Manifesto of Artistic Artistry Relevance

December 7, 2007

Yet again I feel the need to address the role of this discussion. The why, if you will. Why should we engage in defining art, or more generally why should we even engage in the discussion of art? Perhaps I feel the need to defend this on account of the numerous friends I have who by attending art schools have become rather elitist in their opinions, believing that they are the only authorities on which art can be discussed. I want to say to them here and now that that couldn’t be further from the truth. I could spend much more than one post and my beliefs on these institutions that call themselves art schools but that isn’t the purpose of this post. For today I want to state clear and simply my manifesto as an artist and in homage to other artists who realize what art really is.

 

Me Manifesto of Artistic Artistry Relevance:

 

1.      Art is in everything and everything is in art. Artists do not create Art, they create art. We the spectators, the viewers, the readers, the observers, the audience, the listeners, the society in which this cult is supported are the creators of Art.

2.      Art cannot exist on its own.

3.      Art is not a person, place or thing and it is definitely not a noun!

4.      Art is an interaction!!!! An experience, a conversation that communicates what some call the ineffable, what I just call art.

5.      Artists are everyone!

6.      A self identified artist should never be trusted!

7.      Art schools are just bricks and mortar.

8.      Manifestos are works of art, not political statements.

9.      You are an artist.

10.  Art does not live.

11.  Art can turn a profit. Art should turn a profit.

12.  To talk about art is to acknowledge your own existence in this world.

13.  To not talk about art is to live passively.

14.  As we describe art as being active and challenging, so is the discussion, anything else is entertainment.

15.  Dali is a sell out!

16.  The Mona Lisa is no longer art!

17.  Fountain is the greatest experience of the twentieth century

18.  Disney has brought us the twenty first.

19.  This should cost $2.67

20.   

21.  art is worthless and does not bring us anything to better our society.

22.  Ignore statement twenty and refer to statement five when dealing with liars

23.  Periods should not exist.

24.  Is this Art?

25.  no


Art or art

November 22, 2007

Well first off Happy Thanksgiving everyone! I hope it is a good one.

 

For this holiday post I wanted to engage the question of art versus Art. That age old, or at least a century old question on the difference between what is considered “high art” and all that other stuff they call “low art.”  I know that the distinction has come up already and the term entertainment has been thrown around as well as what Adorno called it, “light art,” bud I’d like to dedicate a post just to this distinction. First I really don’t see merit in defining which is which just yet and I apologize to those who do. I would like to start with a discussion of the category itself and why we as a society have felt the need to create it.

 

I know we could have an entire conversation on why our culture has the need to create categories in the first place and maybe we will someday here at this blog but for now I’d like to approach the conversation of why with art. I know that that may seem very simplistic to some of you but you never know, sometimes it is the simplest questions that produce the most complex answers.

 

Anyway perhaps an obvious explanation is our desire to award genius talent, to separate those among us who show an extraordinary ability. And when the goal of art was that sort of extreme realism and mathematical precision it was during the Renaissance, that distinction was necessary. But what about today? Today that ability is not measured by some sort of tangible talent but rather by a talent in approaches. I have to stop here and acknowledge the fact that for those who do not accept modern art as art this probably will suffice as an explanation of the two, but for those of us who see modern art as definitively art then let us continue.

 

So today when the definition has been so greatly expanded and the potential for even “ready-mades” to fall into the category of Art (yes with a big “a”) why should we even have this division? I purpose that based off my idea of art as an interaction, that all “art” can now obtain that level of “Art” depending on the interaction between the observer and the object.

 

But how much should we follow such a proposal, I mean are we ready to except the Mona Lisa and Duchamp’s Fountain on the same playing field? Well based on my interactions with both, yes.

 

I look forward to your thoughts,

 

Huysmans


Everything becomes nothing?

November 18, 2007

When describing art as having the potential of being anything, by defining it as an interaction between an observer and an observed, one is met with a statement:

“If everything can be art, then nothing is art.”

Funny enough this has its roots, well at least for today, in The Incredibles, the Pixar animated film, where the villian’s plan is to make everyone a superhero so that no one is. Well I do not take any belief in this. First, I believe that we can all be superheroes and when we all are, then the world will be a better place.

Second and more importantly, everything has the potential of becoming art; everything is not just simply art. Therefore I will state now loud and clear:

EVERYTHING CAN BE ART.

And still we will have art. Thoughts?

Huysmans


Discussing defining art. When, where, and why?

November 18, 2007

In a recent dinner event I attended, the question of this blog came up as well as the merit and value of the discussion, what is art? And how do you define it? Something in particular that was mentioned was the idea of waste. That this conversation is a waste if your pursuit in life is not to be an artist, that basically this is a question only artists should be asking.

 

Well beyond the general realization that that is wrong I would like to express my beliefs why this is an important conversation and then open it up to discussion. First one’s occupation in life should never dictate one’s intellectual passions, that is not to say that we should not strive to make them one in the same but we should not have to. I want to teach right now in my life and engage people in this conversation, I should not have to become an artist to do the latter.

 

But why have this conversation. I’ll start with what I perceive to be the obvious and go from there. This conversation and one’s approach to art in general is by no means restrained to only art. How we engage this topic and what we learn from that engagement carries over to everything else we do in life. The critical theory approach I have gained from studying literature will help me do what ever it is that I want to do, teach, maybe business or law, but the point is, this approach helps us grow. It allows you to look outside the box for answers, to see the context in which a problem arouses and it helps you bring in resources that might not be so apparent.

 

But beyond that, art is important to who we are. We have been shaped just as much by it and its history as we have shaped it. Therefore to better understand our history and our current society, we need to be constantly asking ourselves how we approach such topics, what makes us appreciate something more than something else?

 

Therefore I propose a challenge; I am willing to suggest that this kind of discussion leads to a better understanding of art and its history as well as its context in a larger societal history than any type of education one could receive from an art school. Basically what I am saying is that understanding why something is art is more important than understanding why something is Renaissance art.

 

Please continue this discussion, the world needs us to.

 

So discuss art, discuss it at dinner, in class, at work, at the movies, challenge our culture, challenge our leaders, let us all share our opinions. We are ALL qualified.

 

 

Huysmans