Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.
Art is taking at least two things that exist, combining them to make
something that has never existed before, and putting it out there.(Paint
plus canvas, peanut butter sandwich plus nail) If what you call "art" is
passed by a spectator with no response then it has not fulfilled its
"art-ness", if however, someone reacts to it in any way, which includes
"I could have done that with my feet" or "my six year old could do
better" or "what wonderful tension lies in those fragmented lines" to "I
love it", then by evoking a response it is "art" for that one instance.
What may be art for one is passed by another and has not lived for them.
This may sound vague, trite, or shallow, but it has worked for me in my
own reaction to work. Many times when I go to a gallery or museum, I am
moved to discussion by a variety of pieces whose commonality is that they
"spoke" to me in some manner. I will venture up, investigate, ruminate,
and think about it, and actually, that's all a piece of art wants from
us. (I personnally think the artist couldn't care less, for he/she has a
separate agenda from the viewer's, and unless the artist was there to
share their vision/purpose, the rest is aesthetic speculation on our