|
If an individual does something and calls it art, then I am willing to take his word for it whether I appreciate it or not, and whether I like it or not. To be fair, though, this also requires us all to accept that others may interpret what we do or create as art whether we intend or appreciate it as such. That which is intended to be satirically or obnoxiously unartistic is, in its own right, a form of art. The classics are art in that they convey meaning and were intended to do so by their creators. "fountain" by Duchamp is art not in the same sense, but in its intellectual value as a commentary on art as a whole. The scribblings of a graffiti tagger's name in spraypaint are art in that they preserve meaning in space and time. this isn't to say that all art is equal -- I still don't "get" Andy Warhol's pop art (although as my brother suggested, this may be due to a lack of the drugs that were popular when he was) but I recognize him as a cultural influence and acknowledge his talent.
The fascists of the early to mid 20th century tried to force their views of what is art on the people, and to emulate them in any way strikes me as senselessly and needlessly authoritarian.
|