Kunsthalle Völkermarkt.
We were invited by Ms. Anna Paul, the
key-mover of a group of young persons, to attend a Vernissage, where
many of them exhibited their work for the first time.
The hall's dimensions are huge, giving
much space to each individual work exhibited there.
The question: “What is Art” has
been asked many times and meaningful answers are hard to come by.
My very very personal answer is
actually quite simple:
1.) Does it please me to look at it?
A given piece of Art may well please
me, but not at all please somebody else.
2.) Would I, given size restrictions, want
to display the work in my home, even for a short period of time?
I may well want to display “David”
in my home, while somebody else might be abhorred by this idea.
3.) Could I, given sufficient material and
time, reproduce it or something similar?
I could probably try forever and a
day and would never be able to produce“David” or the “Pieta” or a painting by L d V or by Pieter Bruegel.
Clearly, the above conditions may be
argued about ad nauseam, some conditions deleted and others added.
When, however, you may witness the
palpable dedication and enthusiasm of the young men and women as
they showed visitors from one exhibit to the next you may add some
more to the above conditions.
You may also add the question: Is
dedication and enthusiasm enough to produce a work of art ?
I have just arrived at the conclusion
that the Question
“What is Art?” cannot be answered.
It can only be argued about.
Maybe the answer lies
buried in the Argument!
Bertstravels
loves to argue about “Art”
but not with artists.
Although it's called: "Pointing it out" by Simon Veres,
it reminds me a little of the outline of Arnulf Rainer's "Strahlenkreuz".
Anna Paul's "Lybia" and "Parted Pieces" may show a turbulent Red See.
A silver coloured square is called:
"Afrik"
"SCH 1" by Karl Karner
defies any explanation by me.
Two very simply constructed cages ( only one is shown here )
primitively connected, form the housing of
highly sophisticated loud speakers.
"Nusdu" by Karl Karner
An 8 legged Invitation to sit a while.
The program tells me that this is called:
"see'n say the farmer says."
She thinks it's funny:
We are dealing here with a barn inside a barn and the barn is inside the cow
and the cow, or its defining essence, the udder, is inside the barn
and is later used to make "rhythm and blues"
It surely can make you think. Can it ?
Several of the artists on another piece of their work. ( by Anna Paul )
Part of a tribune, belonging to the collection, is used for
the practical purpose of its construction.
There are many overlapping foot prints on the bare raw wood.
Do they form part of the whole too?
Two little pigs ( Mable Moore & Alexander Collins )
How can pigs be part of a cow ?
Well, they are the "music makers".
Anna Paul in the middle.
3 comments:
I've always felt that art is defined as the presentation, in any of a variety of forms, of an emotional plea, story, act, moment or event that the artist is trying to convey.
I've always felt that craft work, on the other hand, is defined as the pleasing or unusual assembly of physical materials chosen and worked in a way that is satisfying to the crafts person, and that the crafts person believes or hopes will make viewers feel just as satisfied.
Most of the paintings, drawings, sculptures, ceramics, glass, installations and multimedia presentations created by purported artists whose work I've seen over the past forty years or more, looks to me most like craft work rather than art. I do not think it is an insult to refer to such creations as craft work.
Because of the way I define art for myself, it follow that it is necessarily hard for an artist to clearly or subtly convey his or her thinking to me through their works. Many people work very hard at their craft and feel that they are artists, but so many of them are not artists at all. They do wonderful things with the materials they make use of in many cases, but remain crafts people still.
Thanks for this comment!
I think that the operative word is "emotional"
If I may be permitted to simplify this, a creation without emotion will probably always remain "craft".
While a creation with emotion, however ugly to look at, may well fall into the category of "Art"
The difficulty, nay, the impossibility is for the viewer to determine where, in the creation, "emotion" was present.
Therefore, the "creation" must please me, the viewer...
thereby "Art" must be confined to the eye, the perception, the acceptance or rejection of the viewer.
As I said: Maybe "Art" lies in the argument.
I think that attempting to simplify something that is inherently complex is what creates the ongoing argument.
In my definitions, both creative efforts - art and craft work - require emotional input to be effective. The difference lies in the message, that is to say, the artist communicates a story but the crafts person manipulates physical materials as an end in itself.
People confuse the two primarily because they're not exposed to enough great art. The debate about what constitutes art has always existed, but I think it did not become a prominent debate until the early 20th century when a rising middle class began to seek ways to spend disposal income. That gave rise to all manner of crafts people who styled themselves as artists in order to sell decorative things for people to hang in their middle class living rooms.
Post a Comment