I had a strange conversation with someone today. I don't remember how, but we got to talking about photography. And he said that as an art form, he ranked it the lowest. He then amended himself and said that dance was actually lower on his personal scale. And I was aghast...
I guess I can kind of think of having a scale of which types of arts you like best to least. Or even having a scale of art in your head (or heart) that's ranked from most imaginative to least imaginative (perhaps going from collage or maybe some forms of rap to coming up with an entirely new musical composition). But how do you defend the ideas behind that? I mean, it's all just opinion, but can you really think that one form of art is particularly superior to another, or is particularly more or less devoid of creativity?
The conversation got cut short so I couldn't explore it with him, but now it has my head spinning. I suppose every person who considers him/herself an artist thinks their oeuvre is the highest (I would suppose), but is any form of art higher or lower than another? Does one form of art intrinsically mean something more than another?
He seemed to think music was the highest form of art. Is it because it personally touched his life in ways that other art didn't/doesn't? Is it because it's something he can create himself? Is it because it's something he can't create himself? Doh! I'll never know, I'm just left with these unanswerable questions.
So I might as well pose some more that have swum around my brain at various points: Are artists born or made? I know that you can nurture and develop a talent, or that through dint of much practice you can become good enough to be seen as an artist. But are you an artist simply because you have skill with something (painting, sculpture, piano playing, etc.), or because you bring something more to what you do?
I suppose there's the dictionary definition of the word, but is there something more to being an artist? Is art in the eye of the beholder, or is it in the heart of the beholder (so something that doesn't move you to feel something - even negative - isn't really art), or is it in the eye of the creator?
Is being an artist and being creative intertwined or synonymous? I consider myself creative in many ways (I put together ideas in new ways, or see new ways of getting to a solution that no one else has tried before), but is that the same as being artistic? Does the act of creation make you an artist (i.e. if I created a document that hasn't existed before - does that make me an artist)?
Posted by cshell at September 7, 2004 09:12 PMIt sounds like your friend's idea of art is wrapped up not so much in creativity as in craft... how much work and skill is involved in the creation of a work of art. The trouble with that is that the craft that goes into something is not necessarily evident to the outsider. If he doesn't dance or have friends who dance, it's likely that he doesn't understand the level of physical and mental commitment that requires.
Incidentally, Oscar Wilde also thought that music was the highest form of art (not the form he was actually skilled at) because it was pure form (I guess he's assuming no lyrics) without moral agenda.
Posted by: meta at September 8, 2004 10:51 AMi think art has to do with how honest someone is in the act of creation. to consider a whole genre of art as superior or inferior to another is just too general and superficial.
after all... art is subjective and it touches us all in different ways.
Posted by: honeyfields at September 8, 2004 07:50 PM