But, seriously, Tom, Geez, you know, I wish I could express myself as well in these sorts of discussions as some. I'm just not articulate when it comes to things artistic. Unfortunately for this list, that won't stop me from trying... <g>
On the whole, your thesis makes sense. There are a couple of situations that make me wonder. Maybe they're the exceptions that prove the rule, I don't know. Firstly, I think your position takes the audience completely out of the picture. Not just the audience at large, but individuals in an audience. For example, there's a "performance artist" who urinates into a bucket on stage. She's wearing a skirt, and merely hikes the skirt a bit (so one can't see her genitals - she even covers the upper part of the bucket with her skirt IIRC, so one can't even see the urine stream). The audience hears the urine hitting the bottom of the metal bucket. She finishes her thing, and leaves the stage. She intends that to be art. By your definition, it is, therefore, art, and she's therefore an artist. That she apparently had some sort of audience would indicate that some agree with her. I don't think that's art. Couldn't articulate why it's not art, but it's not. It's not bad art, it just isn't art at all, imho. To paraphrase the US senator who was asked to define pornography, "I can't define art, but I know it when I see it". And, if it ain't art, she aint' an artist. She's just a lady on a stage, pissing into a bucket. As regards non-art, I'd include the artist who's exhibit was a line-up of blenders with water and goldfish in them. Yup, they were plugged in. He said that the audience could turn on the blenders if they wished to (although he didn't explicitly invite them to). Not art, because I say so... At the other end of the spectrum, I'd submit that one can produce "art" without the intention to do so. By your definition, my chimp with the camera could never produce art, because he could never form an intention to do so. But, if he walked around a corner in a French village, and accidentally snapped a picture of a grinning child holding two large bottles of wine, would that be art? If the chimp's name is HCB, it's art. If it's an unwitting chimp, it's not? Or is the artist the one who takes the camera from the ape, develops the photos, and decides that there's art in that there camera? That sounds like more of a curator to me... Whatever the intention of the creator of a piece, the viewer must have a say as to whether a piece is art or not. If a piece is not art, how can its creator be an artist? And why can't art be produced by a non-artist? I'm really confused now... cheers, frank graywolf wrote: > Whether one is an artist or not is, I think, simply a matter of intent. > If ones intent is to produce art than one is an artist. Now I am willing > to admit that becoming a good artist, much less a great one, can take > years or even decades of hard work, but whether one is an artist is > simply a matter of wanting to produce art. > > In photography we have two types of photographers (they may of course > overlap) the art photographer for whom the picture is the message, and > the documentary photographer for who the subject is the message. As you > can see the difference between the two (at least beyond a certain skill > level) is simply the intent of the photographer. > > Therefore I say, if your intent is art then you are an artist. It is as > simple as that. > -- "Hell is others" -Jean Paul Sartre
