Tuesday, 11 December 2012

Is this art?

"art praxis is only recognised as such if it is paradoxical. If an artwork looks like art, then it is regard not as art but as kitsch. If art looks like non-art, then it is simply non-art. In order to be recognised as art, art should look like art and simultaneously like non-art" ~ Boris Groys

This is probably a good first question to tackle for a blog purporting to write critically of current art trends in the medium, in an uncritical manner, whilst detailing the various projects I've undertaken and other stuff in progress (you know the earlier bird gets the Guggenheim fellowship). So lets tackle Boris' Cat [link]
Basically for me art is anything that makes you stop, think/ponder and then alters, in some way, shape or form how you look at the world, as a result. Only then does it become art.

If the work doesn’t have some kind of hook that draws you in, makes you stop in your tracks and demands nothing but your fullest attention, then it can never lead to step two or three in the process of becoming art. If it doesn’t make you think/ponder/raise questions then whilst it could be viewed as aesthetically pleasing or displeasing it won’t result in a changing and hence is not art, finally that thinking has to lead to new connections and ways of thinking. Art is thus inheritantly a game changer, moving the world forward one work at a time.    

This is to say nothing is inheritanely art just because it has been made by a person who calls themselves an artist, nor a gallery owner or museum curator with an PhD in art history from Yale proclaiming it as such, but what each individual can assign to it. Thus ones person’s trash, is another person’s 99 Cent II [link].    

So in summation most of my work isn't art and you won't see it at MoMA.   

No comments:

Post a Comment