The other night while sitting having a chat with [names removed for privacy] over a few beers at the Irish bar we started discussing art and it’s principles. It’s amazing how many “profound” blog posts of mine have generated under very similar identical circumstances. For the record we were speaking specifically about photography at first and not all of what is including herein was discussed.
The gist I think of the conversation was more about whether or not the definition of art was a fact or opinion. What would one consider to be art? And then, what would one deem good art or bad art? Is this domain governed strictly by the professionals or can an amateur like myself or others have the right to say, “That’s not art, that’s shit / disgusting / pathetic / useless or pointless / ridiculous / [feel free to add your own descriptions]”. I myself feel that both positive or negative critique towards the subject matter is of personal view and therefore simply an opinion. What is deemed priceless art can be seen as cheap wallpaper to someone else.
Personally I think art can simply be described as “an expression for emotive reaction” or something similar. This pretty much covers everything I think including common art such as paintings, sculpture and photography etc as well as dance, vocal or acting and also skills such as “the art of war” or other lesser accepted “normal” forms of art.
However this digs deeper. Let it now be known that I am not offering any opinion on any of the following subject matter but rather beg the question of fact in an arena I am less that adequately versed!
To quote the [selected few bullets] definition of art as per Dictionary.com:
- the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
- a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art
- any field using the skills or techniques of art
- skill in conducting any human activity
At what boundary should (or shouldn’t) any “works of art” be deemed an acceptable or not acceptable form of art as set out by the laws that govern art? Is that boundary set by the “artist” or the “viewer” of said material?
I will mention but a few examples: (Now is a good time to warn it does get a bit graphic). I am sticking specifically to photography to keep it short.
Exhibit A:
Kids running around taking photos of each other on cell phones? You can see these pictures on Facebook, Flickr or any number of online sources. One could look at the photographs as simple childish fun and not think twice about them. What if some thought went into the image? Lighting, position, angle, concept, subject matter and composition but still taken by the same playful kids? Would that now be considered art? What then if it were simply an amateurish snap taken of Yoko Ono by John Lennon in Central Park (assuming they had camera cell phones in the day), would that then be considered some expression by very passionate people? Art? Value is in the eye of the beholder or in the holder of the paint brush/camera?
Exhibit B:
Meaningless blood and guts, gore, brain leaking head wounds, disgusting depictions of death and carnage with maggot infested rotting corpses appealing to some sick fetish of evil doers stuck away in some dark dank cellars hiding from “civilized” humanity. Or could this be war correspondence as covered to varying degrees by all major news networks including Al Jazeera, Reuters and other lesser censored media outlets. Is this now then suddenly seen as a work of art and worthy of a Pulitzer prize?
Exhibit C:
Well lit nude photography with immaculate composition and design with the intention of creating emotive and / or suggestive reactions of an erotic nature? Take the well lit aspect (for example) away and does it become simple cheap smut pornography tagged with the term obscene and tarred with the same brush as other forms of entertainment accepted only by “dirty old men” in seedy peepshow cinemas? Could the same porn and smut be considered an acceptable form of art? What about an up close and personal view of a female spread eagle showing nothing but her open vagina? Utterly disgusting and repulsive to some? Acceptable but not widely appreciated by others? Perhaps alternatively viewed as sensual form and a wonderful depiction of the sheer beauty of the female body in all her glory? Would dressing it up with jewellery such as piercings etc change any points of view? What if you dim the light, add some colour or shading or Photoshop texture or other filters and effects? Is a sepia pencil sketch mosaic vagina cheap smut porn or art?
Exhibit D:
~Most definitely the point which could offend some if not all so I repeat again: This is not my personal view but rather begging the question based on cold fact or general opinion!
Child pornography, snuff (being the act of recording in a media format the act of dying or killing of a human being or animal) or bestiality? I already know the immediate reaction by almost everyone including myself. This is out of the question and in no way could be considered art in any form whatsoever without exception. Now what if any of these were done in a way that was expressive and thus conjuring up expressive emotion? Is anger and disgust not an expressive emotion? As sick as any of these forms of expression are, are they not just that? Forms of expression? And did it not just conjure up expressive emotion? But seriously now, what makes this wrong? THEY ARE ALL AGAINST THE LAW and obviously rightly so. These are such laws as set out by civilization to outline what society deems as the normal behaviour for humanity. Even so I’m sure the law enforcement agencies around the world will agree that there is no shortage of any of the above mentioned material available across countless mediums therefore there is a market for it all. Murder, paedophilia and bestiality are all the actual act that is illegal making the recording of such activities equally as illegal. Now what if you happen to be in a country that did not consider any or all of these acts as illegal? I certainly hope that no such country exists but what if we analyse one aspect more closely. What if the legal age of consent of a “minor” in one country is 14 years old and another is 21 years old? Could the photographing a naked 15 year old in an acceptably agreed artistic way in Country 1 be seen as art by citizens of Country 1 and vile and despicable by citizens of Country 2? Is that not a clear example of what is simple opinion?
Get back to the original discussion and how this all started: What is art and what can be deemed artistic?
I have given it a bit of thought and have decided to shut down, or should I say, just leave dormant, Off The Hoox. At least for now. At least for a while.
