Is it Art

[Bruce Papier]

I read a sidebar to an article in Smithsonian Magazine which mentioned a man from Philadelphia who started writing "Cornbread" (a name he used) on a variety of surfaces in the late 1960's. Apparently, this was a departure from simply painting a gang symbol. In doing so, he was adjudged a pioneer.

This got me thinking about what is the minimum requirement for a work of art? Is it (as the old saying goes) what an artist does or does it need to be something more.

In the attached photos, Mel has met the Cornbread standard. He signed his name on the public object. Info Wars has gone a step further. He painted an image on more than one surface and signed them. Is he an established artist as a result?

Let me hear your opinion.

 

[Rick Granick]

If you have any doubt as to whether something is actually art, just fill out one of these:

 

[cvm]

We sell this dude's stuff...

John

Many folks have stopped and asked,"Who is Cornbread?" He is none other than John Anderson. Cornbread was born and raised in the North Georgia area and resides here today, with his wife, Jana, and their two sons, Poley and Isaac. He has held numerous jobs in his lifetime such as that of a diesel...

aroundbackatrockysplace.com

 

[Bruce Papier]

That's a different guy. This Cornbread's real name is Darryl McCray.

Rick, I'm going to get me some of those so people will take me seriously.

 

[artfolio]

Here in Australia the word "Artiste" is usually used in conection with the "adult" entertainers usually found in dodgy bars.

 

[Bruce Papier]

Oddly enough, that might apply to me on some weekends.

 

[Bruce Papier]

To answer my own question- I don't think there is an objective standard for what makes an object a work of art. It's all public opinion or the endorsement of an "expert". If some rapper named Mel puts this image on a t-shirt at his concerts or the Infowars website decides it likes the skull motif, this graffiti becomes famous artwork.

I present you Exhibit C- "Continuum" by Darrell Petit. It is, in the main, a large chunk of granite on a pedestal. The only sign that it has been altered is a very shallow depression has been polished into a region of the top surface. Admittedly, it may not be displayed as the artist intended. I believe it is supposed to be installed in a field or lawn where the vegetation is kept trimmed to a height to make the stone appear to be floating. Art critics have assigned all kinds of significance to this piece that I'm just not seeing and, yet, it is a major piece of art. What do you think?

 

[cvm]

Ever been to Rothko Chapel?

 

[Ylva]

I don't know how to qualify anything as 'art'. I know what speaks to me and what not. 'Continuum' has a strange kind of appeal to me personally.
Do I think 'Info Wars' is now an artist? Probably.

Is art anything you create? To me, yes.

 

[Rick Granick]

Remember THIS?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comedian_(artwork) Comedian (artwork) - Wikipedia

Rick

 

[Nikodeumus]

Remember THIS?
View attachment 49076 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comedian_(artwork) Comedian (artwork) - Wikipedia

Rick

How'd you get a picture of the inside of my fridge?

 

[Bruce Papier]

I sort of get the banana. That's in the Dadaist, Bite the Hand That Feeds Me vein,

I think, in mentioning Rothko in connection with Petit, you may be on to something. Rothko used pure color to express pure emotion. Petit appears to use texture to express some visceral idea. I guess I just don't have the same mental connection to texture.

Pollock used visual texture rather than tactile texture to express his inner condition and I can feel that. I just don't make the same inferences from a rock.

 

[artfolio]

To me, for something to be called "ART" it must demonstrate advanced skill in whatever medium is chosen and that skill should be apparent to the viewer without the need for "explanatory" notes or "expert" commentary. It must also arouse some emotional reaction in the viewer.

I describe this as "If you see it, it is a picture, if you feel it it is art."

It also applies to more than visual arts. I am not a huge opera fan but I cannot hear Verdi's "Va Pensiero" without feeling the profound sadness behind the music. Similarly, hearing Lucciano Pavarotti hit the big high notes in "Nessun Dorma" gives me gooasebumps.

Slapping a coat of red paint over a piece of canvas just doesn't cut it for me.

 

[Bruce Papier]

I agree. Very well put.

My uncle is an art professor and, if somebody asks him if a certain person qualifies as an artist, he wants to know how well they can draw. They may paint in an abstract expressionist style, but if they can't draw a cat, he has his doubts about them.

I think there has to be a certain amount of craft behind the art.

 

[cvm]

A first year art class was looking at an image of some great 15th century painting, and one of the students asked: "Why don't artists paint like that now?"

 

[Rick Granick]

I agree. Very well put.

My uncle is an art professor and, if somebody asks him if a certain person qualifies as an artist, he wants to know how well they can draw. They may paint in an abstract expressionist style, but if they can't draw a cat, he has his doubts about them.

I think there has to be a certain amount of craft behind the art.

I agree. That's why art education begins with basic drawing approaches like contour and gesture drawings. It promotes the ability to see a subject and to represent your perception of it to others, using mark-making. With practice and study, that ability becomes stronger and more confident. Only when that happens can you expand that to other forms of representation and expression of those perceptions and feelings. It doesn't mean the final product of your art has to be complicated, but I think there ought to be some distinctiveness and a perceptible degree of confidence and intention involved.
Rick

 

[cvm]

I wonder how many 'accomplished masters' utilized camera obscura...

 

[Ylva]

There are so many different art styles, not just painting and drawing, so I don't know how much I would agree with that statement of being able to draw a cat.

 

[artfolio]

There are so many different art styles, not just painting and drawing, so I don't know how much I would agree with that statement of being able to draw a cat.

Agreed, but I asgree with Bruce's statement that some ability to draw literal representations of animals or humans and capture a decent likenessof their shape and proprtions must be a basic requirement of an artist. It is not easy but notjhing worthwhile achieving ever was.

"Abstract" art where wierd shapes and colour combinations are laid down with (usually lengthy) explanatory notes to guide the viewer do not impress me. All this demionstrates is a vivid imagination and no great skill.

 

[Ylva]

Creating abstract art is actually one of the hardest things to do.

 

[Bruce Papier]

Just to bail my poor uncle out a little bit- here are so examples of his work. He is no stranger to abstraction, but he can also draw with the best of them. Most of these are done with an airbrush.

 

[cvm]

A watercolor by Mark Rothko...

Paintings in the Rothko Chapel...

 

[Ylva]

Art is creating. Art is a vision. If you can execute that what you envision, you're an artist. Doesn't mean I have to like it of course. But I am still not convinced that you need to be able to draw 'real life style' in order to create art.