Manifesto of Artistic Artistry Relevance

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

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