TechJohnson, a member of the LockerGnome community, asks:
Chris Pirillo shares his own feelings about this notion in the video below, but I believe that what passes as art is all in the senses of the beholder. Mirriam-Webster defines art as “the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects,” though I think I’d add that what makes art most potent is its ability to express something born in the brain of an artist and convey it by unique sensation into the brain of an observer; offering a new perspective to an old idea might be an added bonus.
Some fuddy duddies wouldn’t call Picasso art. My grandparents didn’t think the Beatles were much more than noise, let alone art. Truman Capote famously dismissed the works of Jack Kerouac by saying (in various ways, depending on the source) “That’s not writing, that’s typing.” Vikings burned countless illuminated manuscripts and made fun of monk haircuts while raiding monasteries for a couple of tumultuous centuries. But just because art is scoffed doesn’t necessarily make it less valid.
Who am I to say that what you’re creating — whether it’s a fever-dreamt oil painting, a rousing folk song, an angle-free sculpture, a clever hoax, a drool-inducing three-course meal, a hoppy cask of beer, a risque photograph, or a scathing blog post — isn’t art? Maybe I don’t happen to care for its aesthetics or its execution, but are you expressing something in the act of its creation? Then I would label it as valid art. It might not move me, and I may not get it, but that just means a connection was merely lost in translation and the artist shouldn’t be blamed any more than Welsh words hitting my ears without meaning are to be blamed for my inability to understand them.
How do you define art? What strikes you with awe or bores you to yawns? Do you consider yourself an artist of some medium or another? How do you express yourself? Drop us a comment and let’s talk turkey (itself sometimes considered an art form).