And the more unique the better. There are genres and styles and means of influence that can dampen a piece’s uniqueness, if we were to consider uniqueness as a scale of some sort. But the more imaginative, unusual and the more identity a piece has to offer, the more remarkable a piece can be.