Anyone ever hear this phrase? My sister would have translated that within a moment if she ever stumbles upon this post. It translates to "art for art", or more commonly, "art for art's sake." This has been a hot issue in the art community for centuries, but today I'd like to champion a rival concept and philosophy towards art.
The trouble with "art for art's sake" is two-fold. First, art by itself cannot be the purpose of an art piece. This is simply because, if completely void of outside influences, an art piece cannot convey emotion, send a message, or otherwise communicate with the viewer. This argument has been used for many years now. Second, "art for art's sake" is a very exclusive definition. A few examples of subjects that could not be considered "true art" under this definition includes music, literature, food crafts, furniture making, web design, and metal working. Obviously, people who are involved in such subjects consider their craft an art, so "art for art's sake" simply cannot work except for a very narrow range of mediums.
Instead, I say that art is not exclusive, but inclusive by nature. Therefore, art is the expression of the artist, and will thus vary wildly with individuals. Anything can be considered art, as long as the art piece properly represents the artist. The only thing which cannot be considered art would be the very pieces which were made simply to be an art piece. And this would be because an art piece without a voice cannot represent anything, and thus serves no purpose to the viewer or to the artist.
Regardless of definition, art is what YOU make it to be. Me taking photographs is just as much an art as Tony Hawk riding a skateboard. And both of us are artists because our crafts reflect our individual selves.
--James Willmus
I mean, do you really need it translated?
ReplyDelete