What Art Should Be by: Jenny M.

We've all been confused by art we have seen at a museum, gallery, or online. "Why the hell is this art? It's SO stupid. I could do that with my eyes closed for Christ's sake!" Sometimes, it's truly frustrating to see art that is worldly successful, while we, as artists, struggle to get our name out. So, the question arises: What do you think art should be, and what shouldn't be considered art? As you'll soon find, it lies in the eye of the beholder...

When first considering art, people often think of "high art" and "low art." Some things are just easier to classify as art, such as the Da Vinci's Mona Lisa, Polykleitos' Doryphoros, or even the Great Pyramids of Egypt. All of these pieces of art were labor intensive, and obviously had a lot of thought put behind them. They would, by many people, be considered high art. These people had extensive training in their field. Now, on the other hand, some people would consider Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko, or Marcel Duchamp harder to consider high or true art. The issue with Pollock is that he merely took buckets of paint and splatter painted the hell out of them, Rothko just painted two or three squares on a canvas and said it was emotional, and Duchamp took a goddamn urinal and wrote "R. Mutt" on it. With these artists, the average person has much more difficulty grasping these pieces as art. It is essential with these contemporary artist that the viewer is informed of the message(s) these artists were trying to convey. Without Jackson Pollock, are perception of what is art would not have been tested, or the concept that anyone can make art. With Rothko, his pieces were meant to be about the "physical world conflicted with the sublime idea of the universal, supernatural "spirit of myth" (Gardner 1080). It is a simple expression of a complex thought. Again, it is paramount that one understands the meaning behind the art to fully understand it--to see it as art! And, with Marcel Duchamp, he wanted to challenge--no, destroy--the way we make and see art. He didn't even make the art. That wasn't seen as important. It was the fact that he chose it. He took something ordinary, with an everyday use, and placed it in an art exhibition to show it in a new light, with new meaning, and significance; it's normal function being lost, therefore creating a new thought for the object. He certainly changed what we used to consider art (and it being actually made by the artist too).

So, as it has already been mentioned, there are two forms of how we see art: high and low. However, regardless of some viewer's trouble in  seeing particular pieces as art, there is usually a greater thought behind the art. Art is something that is either created by someone, evokes a emotional response or feeling, and is either beautiful or hideous. Art comes in so many forms. And there will always be art that challenges us, confuses us, and even angers us (two words: Sherrie Levine), but that response is wonderful. That conversation that begins with an artist creating difficult art opens new conversations to what we consider as art. And with such art, art can continue to grow, and flourish, not die. But instead, thrive on.