I’m rambling – this is a long piece. Perhaps I will focus on the good bits later. If you want to listen to the interview, it’s embedded here.
There is much to be gained from reading this article. I cannot encourage you enough to do so. But don’t mistake me for saying that I’m satisfied with what I read. It took me days to get through the article and I left many questions unanswered.
But before that, I want to tell you what the artists’ responses have told me about how they perceive art in general and what they take away from it.
What matters in the artwork?
Art is not going to change the world, in my opinion. What it will change, however, is people’s perception of the world. Art can leave us with a valuable message, a simple message, or an extravagant message. But to say that art has to do either one is to imply that art has to have one meaning, or that art cannot do something completely different.
We could say that art has to do either what art is, or what art is not. Art is what
art is, art is what art is not. It may not always be the most “beautiful” art, but that doesn’t mean it’s not valuable.
Art is not what art is, but what art is not. – Itamar Kliner
We could claim that art has to do either what art is, or what art is not. Art is art, art is not art. Is this the best it gets?
Isn’t this not at least a little bit satisfying? Art is art, and art is not art, and the best art is art that is art, and art that is not art, and art that is what art is not?
If art has to do either what art is, or what art is not, isn’t this at least very satisfying? Can’t art have more than one meaning?
We could ask, “Art has to do either what art is, or what art is not, isn’t this the best it gets?” Art has more than one meaning! Isn’t art not art either? Don’t artists not draw what art is? Art is art, but art is not art. What’s going on here?”
To me, this kind of response is contrary to art’s meaning. Art is art, art is not art. Art is art, art is not art.
