The Nature Of Art

What is art? Do we have any conclusive ideas or just accept whatever is presented as such on an ad-hoc basis? Is it whatever a designated artist decides it is, holding that the nature of art resides in selection and ensuing focus on a single object or a number of objects? A black square becomes art if selected for that purpose: an unmade bed: a shed. Art therefore concerns meaning, what each selected object says about onlookers or the world. It is a reference.

I suggest that the above consideration of what is and is not art is the consequence of the everyday becoming inundated by art. A TV is designed, for example, for practical and aesthetic reasons: a magazine contains photographs that express all available artistic criterion: a table and chairs is expressive of sculptural values: a self-designed house interior contains greater artistic qualities than an unmade bed set up self-consciously as art, constructed for status and wealth: a book cover, a poster, a leaflet, a film preview are fully expressive of artistic values. These are invariably anonymous, utilitarian and ubiquitous.

Faced with such a deluge of everyday art, the professional artist chooses to select to emphasise their artistic credentials. So therefore whatever they select is art, removing it from the greater, profounder art of the world around us. The artist is therefore an interpreter of limited importance, merely isolating and highlighting what we create, bringing limited originality to the table. They offer largely not just what others can do, but in doing so make our lives more relevant.

Look around you when next you journey to work or go shopping. Notice how a bus is designed, what it says about the world, a toy or piece of packaging, billboards with their carefully selected colours and shapes, the beautiful contours of a car, a kettle, a frying pan. Yes recognised art is reflected in all these objects, but takes on new life. If a self-proclaimed artist removed a kettle from its everyday surroundings and placed it in a gallery, rightly it would attain artistic credibility and its genuine artistic properties would be highlighted. The authenticity of the object thereby outweighs the authenticity of the artist.

High art no longer has sufficient rationale in the face of emblemic everyday artistic expression. Dull bombastic bronze or iron sculptor referencing dead ideas must be consigned to histories interminable wastebin. The huge blue cockerell on a plinth in Tralfagar Square, London, has greater artistic relevance than the surrounding statues of dead statesmen in the poses of Roman senators, providing onlookers with both excitement and joy.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Stanley_Wilkin
http://EzineArticles.com/?The-Nature-Of-Art&id=8591856