Yesterday, I saw something that re-ignited an old art school debate in my mind, and one that should still be of public interest. It is a Youtube video called, “Self-Expressive Improvisation Part 1: No Wrong Notes“, featuring a very entertaining and animated cellist examining the creative freedoms possible in music. So I am revisiting the question: are there any wrong notes in art?
The term “self-expressive improvisation” really is the issue at hand. Where is the line drawn which separates art from fodder? Are we to agree that anything that ends up on a canvas or in a frame is called art? Many years ago I watched a program on television with my kids that featured an artist who set up giant canvases behind jet engines and simply hurled entire cans of paint into the blast of air, causing a crazy splatter pattern. Even my young kids thought it was ridiculous. But thinking back, was this ‘art’ consciously created? Was is directly created by the artist’s hand? Was it an original idea? What went into the conception and execution of such a feat?
What defines art?
In art school, my friend and I were tasked with creating an art project addressing “The Meaning Of Art”. We created a 20 minute long performance piece featuring a soundtrack of post-midnight philosophical debates and art ramblings, along with synthesizer sounds and, to cap it all off, the sound of a flushing toilet. During the performance, my friend and I silently played poker for oreo cookies, and chugged tall cans of O’Keefe’s Hi-Test (We obtained permission to drink beer for the sake of art.) There was a great debate after our performance, and we got an A.
That might sound funny, but I think we were on to something. Is art really about the process?- About the midnight collaborations and ‘thought bombs’ that can get regurgitated onto paper or canvas or become a carefully piled metal scrap heap on a gallery floor? Can an animal carcass nailed to a wall really be called art? Trust me, it’s been done.
Where do we draw the line? Is art defined entirely in the eye of the beholder?
artboy68
Great post. For me, the process, and/or the culmination of a process ceases to be art when it causes overt harm to any living thing. I do however have opinions about what works, and doesn’t, at least for me, and what rings true and what doesn’t.
Had to look this up for you:
Sniffy the rat
On 28 December 1989, The Province newspaper in Vancouver, Canada, reported that Gibson intended to crush a rat named Sniffy between two paint canvasses with a 25 kilogram concrete block in downtown Vancouver. On impact, Sniffy would leave an imprint on the canvasses, forming a diptych. Gibson said he had acquired Sniffy from a pet store which sold living rats as food for snakes and lizards. The performance was planned to happen on 6 January 1990, outside the old central public library on Burrard Street. Opinion about the impending event was publicly broadcast via newsprint, television, and radio.
On the morning of 6 January, a group of animal rights activists from the Lifeforce Foundation confiscated the device Gibson was going to use to crush the rat. Lifeforce’s Peter Hamilton said that it was done to protect both the rat and Gibson. Because of this development, Gibson arrived at the corner of Robson and Burrard at 1 PM without Sniffy or his art making device. He told a crowd of over 300 people that he had returned the rat to the pet store where he had rented it. He encouraged the crowd to go to the pet store and rescue Sniffy before it was sold as snake food. He later told CBC that he had full intentions of killing the animals. As he tried to leave the area, Gibson was surrounded by activists. He, along with Susan Milne and Paddy Ryan, were chased up Burrard Street by a mob. The three of them escaped through the Hotel Vancouver.
Later that day, Sniffy was purchased from the pet store by Peter Hamilton of the Lifeforce Foundation.
Immediately afterwards, cartoonists, writers, and the general public. commented on the event. Numerous books have also made reference to it. Several television shows have also focused on it. For the tenth anniversary of the performance, Radix Theatre, under the direction of Andrew Laurenson, created the Sniffy the Rat bus tour.
I was living in Vancouver at the time, but didn’t show up for the protest. Sniffy the rat bus tour?
That’s not art, that’s sociopathy.
In my opinion something ceases to be art when it doesn’t give pleasure or inspire awe. Though with that perspective, the night sky could be regarded as art. And maybe it is.
No art created by man can rival that created by God…
There’s a very fine line between art and pretension. Ditto for music and pretension. Pretension sometimes sells for millions of dollars. It also wins gold records. Every so often some kid looks at the Emperor’s New Clothes and blurts out the truth. Takes nerve, though. The circus marches on… : )