what is art today?
announcements: first, i’d like to go ahead and announce a few changes around here. no longer will you find the “song/quote/video of the day” categories, or individual posts relating to such things. i’ve had a few people complain that when they receive updates from my updates, they get 3-5 emails at a time and it’s annoying. so i’m done with that in it’s previous form. instead, i will be including the song, quote, video, or whatever else, after my original work, all in one single post.
this does a few things – it reduces clutter, let’s viewers see more of my original work when they visit the site, and i’m not under the stress of having to post that stuff every day (as you should have noticed, during the school year i’m much less inclined to write for driveway spotted).
a second announcement – i read an alarming amount of news during the day. before, i would save articles and such with the hopes of coming around to them later and writing about each and every bit of news i found interesting. this is a pain. articles can be boring the second time around, and sometimes when i come back to a piece of news it’s already too old for there to be anything i find necessary to add. and old news doesn’t get any google hits.
therefore, i’ve decided that i’m going to add a sort of news aggregate to each of my posts of articles that i’ve read throughout the day, intertwined between my original work and the songs/videos/quotes mentioned above. most of the time i’ll just provide a link and it’s title; read on if you want. if i find it particularly interesting, i’ll put down a sentence or two of my thoughts as well.
now, onto the good stuff!
what is art today?
one of my roommates has a budding career in graphic design and is, in my opinion, quite an accomplished artist. from time to time, we dive into discussing modern art and what it means to create art.
defining art is difficult. it can argued that art is in the eye of beholder, and there are countless of examples of this theory, some of which i’ll touch upon shortly. the question that i like to ask can be quite different. where does the value in art come from? this is much different. again, the value can come from the eye of the beholder. anyone can crumple up a piece of paper, spray paint it black, and call it art. it takes something totally different, however, to see the value in such a piece, and pay money for it.
value isn’t just a monetary term, either. i also mean value in an almost intrinsic way. something that could be, for example, considered educational – the beginning of a new movement in art, or the pinnacle of such a movement. a rough sketch by rembrandt as part of his preliminary work for a self-portrait, would at the time be considered just penciling on scrap paper and nothing more. but over time, the sketch can be used as an instructional tool on the baroque movement and dutch golden age painting. it holds value because of it’s relation to a significant period in art history.
or take the mona lisa, for example. da vinci’s painting is so famous that it perhaps holds no monetary value – the painting is considered priceless and yet simultaneously extremely valuable. a bit of research will tell you that you could, theoretically, buy the mona lisa. in 1962, the louvre museum in paris loaned the painting to the united states for exhibitions in washington d.c. and new york city. before museum curators shipped the painting stateside, they had it appraised by an insurance agency, who valued the painting at $100 million (the museum declined the insurance and instead paid more money on security instead), which today is roughly equal to $750 million. but it wouldn’t take a rocket scientist to tell you that if you approached the museum with 3 quarters of a billion dollars to buy the painting you would be stonewalled and laughed at. its historical significance far exceeds that of any dollar amount.
so what does that have to do with modern art? the link is actually fairly easy to see – the mona lisa is not really that impressive of a work of art. it’s small, the model wasn’t a famous historical figure, etc., and yet it’s perhaps the most famous painting ever. why? now take this example of modern art, a piece that hangs in the detroit institute of arts by barnett newman:
this piece, called be i (second version) was painted in 1970 and hangs prominently in the contemporary art section. it’s a rather large painting, roughly the size of a ping pong table. this kind of work is where the definition of art and its value get fuzzy.
i mention that the mona lisa is not entirely impressive, just as someone viewing this painting would think “oh i could do that…” its simplicity has significance two-fold. red acrylic on canvas with a white line dividing the space isn’t complicated at all. a child could do it. naturally, a skeptical observer would ask how such a painting could be considered art. why would something so bland, for lack of a better term, be hanging in a prestigious museum that features the works of rembrandt and van gogh, among others? someone more well-versed in modernism and its subsequent art movement, however, would appreciate its simplicity as the art. that someone would paint such a thing and say “voila! my masterpiece!” is the very attribute that makes it art.
obviously, someone thinks be i (second version) has some value. it is displayed in a museum, to be preserved for the future for as long as necessary. perhaps therein lies the definition of value, that because there are those out there, artist included, that see this as thought-provoking, drawing from its viewers some kind of emotion.
there are more recent examples that are perhaps even more interesting, with far more uncertainty. actor james franco thrust himself into the spotlight with his idea known formally as the museum of invisible art, where imaginary works of art can be purchased just like the real thing. franco explained it as “selling the idea of art,” where you buy a “painting” and receive a title card, a description of the painting, and a certificate of authentication. “the rest is up to you,” he says. the most controversial example of this was the purchase of his work called fresh air, best described as the air around you, a work that can be taken with you anywhere and everywhere. it sold for $10,000. this is james franco’s description:
“a unique piece, only this one is for sale. the air you are purchasing is like buying an endless tank of oxygen. no matter where you are, you always have the ability to take a breath of the most delicious, clean-smelling air that the earth can produce. every breath you take gives you endless peace and health. this artwork is something to carry with you if you own it. because wherever you are, you can imagine yourself getting the most beautiful taste of air that is from the mountain tops or fields or from the ocean side; it is an endless supply.”
this is the exact kind of turn that art has taken into modern times. art is the idea of art. it doesn’t matter if it’s red acrylic on canvas with a white line through it, a chrome sphere, or some bullshit about art being the air around you. and as long as someone can sit back, take a deep, long look at it, and call it art, it’s art.
news
here are some interesting bits of news that i’ve read throughout the day (for this first time, i’m taking the liberty to explain that these links will probably cover both kinds of “news” – the traditional, factual type that you would see on the front page of the new york times and opinion-editorial articles that are far more subjective):
“the human cost of apple’s success” - http://ideas.time.com/2012/01/27/the-human-cost-of-apples-success/?iid=op-main-lede
“canadian teens put a (lego) man into space for just $400 - http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/canadian-teens-put-a-lego-man-into-space-for-just-400/
“egypt revolution anniversary: one year since ‘friday of rage’” - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/egypt-revolution-anniversy-friday-of-rage_n_1236083.html
song
this song is by the shins, called “simple song.” look for their new album port of morrow in march 2012.
quote
like him or not, president obama spoke volumes at the end of his state of the union address this past tuesday:
each time i look at that flag, i’m reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those 50 stars and those 13 stripes. no one built this country on their own. this nation is great because we built it together. this nation is great because we worked as a team. this nation is great because we get each other’s backs. and if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. as long as we are joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, and our future is hopeful, and the state of our union will always be strong. thank you, god bless you, and god bless the united states of america.
until next time, friends.
