|
It's a fascinating question, and the rich and various replies here show me that there is no real answer to this. I usually find that conversations on this subject inevitably lead nowhere, as the ground rules are not set first. The biggest one, of course, is the definition of art itself, which has shifted and changed with the times and is interpreted in different ways by just about everyone. Much of what was produced in the past and is we call art now, was not produced with 'artistic intentions' what ever they are, and particularly in early times were necessary elements of spiritual existence. When I lived in Canada, for instance, I was amazed by the sophisticated new masks and stuff being produced by First Nations people, not for their original purpose, but purely for profit achieved by selling them to the people who could be regarded as those who screwed their culture in the first place.
So, to be brave, my feeling is that art is a combination of observation, interpretation, manipulation and presentation. I feel that it is important to shock, or at least make people think. Art has always been a powerful voice for social change, and a barometer on society. There is nothing wrong with what I call 'wall accessories', but they don't excite me, and usually those that I have owned very soon blend into the furniture. However, for me the original post made me think about the only boundary that I can think of.
If you purposely allow a dog to starve to death and then present this as art, I don't think it is. It is abuse, plain and simple, and it is more about the artist than what he or she is producing. Compare this with what Hitler was doing in his time. He wanted to produce the perfect race and get rid of those that he regarded as imperfect. His work of art, if he had achieved it. But to me, if the production of 'art' involved taking sentient life, then it is criminal abuse, and nothing to do with art. Ironically, the reporting of such an act, could be art, as were Any Warhol's Electric Chairs.
I do admire the traditional oriental way of interfacing with art, as I understand it. It is not to make judgments and rant and rail about what offends or challenges, but to observe and see what, if any, impact it has on you. After all, our reactions often say more about ourselves than they do about the subject in question, and that can be very useful information.
|