As for art, I have often pondered the topic of creativity on my own blog, but I haven’t yet explored this question of what makes something art. For me, there are two dimensions to this answer.

1) If something is original and fresh yet represents a global truth, an archetype, that resonates with people in a profound way, then certainly that is art.

2) Additionally, if something speaks to me personally, if it hits a chord, produces some sort of emotion and rings true, regardless of whether or not anyone else feels the same way, then to me, that is also art.

CJ: Hi Lisa, I’m so glad you liked the cartoon! It still makes me laugh now weeks later, which is the sign of a good cartoon.

Thanks for stopping by. I’ll pop across to see your blog later.

http://theworstofperth.com/2008/03/07/doggy-style-alsation-rampant/

I don’t know what’s shocking about the innocuous cartoon. Some people just like to be offended.

I never really like Hockney, but he did a very interesting doco on perspective. Very very good. I like some of the photo montages he did too. Not so keen on the pale young boys standing by swimming pools stuff though.

CJ: Now I want to scratch my eyes out! That is one of the weirdest, most disturbing things I’ve ever seen. What is it supposed to be? A joke? Social commentary? Eroticism? A dog’s fantasy? I wouldn’t consider that art, no, but maybe they should submit it for the Turner prize – it’d probably win.

Thanks for stopping by, LA. It’s going to take me a while to get that painting out of my head! If anyone else is interested, click over and have a look… it’s got my vote for the worst piece of art ever made.

I have held for a long time that “art” would be so much better if we put its judgement in the hands of the majority instead of clinging to the cynical words of critics. In fact, I’ll even go so far as to say that by placing arts education in the hands of critics, we’re killing it in the long run.

And I was just talking about this at work today, in relation to the selection of works for English literature textbooks. It’s insane, the numbers of people I’ve talked to who say, “Oh, I hate [insert genre or literature form here]. I don’t read that stuff.” And when asked why, they say “I read [insert corresponding piece here] in high school and couldn’t stand it.”

C’mon folks; stop trying to feed our kids literary pieces with “high critic appeal” to teach them “literature.” Expose them to more mainstream art, more popular writing, and have them “think critically” about that. I know this sort of approach would work, if only we could convince the “critical gurus” to accept it. As a librarian, I see it often: when a kid likes what they’ve read, they’re very eager to tell you all about it. And I’d bet money that if you asked them to tell how how that work relates to a particular literary idea (that they’ve had explained to them), they could do it, and do it eagerly, with a better retention rate.

But, I think it will be a long time before we’ll ever see such a shift in educational/literature/artistic thinking. Unfortunately.

As for what makes something “art,” I’d have to say it is something done with an incredible amount of creative skill, that stirs its audience.

Great post.

All the best,
H.

CJ: Hi Heather, thanks for stopping by. I don’t mind Chris or CJ; I go by both and I tend to use CJ more with my writing, which is why it’s on the blog. But either’s good.

That seems to be the consensus on art; a mix of skill, talent and impact… something that has meaning whether we love it or hate it… who knows, maybe one day a Narcoleptic Romance will be a work of art. I’ve read stranger things.

CJ: I read through AD like that as well. It’s hard to read but it’s one of those works that’s so powerful you still want to read it… the sign of a good work.

I haven’t read Persepolis but I’ve heard a lot about it; I’ll have to find it. If it’s anything like Spiegelman’s Maus, it sounds like a must read.