RANDOM THOUGHT
While I believe that anything can be art, I strongly disagree with the idea that everything is art.
.jpg)
ADVICE.Sterling Hundley, artist
Friends
- The Art Department, (our own online college)
- Sterling Hundley Home Page
- Descriptions Blog. Sterling Hundley Illustration
- Sterling Hundley. For Sale
- David Apatoff's Illustration Art
- Jeffrey Alan Love
- Jeremy Enecio
- Francis Vallejo
- Charlie Griak
- Barry Bruner
- Neal Iwan
- Shawn Yu
- Kenneth Callicutt
- Andrew Wright
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
Followers
4 comments:
What about animals in formaldehyde?
(Not that I'm referring to anyone in particular.)
Have you heard of a score called 4′33″ - instructs the performer NOT to play the instrument during the piece. Composer John Cage said the sounds of the environment is the art ...
There are many examples like this, but I think it's interesting how people perceive "art". While everything is not art, something can always be art for someone?
Nice new website by the way, and thanks for sharing your thoughts and advice as always.
Mariko
Well put. It's like, for something to be considered as art, someone has to be around to even CONSIDER something to have that status. It has be looked at in that way. If a cup is sitting on your table, company probably won't see it as art. If that same cup is put in a gallery n a stand with lights shining on it in the middle of a room, then, because of the environment, people could see it as art. I think with "anything can be art," it's a mix of perception, location, and what that culture's socially accepted view of what art is.
Owen, Richie, and Lune-
I was hesitant to see the "Bodies" exhibit, which showcases the human body, different systems, etc. preserved in a type of resin. It was this strange blur between science for display, and art. It blew me away. It's amazing what the right context, and the proper explanation by the artist can do to validate a work. There are a number of pieces of art that I don't respond to, yet still appreciate, after I better understand the artists intent. That is to say that the execution sometimes falls short of the idea. My greatest issue in the art world is this notion that there are no rules, and that effort equates to value somehow. Art without intent falls into the realm of craft.
Can you imagine trying to play jazz before you know the scales?
Many people look at Pablo Picasso's stick figures created later in life, and they try to emulate that naivety. What they fail to realize is that his regression was intentional. His academic understanding and facility in drawing and painting at the age of thirteen was masterful. From this foundation, he was trying to create an original art form. What untold lessons in composition, design, color, idea, etc. were learned through his academic training? Even his stick figures were derived from much more complex drawings that he simplified through close analyzation. He worked hard to draw like a child. I see too many artists who lack content, and take the path of least resistance to create "naive work" because it is the most accessible, and least difficult to create. Drawing and the lessons taken from it have been dismissed by Abstract Expressionism, which has greatly affected aesthetics within illustration.
While I immensely enjoy the variety in the medium, I find myself searching in work for the answer to the question "why?"
Ultimately, if there are no rules in art, in illustration, etc., then how are there artists in this genre that are given status over others?
Secondly- How can art without parameters ever come to a finishing point?
Finally- How can an artist ever grow in response to changes in their life, and to changes in the world, if their facility is limited to the skills that they inherently have, and they don't seek to improve?
These ideas have fatal flaws at their root, and I can't help but feel that it is reflective of our generations desire for instant gratification, and the path of least resistance.
Post a Comment