Saturday, May 29, 2010
Many times I've heard the argument between artists and viewers, museums and visitors, the pretentious and unpretentious (you get the idea) about what constitutes "art". It's funny to me that because someone doesn't like a piece, they are more likely to claim that it is not a work of art because it is: too simple, too abstract, an odd medium or basically because the artist isn't dead yet. I don't care how you feel about Duchamp (I'm kind of apathetic, but like that "the fountain" was displayed as a response in part to the pretentious art sphere of the day) or Rothko (abhor him beyond all reason), but I've come up with a decent analogy in response to those off the cuff assertions about art and non-art.
The way I see it is this: Lots of people bake cakes and cookies from mixes (guilty), but just because the cook didn't slave over/make it from scratch doesn't mean the consumer claims it's not food, or good for that matter. I feel to some extent that the same goes with art. It's a pointless argument, but because one doesn't see work that they feel is a masterpiece, whether because of the time involved, the artist's living existence or subject matter doesn't mean it isn't art. When I eat a delicious cookie from a betty crocker mix, I don't complain that it's not food, but I may not call it gourmet. Maybe it's not a masterpiece, or maybe it is, but as far as I'm concerned food is food and art is art.
Now for some of my favorite Young Blood artists! (and don't worry, I've never heard any arguments regarding their artistic value) A very select few of my favorites include: Cooper Sanchez, Danielle Distefano (also an Atlanta tattoo artist who does wicked awesome work) and jewelry artist Erica Weiner.
I hope that spiel was somewhat thought-provoking, and cheers to the start of your weekends!