Who Decides?

Art: long hours in museums admiring the techniques and expertise used to create the masterpieces of painting. As a child, I would much rather have spent that time in the park. To me art appreciation consisted of trying to find a deeper meaning in something that was at best interesting for the first minute or two. Appreciating art was like answering critical reading questions at the end of a reading assignment. The material might have been enjoyable, but then came the comprehension questions afterward: "What was the mood of this piece of work?", "Which of the following statements would the author most likely agree with?" By the time one got to the end of dissecting the reading material and supposedly knew all of the different intentions of the author, one was thoroughly ready to see the back of the whole thing. 

With a semester of art history ahead in high school, I thought, at least, on the upside I would learn to understand some of the art world's praises and critiques of art. On the downside, I was sure I didn't have the eye to marvel at a new technique or type of composition. 

One of the first things I was reminded of was how much "art" encompassed beyond painting. Of course, sculptures were art; they have been considered so for thousands of years. Surprisingly to me so was architecture. Then there was my side lesson in the history of photography. 

Perhaps I only wanted photography to be considered "art" more than I really believed it was. It was rather like non-fiction, whereas all other art forms fell under the category of "fiction". Photography did not have the long, formal tradition that other art forms had, yet I discovered that it did have rather a history of its own, and not just one of non-fiction. Some artists composed photographs much as they did paintings. In an effort to combine photography and painting, and override some of the concerns that photography would make painting obsolete, some clever person noted how photography could be substituted for models posing for hours on end. Perhaps without surprise, both painting and photography survived their brief run-in and are able to complement each other today.

So does "art" stop there? Several years ago I had a neighbor who created functional sculptures from wood and streams of colored resin, which were then lit from behind for a truly amazing affect. After touring his studio one year he asked me what sort of art work I had been doing. Perhaps because nothing ever seems to turn out the way I imagine it, I dedicate hardly any of my time to "art". 

    So I answered, "Nothing . . . unless you count writing."

"   Of course, writing is a type of art too."

I'd never thought of it that way before. There was always math, science, reading, writing, P.E. and "art". We certainly didn't do any writing when I was in art class. Yet his comment led me to consider the idea. Why is the art of creating something with sandpaper, or a paint brush any more creative than the art of writing, music, cooking, or whatever it is you can put "The art of " in front of? Certainly they're different, but they're all expressions of our inner desire to create something that speaks for us in some way. 

One of the most interesting parts of art history, for me, was the "history" half. So much is gained by understanding a little about the world of the artist, the cultural restrictions of what they were allowed to create, the hardships of their time, and the materials they used that shaped their technique. Knowing a bit about their world can add depth to their work, whereas being told that such things are the reasons to appreciate their work flips everything around, where one looks not at the living portion that breathes, but at the structure that supports it.  

Who is it that decides what is a masterpiece and what is simply art? Perhaps it has some to do with the technique, or the composition, but in the end doesn't it all come down to an opinion?

Written by Teagen Blakey