Wednesday, November 5, 2008

What role do museums and the context of artwork play in determining what is considered art?
Is there artwork that would still be considered art when taken out of context? Where is the line drawn between art and not art, when taken out of context?
Can art be created by a non-artist? can it be created accidentally? by non-humans, or by some natural process? I imagine a painting could be found, the artist unknown, and considered artwork. But what if the painting resembled an abstract impressionist's work, conveying the depths of the artist's emotions, and it had only been the result of a paint can spilling or exploding spontaneously? What about paintings created by babies, or created by elephants? Is the elephant the artist in this case? or is the elephant the medium used by the trainer to create the art? What's the point in even trying to define art? I'm just feeling more and more unsure that there's even the start of an answer.


At what point did artistic revolution become so... dramatic? Maybe I am just underestimating the reaction of artists around the time perspective was invented but I mean... Some guys paint some lines, and I guess that's it. I hope you enjoyed painting while it lasted because now it is DEAD.

No comments: