What Is Art
My
classmate Alan gave us a great presentation in class today on what is
considered to be a piece of art? He gave us an example of a pianist playing
gibberish notes of cacophony at a concert asking us whether one could classify
this as art. Well dear reader, this got me thinking. Having written pages and
pages of random thoughts in this blog, what does qualify as a piece of art per
se?
Look up modern art in YouTube and you shall find
videos such as this.
And the
comments are exactly what you expect, everyone yelling at each other and no one
listening anyone at all. Now let’s look at it this way. I take a bucket of
paint throw it on a man, and then force the man into a corner of a museum. Now
does it qualify as art? If it does, then doesn’t everything qualify as art? If
it doesn’t then you sir are not smart enough to deduce the hidden depths of my gravity
generating genius. It’s the classic case of the Emperor’s new clothes.
Now to
understand art let’s try to understand what is not art? Tolstoy wrote a whole
book ranting about the limits of art, even frequently contradicting his own
thoughts, but I could dig an idea that he was a hardliner against commercialization
of art. It makes sense but if a piece of art is liked by everyone does it not
become commercial automatically? In that case can we completely invalidate
Shakespeare for making his share of money?
I saw this video recently of The Pablo Picasso drawing
a face, just a face. Therefore, I decided to watch the whole video expecting a
miraculous piece of art at the end. Well, it was miraculous, perhaps for a five-year-old
who just started to hold a pencil.
Look at it! I do not comprehend anything great about this picture except the person drawing it. Which neatly brings along to our next argument.
DOES THE AUTHOR MATTER?
So, once you have attained the crest of popularity,
does art becomes merely a joke which you can easily nick some money from? Does
that mean you are now immune from all forms of criticism and expectations? If
that were in the case of sports, we would win the cricket cup every single time
if Sachin or Dhoni just showed up in the field for five minutes.
For the
second part of my thoughts let’s go to something most of us have already
watched at some point in their life, Avatar! Yes, Avatar. Now if you ask
someone what was the movie all about or at least name a character, you would
probably would not get an answer. The film was more of a spectacle of beautiful
colors, blue people, bad humans and that’s about it. Considering it from a
storytelling perspective it miserably fails, however greatly successful by its novelty
value.
DOES THE CONTENT MATTER?
I saw the 1941 film Citizen Kane couple of years ago. It
was a considered a cult classic film among the greater geeks among the movie
watchers. How ever after two hours of what felt like decades, it would leave
you with a feeling, why? What great story does it tell and why does it need two
hours for it? If you found the film interesting, do prove me wrong.
Coming back
to the initial argument, what is wrong with a commercial work of art? What can
be so demeaning about catering to the needs of the fans?
DOES THE AUDIENCE MATTER?
Great
writers like Charles Dickens, Arthur Conan Doyle, and even cartoonists like Bill
Watterson (Calvin and Hobbes) were under great pressure by their beloved fans to
keep producing their works. If we observe the trends of long running loyal
fandoms of Star Wars and Marvel comics, there has been a great disappointment among
the audience due to new content trying to cater to a more general audience.
Finally
looking at the art itself. What is art? Is it merely a part of the great storytelling
tradition? Or is it jus blatant entertainment? Or is it something more than
what humans could express with words or actions?
Let me know your thoughts!
Comments
Post a Comment