For all practical purposes, I would suggest that we state that art is what is called art, regardless of medium or any qualitative aspects. To say that something is art does not give it any kind of stamp of approval, but merely describes it as an art object or action. The refusal to accept categories of art because they do not fully reflect a reactionary and conservative view of what art is, as if the category of art were eternal and unchanging, and not historical, is fairly absurd, quiet frankly, and it is a disgrace that this false dichotomy persists in the 21st century. And if I were to create something in a non-traditional medium, make it with every ounce of intelligence and passion, and it were denied the status of art, while, say, a lazy, vapid watercolour of a daisy or a cottage was accepted as art, I have to say something is very wrong. Photography would seem to remain contentious in this regard, as many photographs are made with...
Comments
Post a Comment