|
Art is a personal decision, in my opinion. Just because one person thinks something is art doesn't mean the next person who comes along has to think that as well. For that matter, if I feel something is art, then I'm right even if no one else in existence agrees. It means something to me, so it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks unless I allow it to.
As to the performance piece in question, I think it falls short. The artists seems to be of the assumption that the viewer will know and understand his intentions. But the fact is that whether or not he meant to disrespect the flag makes no difference... each viewer is going to react in his or her own way regardless of what the artist desired. To some, that might mean anger. To others, perhaps confusion or indecision or even agreement. And so on. The bottomline is that an artist is rarely available to the average viewer to explain what they were trying to do in a work of art... rarely there to explain what they were trying to say or not say. The viewer is left to interpret the work by themselves and will generally do so in terms that are at least partially unique to that viewer. If I see a painting by Van Gogh, I can't ask him why he painted the chair red... I have to find my own answers if I want them. The best art, in my opinion, stands on its own.
Whatever message the artist is trying to convey has been squashed by other questions that emerged instead. I mean, it's safe to say this is concept art... it's trying to put across some idea, rather than just present an aesthetic vision like might be found in a landscape painting. But I have yet to see any discussion about what's actually going on in the performance... the discussion has been "Is this Art?" rather than "What does this mean?" It's a good debate, but I doubt it's the reaction the artist was after. The American flag is a loaded image and using it in a work of art is often going to provoke a lot of strong reactions. As an artist, you have to be careful how you use such images or your influence over the viewer's response can easily disappear. I think this artist lost that influence.
Of course, maybe this artist's goal actually was to call into question what is and isn't art. I don't believe that personally, but that does appear to be what he achieved. If that's the case then I think he should look to artists who have done a much better job with that concept, like Duchamp or Magritte.
So, is this art? I suspect that for most people who are angered by a work... this one or any other... their answer will generally be no: "I'm angry and I hate this... there's no way it can be art!" But I'm not really angered by it. Honestly, I'm more interested in this discussion than in the performance that provoked it. I'm kind of apathetic to the artwork itself, and that makes it difficult for me to call it "Art."
Let me pose another question: Was performance the best method for his art, or might he have been better served trying something like video or a series of prints?
|