Another Student Question ...

Who determines what is considered art and just because a painting or sculpture does not become famous, it is still considered a great piece of art? Do you think it is necessary for someone to have to attend college to become an artist or are some people just born with that creative talent?

Obviously, if I could answer these questions with any authority I would make a lot more money than I do now.

You can ask similar questions about any creative medium - what makes a great actor? What makes an important novel?

There are a lot of books and papers on this topic - I encourage you to go to the library and do some research. If nothing else it makes for interesting dinner conversation.

As I usually discuss in my first Art Appreciation lectures - there is really nothing concrete that separates art from non-art or good art from bad art. In earlier periods there was more of a clear demarcation, but in our time things have become more ambiguous.

It seems that the only true test of art is the test of time. Many of the art pieces that were considered significant in their own period are no longer of much interest to us. Whereas, some artist who were once ignored are now synonymous with great art.

This does not mean that we cannot place some kind of judgment to contemporary works - I'd doubt that anyone would claim that "Dude, Where's My Car" is a greater movie than "Schindler's List". But we have to be careful to recognize that we might be inflating the importance of something because we are not being objective.

Prime example - I'm sure that everyone remembers their first breakup. At the time, it may have been horrible, but soon you learned that such things were not that big of a deal.

And no, there is no absolute necessity of attending college to become an artist. It really depends upon the path you wish to take. Let me explain this through a lame analogy - Star Wars!

Han and Luke are both heroes of the Rebellion. We could argue for forever about which one was more instrumental in bringing down the Empire, right? But both of these characters had to take different journeys to achieve their goals.

In order for Luke to conquer his challenges he needed to have intensive training and personal introspection. Han did not need any of that - he just relied on his ingenuity and survival instinct. Against someone like Vader, Han would not have lasted a minute. Fortunately, he did not have to - that was Luke's battle.

In many ways Han, Leia, and Lando were the ones who actually defeated the Empire – Luke’s struggle was really for the “soul” of the galaxy, if you can forgive the awful analogy. You see where I am going with this? Each individual has to create their own destiny.

For me the path was through the academic world– which is why I’ve always identified with Luke. In order to defeat the challenges that I would face, I sought knowledge and awareness that went beyond the needs of most. That was just the destiny that I created for myself. But that in no way means that it was superior or more significant than any other path.

And as far as talent – well let’s just say that I spent a lot (a LOT) of time and effort to obtain that talent. So that is why I often get annoyed when someone compliments my "gift" - it has been a costly gift, let me tell you!

The Beast Went Down to Georgia

I loved this little bit of news from the capitol of our fair state. A few red states live in fear of these implanted microchips, some even seriously debating whether they might be implanting the mark of the Beast. I wonder - if one delusional paranoid meets an alternatively delusional paranoid, do they cancel each other out?

Would You Consider This Art? - Part II

I watch a lot of cooking shows with my husband because he is actually the cook in the house. I always here him saying that cooking is an art. What is your opinion on this? When I see the dishes that my husband prepares, I do believe he has a gift at it but is it considered an art?

When someone says that "blank" is an art - I always take that to mean that the process is more intuitive than mechanical. I've even heard people refer to higher math and theoretical psychics as art-forms. I see the saying as making a reference to a more shoot-from-the-hip type of experience.

We have all probably had intuitive versus mechanical experiences in cooking. I often make dinner for my wife when she is at work as she gets home quite late. She usually picks out the recipes and buys all of the ingredients. In those instances I follow the recipe exactly - measuring everything and using a timer. That is mechanical - the food still tastes great , but there is no art to it.

When I grill, however, I do tend to bring my own individual aesthetics into the process. So I often refer to the "art" of grilling a hamburger.

So in that sense, yes there is an art to cooking. If you mean "Is a well-cooked meal the same as a work of art in the Metropolitan" - now we are in difficult territory. If pressed, I would say no - only because we tend to think of "art" as a non-functional thing. There is a constraint placed on food in that it needs to be edible.

I can see how food (and cooking) could be used in the production of "art", but then I would ask - Does the art designation come from the actually cooking process or from the conceptual aspects of the piece.

Sure, but is there a difference between creativity and art? I believe that there is.

In the past, the line of demarcation was much more clear. There were certain forms that were recognized as art and other forms that were seen as something else. However, much of 20th century art was about questioning this demarcation. So now we are left with the question - where does the separation lie? It is not an easy answer.

Again, I would reiterate - "art" is not necessarily skilled or unique or pleasant. "Art" may be something that I hate or something that has no impact on me whatsoever.

I thought about that this weekend when I was at an Academy Awards Night party. These awards celebrate great achievements in cinema - the films are held up as "the best of the year". But I kept thinking - "Yes, but are these films really art? Are they really that experimental? Do they alter our perception of film? Of the human experience? Or does that even matter?"

If you get the chance, do some research on art vs. non-art. There are a number of arguments out there.

Here is an interesting site:

http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/visualarts/Art-Non-Art.html

On this subject, I'll give you a personal anecdote:

Chip Kidd published a book on Batman memorabilia. In one section he shows a painting by Andy Warhol of the Batman logo. He states that out of all of the objects in that book, the Warhol is the only one that would be considered "art". He also points out that it would be great to own that painting because you could then sell it and use the money to buy all of the other Batman stuff that you REALLY want.

I agree with him completely.

Would You Consider This Art? - Part 1

Would you consider a Tattoo Artist, an artist? Also, do you find Tattoo's a new form of art?

Also noted: I know that tattoo's have been around for almost 1000+ years -- I just want to know, with it's growing popularity -- would you consider it to have it's own category?

A tough question - first off I would state that I am in no way an authority on things like this. So I'll give you my thoughts, but I do not presume that my opinion on this subject is worth more than anyone else's (but don't get too comfortable with that, as I do presume that I'm right on most other subjects. Kidding. Sorta).

The question really is about how we define art - Is it craft? Philosophy? Is the role that it plays for us the same role that it played in previous generations?

I would point out that in the medieval and early Renaissance periods, painting and sculpture were seen as craft – creative forms that were inferior to music and poetry. The artists of the Renaissance (most notably Leonardo and Michelangelo) worked hard to change that attitude. For them, skill and elegance were enough to prove their media’s significance.

Things are a bit more vague with us. We are surrounded by so much visual stimulus that it becomes difficult to separate art for non-art. This is made all the more difficult by the fact that some artists (Warhol, Johns, etc.) use what many would consider to be non-art in the production of works that most would consider to be art. The whole point was to confuse the separation between the two.

Generally, one of the differences between art and illustration is that illustration tends to be more straightforward – obviously because the viewer is SUPPOSED to get the point the image. Art (at least in our age) tends to be more ambiguous. This is why I don't consider someone like Thomas Kinkade to be an “artist”. It has nothing to do with his execution – which is skilled in its own way. There is just no mystery – no challenge to the mind.

I suppose that there is an analogy between this and music. The kids on American Idol sing well enough, I suppose - and the whole thing is quite popular (I've never seen the show, so I only know what I see on commercials and from media reports). But is that art? Are they examining our concepts of music? Are they advancing our knowledge of the human experience?

Art is separate from our likes and dislikes. There are many things that I hate but consider to be art. Likewise, there are many things that I love, that mean something to me, but I don’t believe them to be art.

But to your question on tattoos – I don't see why tattoos could not be art, but I have not encountered anything that makes me think that they are. I suppose that I have a similar reaction to fashion. These things are immensely important to some people, but have made only a cursory impact on the art-world-at-large.

That said, I do feel that things are changing. Many young artists, today, are more influenced by tattoos and skateboard designs than they are by the established art canon. I could imagine someone staging some kind of installation art piece that involves multiple tattooed bodies. In fact, I would not be surprised to hear that several artists have already done something like this. My question would be then – are the tattoos the art or is it about the installation.

If I were in that conversation with your coworker, I would ask them to explain what they consider to be art. Then you can use their definition to support your own argument.

But as I said – I am not the best person to ask on this question. I've always felt that an artist’s work should be much more interesting than they are. Body art just attracts too much attention, so I've avoided it.

Do you remember that episode of Seinfeld where Jerry went with George to the glasses store? When George asked him what he thought, Jerry (looking at all of the advertisements with people wearing glasses) replied, “I think that all of these women would be pretty good-looking if they weren't wearing glasses”.

That pretty much sums up my response when I see a tattoo magazine – “I bet all of these women would be pretty good-looking if it wasn't for all of those tattoos”.

From a Halloween Exhibition

The Headless Horseman

A Bacchus Figure from my First One-man Show

Bacchus 2004

Another Student Question

I must admit that I have never considered myself to be the creative type, I would rather solve a math problem than try to interpret what someone was thinking while they were painting or sculpting their masterpiece. However, I do enjoy a beautiful painting, sculpture, building, etc. simply because it looks appealing to me or causes me to feel good. It just seems to take the enjoyment out of the art when I am trying to figure out what the artist meant. Only the artist will ever really know that answer! My question to you is do the artists themselves ever leave a detailed explanation of their own works to be displayed with the artwork to ensure it is properly interpreted? If I were an artist (no talent here) I would be offended if people misinterpreted my work.

In contemporary art, we do often know a great deal about the artist's intentions. Most exhibitions will feature artist statements and biographies to help keep viewers informed. As with most things these days we have an unprecedented amount of information about every step of the artist's progress - evident to anyone who has ever watched the extra material on a DVD.

For works from the past, obviously the information can be much more limited. On occasion we do have letters, diaries, and notebooks to help guide us, but much interpretation does come from conjecture. Still, you can infer a lot from a little inductive reasoning.

For many artists, misinterpretation can be a problem. But most recognize that once they have put a work up for display, it becomes a part of the public consciousness. Therefore, it becomes a candidate for interpretation and criticism.

You can see this with film a great deal. Have you ever heard someone argue the political implications of a popular film - even when you know that the actual story makes no direct reference to such beliefs. This is just part of the viewer's relationship with the creative work, and an artist just has to be willing to accept that. The artist can state that they never intended for any particular meaning, but that does not mean that the viewer's interpretation is without validity. Everyone just has to argue it out.

The enjoyment of something can happen on many levels. For many, math is just the use of numbers and equations to solve some problems. Those that are more informed recognize math as the language of the universe - a way in which the mysteries of existence can be decoded. In fields like theoretical physics, the wielding of mathematics becomes like an art form - much of it is intuitive and hypothetical. Once the the physicist has an idea, then the work begins to bring that idea into concrete form - crunch the numbers, so to speak. If the computations support the idea then that hypothesis is true - the universe works logically so anything stands up to logical tests is seen as an explanatory theory. A deeper understanding of the universe has been achieved - at least to those who understand it.

Creative works operate in a similar manner. You can appreciate something on the base level, or search for a deeper connection.

I give you two personal examples of this. Growing up I was fairly ignorant of science (outside of dinosaurs), and had little knowledge of the complexity of things. As I journeyed through college and grad school, I learned more and more about the universe and its history. The staggeringly epic story of the cosmos, and of life here on this planet, is so profound that it makes most mythologies and fictional stories seem mundane in comparison.

Second example - much more down to earth - I've always been a Batman fan. This goes back to infancy for me. I have dozens of toys and thousands of comic books. So you can imagine that I have enjoyed the last couple of Batman films that have come out.

When watching those films, I have an emotional connection to the characters and story that most of my friends do not. So while many of them enjoyed the films, the impact on me was all the greater.

I believe that this is why learning about a topic in depth (whether it be biology, art, or wine appreciation) is useful. It enriches the experience.

A Question from a Student.

To be considered an artist does every piece of work have to contain some deep alter meaning, or could you not just to paint, draw or create just for the love of it, and by the way you feel. Also is it possible that some of the great artist did just this and had no other meaning behind their work?

Absolutely - there is really no prerequisite that art have some great, hidden meaning. One of my personal favorite painters is John Singer Sergeant - who was primarily a portraitist and a watercolorist. His work (while uniquely stylized to some extant) was mostly a skilled, painterly rendition of optical reality.

It is important to remember our place in art history - We live in a period that follows a great deal of radical shake-ups of art theory. For much of the past art served very specific functions - recording of history, decorating great architecture, illustrating a story, creating a tangible connection to "spiritual" forms, etc. By the time that we get to the modern age, much of the functions of art were no longer necessary. The recording of events or people could be done with a camera, for example.

Artists were now free to question long held beliefs about the arts and their functions. The importance of technical skill began to be replaced with a focus on philosophy and deeper meaning, which is why this has been the main focus of art criticism over the past several decades.

But this in no way means that all artists must work in this manner. In fact, a quick glance through most galleries would show that many artists today still focus primarily on creating beautiful imagery within their own styles - without expressing any deeper psychological or philosophical agenda.

But it is a little more complex than all that. Remember that art is reliant on our perception of it to give it any significance. Much of the deeper context that we identify in art comes from our own interpretation of it.

The making of art and viewing of art are both complicated processes. Imagine that you are looking at a painting - to you it seems compact and fully realized - but remember that artwork evolved over an extended period. The artist may have had a final goal in mind, but she had to work a process in order for that image to become realized. Different thoughts went through her head - different songs played on the radio. The final piece is more than just the sum of its parts, if you will.

Also you have take into account what you , as the viewer bring to the experience.

Let us imagine that a group of us went to view a painting by Raphael that depicts the resurrection of Jesus. If some of the group happen to be religious they might focus on the image as a manifestation of their personal belief system - the subject might have a deep and profound meaning to them. Whereas others, who have no personal connection to the subject depicted, would focus more on the elegance of skill and the historical importance of the piece.

The painting itself has not changed (beyond the molecular level), and one could argue that Raphael had intended for the religious interpretation to take precedence over style - but that does not negate the validity of the other interpretation.

Please note that I am not saying that ALL interpretations are equally valid as some people can really go off the deep end. However, the one thing that seems to separate "art" from "illustration" is that there is a complexity, an ambiguity to art that encourages a little intellectual and emotional give-and-take with a viewer. As you grow in knowledge and experience, you find that good art will take on different forms of significance.

And that is why it is so much fun.