I guess this topic isn’t at all hot, but I have been thinking about it very a lot for a while today. I am not certain what the accepted description of art is. What is art? Is art subjective and defined by the individual or does it take a group of individuals or organization to determine on what art is? I have a pocket dictionary in front of me and the term ‘art’ is defined as ‘a creation of anything beautiful; talent or ability; paintings or sculptures, etc; topics alternative than sciences, requiring sensitive learning instead of employ of measuring.’.
The description my small dictionary provides me sounds very vague and quite contradictory in my opinion. Some of the biggest pieces of art and visionary delights which stir me have been painted by ideal draughts-people and have not been breathtaking, but thought-provoking possibly. They have, naturally mixed exceptional technical ablity with sensitive learning. This will be what I would call art.
I have, over the last year viewed very a great deal of art, ranging from surrounding talent exhibitions in my own town, Renaissance masters, impressionists, contemporary art, surrealists, etc at the Chicago Institute of Art and very newly a Jeff Koons exhibtion at the Chicago Contemporary Art Museum.
In my own notice, almost all of the art at the Chicago Institute of Art will be what I class as art. I see art as anything that is effectively crafted. In my head, I wouldn’t class images built by Jasper Johns or Jackson Pollock and others of synonymous fashion as art. I’m certain several would and naturally do. If I am to be frank with my opinion, I would state that these artists are truly ‘taking the piss’ with their idea of art, but I take my hat off to them for exploiting morons and creating vasts sums of income from their paintings. A Renaissance master piece floats my boat. I like some contemporary art if it is very smart and effectively crafted. A limited squirts of random color on a canvas, is not my idea of art. It will be healing and naturally that is a advantageous thing. Would this signify that Alfred Adler’s psychology is art too, or shall we not confuse ourselves and leave it in the category of psychology?
I guess the term ‘art’ will signify numerous different factors. At a spirtual and exisitential level, to create one’s own fact and to sculpt one’s lifetime might be classed as an ‘art’, but this actually is a metaphor. I’m truly chatting about visual images that are classed as art.
I newly visited Jeff Koons’ exhibition in Chicago with my girlfriend Spring. I was lookin forward to the exhibition, as I have watched many creations by him in books and stuff. I a lot enjoyed hunting at all of the strange installations and pieces and pieces. I had a great day and many fun at the exhibition, but I wouldn’t class what I viewed as art. Shiny inflated balloons, images of Jeff Koons having sex with his pornstar girlfriend or spouse and alternative unusual installations – is the fact that art? As I have mentioned, I had a perfect day and I liked watching the installations by Jeff Koons and the additional artists who exhibited in the building. It was interesting, to state the least. Many of the artists were striving to create statements about anything, or so it appeared. Does that mean that the small statement and opinion I write here is a work of art? I don’t think thus and I will be accused of possessing an inflated ego, a delusional mindset and maybe even secured into a mental asylum for even thinking such a thing. Maybe if I scribbled my words on an unmade bed, or tattooed my inspirations on a dead pig and preserved it in formaldehyde, then maybe my madness may be kept a secret and hidden behind a veil of bullshit.
As I keep suggesting, I had desirable fun at the Jeff Koons display and I would go again. Simply because I think it doesn’t belong in the category of art, doesn’t mean I wish To condemn it or banish it. I merely think a great deal of this sort of art, modern art or whatever must possibly have a category of it’s own and in my opinion refuses to need the status of art. Perhaps ‘visual statements’ can be more appropriate.
If all of this is art then all these folks are artists. I feel a desirable disrespect to what I see as a genuine, real and authentic artist if we could categorise Damian Hurst, Jeff Koons, Leonardo da Vinci, Salvador Dali as artists in the same sentence (naturally, the latter 2, in my view being the genuine, real and authentic artists).
I might repeat myself when more and state that I had a brilliant time at the Jeff Koons display, but he’s no Carravaggio. I viewed a Carravaggio at the Chicago Institute of Art and it prepared me feel a big range of feelings – indescribable feelings. I was totally over-awed. Jeff Koons, Damian Hurst and all of the others of the same ilk have not got it in them to provoke such feelings and it happens to be futile to even create comparisons to what I see as true artists. I like a few of the ‘installation art’, but it comes nowhere near to what a true and talented artist could create. The complete ‘installation’,’contemporary’, or ‘whatever art’ is fun, only as a fun fair is fun or icing a cake with ‘happy birthday’ created on it’s fun and to compare an iced birthday cake with a Renaissance painting will be ludicrous. I’m sure some folk would place iced cakes and Renaissance paintings in the same category. Perhaps some folks will receive the same emotion from an iced birthday cake as I would from a Carravaggio, thus I guess I would have to consume my words, but then if somebody were to have the same emotion which I experienced within the Carravaggio, but rather experienced that same emotion from their pet cat – must we hang the pet cat up in the Chicago Institute of Art, possibly upcoming to the Carravaggio?