Concept art Redux

first, a nod to summae for the comments around my post on concept art.

Concept art. I like summae's choice of a definition, as it seems to sum what makes sense to me, but which I have a difficult time expressing. "The idea is the machine that makes the art." Fair enough. The art is all about the idea. R Mutt's Fountain, or Duchamp's Urinal, does seem to accomplish this. It's the idea that is communicated; never mind that the item was supposedly unimportant to Duchamp's end.

So, where does this take me?

Concept art: art about the idea.
Does that mean that it's necessarily devoid of craft? I don't see why. Maybe the craft would detract from the message, but carefully done it seems to me that it could just as easily contribute to it. If fact, from that perspective, it would seem to me that art that is well-crafted, such that the aspects of the craft lend their voice to the intent would be a great example of the unity between concept and experience. Certainly, I don't believe that the craft should ever take over (unless, of course, that is the message). But that it can in many cases be an effective vehicle for the message, seems to me only natural. It becomes an extension of the intention. Which is to say it becomes a manifestation of the idea. Which is the point.

Then there's the question of the experience. In my personal opinion, ideally the art should speak for itself. In this I agree with summae. Otherwise is it the art that is communicating the concept, or is it the written accompaniment? I suppose, again, with some concepts that this could actually be the intent. That's the joy of concept art. However, the general rule of 'let the art speak for itself' still holds, in my opinion.

Which leads me to the question of evaluation. My acid test is this. It may be concept art, but it is only effective concept art (good and bad? - Another discussion) if it can communicate something of its 'idea' intrinsically to a broad (read: not just artists and art historians - with the regular clause of unless that's the point) audience. As such. By the simple virtue of existing.

Art?

What makes good art?

What falls into the category of art?

What can be/should be presented in a gallery?

What constitutes a presentation?

What constitutes a gallery?

Concept/visual/installation/performance - can these all coexist happily in the same milieu? Is there some value to all of the above? Am I missing anything there?

Lots of questions. If you've got answers, send me a line, 'cause I'm a little messed up at the moment. It's a good messed up. But it's still messed up.

Concept art

cool statement on concept art here

to quote the article:
"People assume (Booker Prize-winners are good authors), often without reading the books, just as they assume the opposite about the Turner Prize, often without having seen the shortlisted artists' work. And for no better reason than that most of us had a verbal education up to at least 18, and a visual education that stopped at around seven. We trust authors not to gull us only because we trust ourselves to be able to tell if they're trying to. Maybe the answer for anyone feeling enraged by Starling's shed (boatshed) is to find themselves a little evening class."

This is a wonderful launching off point for a rant... maybe next time.

Looking for a few good Arts Blogs

Found a couple under the artsjournal community:
http://www.artsjournal.com/visualarts/ - general arts infromation
http://www.artsjournal.com/herman/ - on arts and culture and so on
Artopia - on arts specifically
Modern Art Notes - contemporary art notes

generally like the deviant art community...

A news blog about the arts: The Art News Blog

another new spot art daily has some relevant information worth checking out from time to time

Any other favourites out there?

Child Prodigees

On the matter of child prodigees. Firstly, what does it mean to be a prodigee? Who's doing the measuring? What are the criteria? Those are thick questions that are rarely addressed.

On the first: What does it mean to be a prodigee? It usually means that somewhere someone has recongnised a child to be (I hate the word) 'gifted' in some domain. They are passionate in some capacity and have been allowed to explore it fully. Sometimes the passion is not their own. Sometimes a child can be pushed by parents or family or coaches to such a degree as to have developed their skill by extension. Maybe they have incredible technical aptitude for painting. Maybe they have incredible technical aptitude on an instrument. Does it really matter? The key is that someone has given them the label. Without it they are just another child with a passion.

On the second: Who's doing the measuring? Is it the general population? If so, then any child who can outperform an average adult would certainly be labelled a prodigee. Is it their arts community? This is rare, but if so then one has to question the community's aim. Do they want to protect the individual? Do they want to attach themselves to the fame? Is it out of kindness or goodness? Is it the child's family or teacher? If so, then one must certainly question the motives. In any case I despair that the child should get so wrapped up in the praise, the pressure, or the responsibility that they stagnate, cease to experience their childhood, or burn out.

On the third: What are the criteria? I have often heard of emerging or young artists who can 'draw as well as Leonardo' or who is 'more technically advanced than Louis Armstrong' or who 'writes with more eloquence than Shakespeare.' Under what criteria? Technical skill - with the visual arts this usually means realism, and with music it means their capacity to play difficult pieces quickly. Does that make an individual an incredible artist or an incredible machine? Endearingly innocent - they're children, they should be. Deeply moving/Emotional - but with no experiences to invoke, doesn't this smack of irrational? How many are balanced, thought-provoking, enduring innovators, sensitive and delicate, daring, profoundly influential...

Are all artists these things? No. Are all great artists these things? No. Are these ideals that serve to drive on many artists? Yes. And they are certainly more meaningful than a label: less constraining, more personal, more enduring.

What do I think of the latest child prodigee? Ask me again in twenty years.

Post a Secret

Post a Secret offers an interesting opportunity for anyone to do like the person at left did and take centre stage... so long as they do it anonymously.

The idea is that people from anywhere send postcards to the website's author revealing some secret that they haven't shared with anyone before. They are at times humourous, disturbing, inane, and insightful. A unique way of looking at the world - or rather - of reinterpreting the world through its own lense.

gifted artists?

What does it mean to be an artist - and why do so many people think it's outside of their realm of possibilities. For the first, I'm one of those who defines it very broadly - as someone who refuses to accept the status quo, both in their capacities and in the dominant world/social/individual view. Thus an artist is someone who is striving perpetually for something more, is someone who is reinterpreting their world, and is someone who shares that with those around them.

So, a painter paints, challenges self, confronts the world - and reinterprets it on canvas or wood or paper, and presents this work in some capacity. So, a dancer dances, challenges self, confronts the world - and reinterprets it in three dimensions of movement, and presents this work in some capacity. So, an author writes, challenges self, confronts the world - and reinterprets it in some linguisitic form, and presents this work in some capacity...

Note that never in these sweeping definitions has the topic of talent or of quality or of popularity snuck into the picture. What right would they have to be there? Who says you have to be a talented drawer to draw - certainly if you challenge yourself honestly enough and long enough you will reach a level of competency, and if you are interacting with the world you will reach a level of interpretive competency. Beyond that, who can judge? Certainly, some people come by particular competencies with more ease than others. Does that stop them from trying those things at which they are less 'gifted'? Should it? And if their passion falls out of alignment from their 'gifts', should they abandon it? Here's where I cringe.

Passion is more valuable than genetic predisposition, it has been shown, in olympic-level athleticism. Assuming that the arts are something apart (and I personally make no such assumption), why should they function differently in this capacity? I see no reason.