Artistic Responsibility

Assuming (and this may be a little too much) that artworks are shown
in a public space, does the artist have any responsibility? To his or
her audience? In terms of medium or message (the form and function of
yesterday's post)?

I think yes.

If an artist didn't want to be burdened with that responsibility, they
could keep their work as closed as their diary. Then it is truly art
for the artist's sake. And no one will see it.

So, what responsibility is it? To the audience, certainly, to show
them something. This almost by definition. Else why show it publicly
- alternately stated: if you want the public to see it, you must want
them to get something from it. Otherwise it's just so much more
decorative clutter that the world can do without.

Is their any responsibility in terms of medium or message? Very
little, from my point of view, but that it somehow be accessible.
After all, this is your audience, and if they can't possibly "get" the
depths of your brilliance, then it reverts to the aforementionned
decorative clutter. And there's a caveat here, as well. One can
certainly put up bad art, but why bother? It makes you look bad; it
takes away some (however little) attention from the good art out
there; and what it shows can be easily dismissed for its weaknesses.

And there sits my opinion.

Evaluating Art - the "good" art debate

On of the most common complaints that I hear about art - both from
other artists and the public at large - is how someone can distinguish
good from bad (or even less-good) art. Interestingly, this seems to
be a bit of a common ground between the public and artists. Something
along the lines of "how can you possibly evaluate someone's personal
expression (or genius)?" I believe that you can.

First, not all art is destined for great things. In fact, some isn't
even supposed to be. Like any employ, there are times when the artist
is simply honing their craft or making some brief observation to be
fully fleshed out at a later date. Just as a coffee-house debate,
though informative and often insightful, is not in the same league as
a fully realized presidential or prime ministerial address; these
experiments may lead to but are not yet great works or art. By
design.

Next, assuming the work doesn't fit into the aforementionned mold, how
to evaluate? And to this end I believe there are two primary
criteria. Does it have something interesting to say (and does it say
it)? Does it work from a technical point of view (and does it's form
support its message)? I believe that the strongest works satisfy both
of these criteria with resounding yesses. Certainly, there are some
works that are primarily in one of the two domains (protest art -
strong on message; formalist work - strong on the technicals) and that
may yet be successful, but that their lasting power is dependent on
their ability to push the envelope (protest art that is somehow
formally innovative - huge scale, for example; formalist work that
reinvents in its medium - does something fresh and exciting).

Tomorrow, I'll put the criteria to work with three strong and three
weak examples.

Bye for now!

Art Life connection revisited

I guess that it's going to take me a little longer to get that full
argument articulated...

To address Tiara's questions:
>Do art and life have a connection?
Yes. The obvious answer for which is that by my definition of art, it
is created by living people.

In addition, it is a living process. By this, I mean that it is a
labour practiced daily whether in creating new art, thinking about
art, relating about art or whatever - but growing/changing/evolving
constantly. In this it is a living creature.

In addition, and again by this small-picture definition of art, the
labour of art is intrinsically linked to the individual who has made
it their concern. The two grow and change symbiotically. Art can
thus not suvive without the artist - and neither can the artist be an
artist without their art.

Many artists interacting with their communities/with each other/with
their craft make up the arts. However, unlike a hive of independant
art-creatures, I believe that by virtue of overlapping tendrils - by
virtue of the artists' interaction outside of the self, the arts is
granted life integrated with the artists. Quite the arts-life
connection.

And here a small distinction must be drawn. Can an individual create
their work to the exclusion of any interaction with the outside world
in its process? I suppose so. Would I still call them an artist? A
tough question. Would they be involved in the arts. No. Their
isolation excludes them...

And to further answer Tiara's questions:
>Art is connected to life as all things are. It is, in fact an
expression of life and all the drama, trauma, joy, thought and
frustration that human beings experience in living. This expression is
not restricted to art but can also be seen in craft, stories, music
and many other expressions.

Their are many expressions that by my definition would fit into the
world of the arts. Indeed, I don't believe that art as life need
necessarily relate to the emotions of human life. However, I do make
a distinction at craft, as I define it. Works created in following
some pat plan or to fulfill the wants/designs of another need not be
"alive". It needs simply to fit some bill - to fulfill a material
need/want. Does this mean that craft cannot come to artistic life?
Certainly not.

As for the germination of an artistic life - and at which point it is
life... this may well lead us somewhere long and drawn out. But not
yet.

That's all for today!