It is more difficult now to say what art is than what it is not, because almost any activity can be considered art, depending on how one looks at it or how it is done. There used to be a distinction (at least in Western civilization) between fine and applied arts, the latter being things made with a practical purpose, not just an aesthetic one, although architecture has long been considered a fine art. This was never an issue in Japan, where pottery and even the tea ceremony have always been considered art.
And of course there are the performing arts, and who would say that singers, dancers, musicians, and actors are not artists, along with costume and scene designers, etc? And you may also be saying at this point, who cares? Why even try to define " art"? Good point, but i still find it interesting that, for example, video games are now being collected by the Museum of Modern Art, and i can certainly understand how they should be considered art, just like film has been for a long time. I also think art will become increasingly interactive in the future, as it becomes more of a personal experience for the audience as consumer. I remember a Ray Bradbury story, written way before personal computers were invented. about a children's "playroom," where kids would have these three-dimensional experiences. One can only imagine future pornography, where one could virtually hook up with the partner of one's dreams.
Meanwhile, today a lot of art is simply framed reality, like the recent installation of a garage sale, and other ones in which the audience observes the artist living or working in a store window or art gallery, perhaps for weeks at a time. Art then becomes a way of looking at something or, in music, just listening to ambient sounds, a form of mindfulness. It can also be a spiritual practice for the artist who, like Marina Abramovic, may be willfully suffering in an ascetic search for spiritual transcendence, reaffirming the ultimate purpose of art.
No comments:
Post a Comment