We began by watching a film about the life of artist Ai Wei Wei, titled "Ai Wei Wei: Never Sorry". It portrayed his journey as a defiant artist that went through great lengths to ensure social change. He was, as an artist, rebellious, brave and a great risk-taker. This brought us to the following questions, resulting in a rather frustrating debate:
1) Who is an artist?
2) Does an artist have to be an activist?
3) What is the difference between a "normal person" and an artist?
After countless arguments, I finally came to the following basic conclusions:
An artist is one who, using medium and methodology, consciously expresses his ideas for the purpose of creating art.
An artist MAY be an activist, but need not necessarily be one.
A "normal person" is anyone who does not communicate consciously for the purpose of creating art using medium and methodology.
Therefore, everyone CAN be an artist, but everyone is not necessarily an artist.
People communicate all the time and constantly express their ideas. But when this expression occurs with the sole purpose of creating art, and expressing this idea directly to a viewer, it becomes art. Therefore anything can be art if it is recognized as art. Unless it is recognized as art - and therefore given the MOTIVE of existing as art - it will not be art.
We were left with this question: if a viewer does not see art in an artwork, does it cease to be art?
I thought about this, and played with this idea: that even if a viewer disclaims an artwork as art, it shall still continue to be art as long as it was created with the purpose of being art.
It is irrelevant whether art is art in the eyes of many, as long as it is art in the eyes of the artist. Just the same way that an artwork could be art in the eyes of many, but not art in the eyes of the artist.
These views seem transient and entirely moot, but interesting to play around with until I come across new views that negate what I've come across so far.
No comments:
Post a Comment