Asking the right questions about art

2011-05-22

While having yet another online conversation about art and what it is, I was recently struck by an amazing revelation. My view of art, what it is, and how to look at it has changed, I think, and although this view may be unorthodox or even heretical to some, it makes the most sense of anything I’ve heard or read about art to this point in my life. Here it is: It doesn’t matter what art is. “What is art?” is an irrelevant question.

After four years in college being constantly tackled with this question, I think I’m finally through with it. It doesn’t matter. There are three reasons for this: One, because it seems like these days anything anyone wants to call art can be; Two, because it just seems like a label that the elites put on something in order to tell us that we should care about it; and three, it seems like a way for some people to dismiss things they don’t like by saying something isn’t art. Two and three art quite related.

To boil the whole problem down, though, it’s that we’re asking the wrong questions. Instead of asking if something is art, we ought to actually discuss the piece and see what it means to us and what it does for us. Then we can begin to actually interact with the piece. Basically, the question should be, “Do you like it?” and then the reasons why or why not. Let’s stop trying to come up with a concrete and objective definition of an abstract and subjective idea.

It’s subjective, because as I said anything can be art if someone wants it to be. Poo in a can is art. Video games are art. Nature is art. Mass produced items are art. Anything is art according to someone.

As I also said, it’s basically just a label that really means “This is good” or “This is bad.” Elites use it to elevate something to an important status. Other people dismiss certain pieces they don’t like by saying they aren’t art. Why not just get to the heart of it? Forget the label and just tell me what you think of it.

I just wish I’d come up with this earlier. I’d love to have been in an art class and blurt this out.

Telephones and Calculators

2010-11-14

I’m often confused by the difference between the configuration of the numbers on calculators and telephones. It’s fairly similar, with the three by three grid for numbers 1 through 9, and then the zero placed underneath. The difference is that on calculators, the 1 is at the bottom left, and the numbers go up in value from left to right and up from there. This is the same for keypads on computers. On phones, however, the 1 is on the top left, and the numbers go up in value from left to right and down from there.

Why are they different?

According to this handy telephone timeline, the first touch-tone telephone was introduced in 1963. I can only assume that the number configuration for telephones has not changed since then. According to Wikipedia, as well as a few other places I looked, the first pocket calculators, came out in the 1970s. It seems to me that the people developing the calculators could have at least talked to the people developing the touch-tone phones and said, “Hey, the numbers on our keypads are in a similar configuration, but they’re too different. Why don’t we synchronize them?”

Why do I care?

Because it just gets frustrating when I make a lot of phone calls and then need to use a calculator. I’ve just gotten used to the configuration of the numbers on the phone, and the calculator looks kind of similar, so I just start pressing where I remember the numbers being before. That doesn’t work, and I mess up a lot. It’s frustrating.

Look, I know it would be a problem to change the phone keypad configuration, because of the nicely placed pound and star buttons on either side of the 0. Could we switch up the calculator/computer keypad, though? It couldn’t happen without some people noticing, but I think it would work. We have to get some more people on this. More people have to care about this than just me, right?

Right?

I sure hope so.

UPDATE: I noticed that television remote controls also follow the telephone configuration method. Also, 10-key keypads on computer keyboards follow the calculator method. The plot thickens…

Everything Comes Full Circle

2010-01-29

To begin, a link to Flickr:

Alexa Meade’s Photostream

These are the photographs (yes, photographs) of Alexa Meade. Be sure to look at all of them. If you look at a couple of isolated ones, you may not believe that they’re photographs. They are photographs set up to look like they are paintings. The surroundings and the models are all painted in order to create the illusion.

All I could think as I looked at them was that everything had come full circle.

Every artist is aware of the quest of some to create artwork that is as photorealistic as possible. Many of us find this tedious and pointless, and find that photorealism lacks a certain something, a certain life that paintings that are less photorealistic have. Those with the patience and the drive, however, strive to create paintings that people may mistake for photographs. Some have succeeded.

Alexa Meade has gone the opposite route. She is creating photographs that people will mistake for paintings. Please go take a look. You won’t be disappointed.