What a loaded question...I like that statement. However, I am on the fence about agreeing with it. As a blanket statement, I feel like then you would have to consider a whole world of things (violent things , disrespectful things) as art. I don't know if I would consider murder, art. Or rape, art. But you can't say that something illegal ISN'T art, because look at graffiti.
I know, you could be saying, "well I think they mean....ART ART. As in something that stands in front of you, or hangs on a wall. Something you can see in a museum. " But then we would get into the whole battle of "is Matthew Barney's work (something that is not really tangible) art?" *I also am aware that most of you don't like his work, but just for sake of conversation lets put it aside*
Then someone could say that everyday actions aren't art. But that I think is false too. There are so many important things we do everyday, like smiling, that I THINK are art. Maybe I am just nuts?
*I can imagine us discussing this in senior seminar or something...it's strange.*
Then someone could say that "Things meant to be art ARE art." But how many FANTASTIC paintings....or drawings....or random arty things, started out as just an experiment, or just to play? With no prior intention to BE ART. Tonya's clothes paintings. My crazy dots. Jana's Drips.
I guess some criminal in a prison some where could say that they committed murder (in some crazy gruesome way) and it was art. But I think the only people who agree with him are the voices in his head. I know this got way off topic and I kinda made it into the question...what is art? But that was my train of thought. I hope it makes SOME sense.
-JG
RE: Do you Agree?
#1 We should agree how to post on this thing! I like my idea... editing and adding to already existing posts. Thanks Jes, I'm totally stealing your spotlight.
#2 Not sure how I feel about the statement "If it disturbs you, it's art." BECAUSE, it leads me to believe that to be art it must be disturbing, or all disturbing things are in essence art. It's not enough to just shock people. They need to leave the gallery, museum, space and be haunted (happily or unhappily) by what they've witnessed.
For example, Vito Annocini's "Seedbed". If you took Bonnie's class I think we breezed over it. Basic jist, empty gallery with a ramp under which Acconci masturbates and speaks to the gallery like a lover (
for more overview and some response work). Though its not necessarily "disturbing" to me, I can imagine a whole group of people who would FREAK over it. So maybe that's an important part of this question- who is looking at the art to begin with? I could be convinced that someone with strong roots in the art community and pretty solid understanding of history and current trends- maybe even a practicing artist themselves- who becomes disturbed may be seeing art. This isn't to say that all art has to be disturbing to be good- art serves a myriad of purposes, only one of which is making the viewer aware of themselves.
Check
this out. Sounds disturbing right? Now check
this out. Scroll down: "In regards to your comment, yes, it may be fake but using rape and violence to make a so-called artistic statement (or any reason) is a very real threat. I don’t care how you or anyone else can justify that. You are obviously someone who has no respect or concern for the on-going issue of violence in society." Which is more disturbing? Is either art?
For me, part of art is the conversation afterwards- not just shouting vilificaitons of what you've seen. You've got to make the viewer to critically think.
The statement itself is art- look the discussion it prompted :)
-Cbj
