Our friend S. D. Smith, over at his blog, meditates profoundly (I think) on the question of limits in art. I agree with him entirely.
In fact, if I had to define art, I think my definition would be something like this— “Art is an endeavor in which an artisan uses some physical medium with sufficient skill that the medium seems to disappear, and something greater than the medium is communicated.” Art is a synergy between artist, material and audience.
That’s what so many modern artists don’t seem to understand. They’ve accepted a subjective definition of art, one that says that art is all about the artist’s subjective feelings and his expression of them—in any form whatever. There are no absolute values. Hang a urinal on a wall? What right do you (philistine that you are) to say it’s not art? Compose a concerto that consists of a period of total silence? It expresses my feelings in ways that you peasants will never comprehend, so it’s art. Lapdancing? If you don’t understand it, don’t judge it.
The true artist struggles with his medium, entering into it intimately, so that he can make it do things nobody ever thought it could. A painting that looks like a photograph—or like a dream. A sculpture that looks like a living being—only the way living beings ought to be, not the way they are in our experience A song that reaches into the listener’s soul and brings up his deepest aspirations and sorrows, so that he weeps just as if he’d just lost—or gained–the love of his life.
Lewis and Tolkien called it “subcreation.” They could call it that because they believed in a Creator. Today’s artists, by and large, don’t believe in a Creator; they believe in accidents. So all they can do is try to re-create accidents.
They do believe in one absolute, universally applicable, value, though—that the public is obligated to pay for their art.
The NEA used to finance stupid art. Now they seem to be morphing into a more effective(1) role in propaganda financing.
(1) Not all effects are benign. This one probably won’t be.
Wow, talk about missing the point.
You entirely missed the point that Duchamp’s “Fountain” was all about anti-art, about anti-academy and definitions of art. That in fact his putting a urinal on the gallery wall was to make the same point you make by decrying the urinal on the wall.
In other words, you don’t even know what you’re objecting to. LOL
As for Lewis and Tolkein . . . maybe Tolkein had a clue about what art is or could be. But Lewis? Not remotely.
It’s always nice to have an opinion and sometimes it is even nice to share your opinion with others.
However, I don’t believe Mr. Durkee is necessarily correct or incorrect in all aspects. Maybe…maybe not… it is his opinion only.
Actually, I can see both views; Lars and Mr. Durkee’s. As an art/photography/art history major in college, I’ve seen both many times. Great debates, thesis, books and essays have resulted.
But, to ridicule some other person’s opinion the way Mr. Durkee has done in his post is most rude and cruel. (Truthfully, it reminds me of some of our more liberal, progressive friends. (Tolerance is the corner-stone of all man-kind…as long as man-kind agrees with them.)
So, as strongly as you feel about this Mr. Durkee, and as much as you could be telling us something grand in how we might look at “art”…I just can’t seem to wed your opinion into my thought processes. I guess I’m just not that tolerant…of rude behavior.