 |
| WAL'ART gertics11 |
They must be boring so that it has become to be what it is right now, and some may call these as works of art. But why? They are just upgraded versions of our doodling during childhood; and what the heck, I can do better by just drawing a single line on a white paper using a pencil; and then call my work a sketch using charcoal. Also when one gets mad, one can even come up with a unique abstract work that no artist can replicate (and that includes oneself). Then, another argument comes up to refute the work, and there we go, we have a full-blown debate that might soon deteriorate to a fight.
So, what is art? Is it something that we should rationalize? At some point, yes, but I think as we go along, we might realize that what weighs more is the unique experience that we have after we had met the artist halfway. This is also about our subjective connection towards the work; and in this case, it would be actually foolish, especially on the more abstract renditions, if we insist on our understanding and criticism of the work over those held by another. If I'm the kind of a person that tend to rationalize everything, then art would be something useless; definitely, because it is something that I cannot understand or fully rationalize. Art leans more on the subjective side, so in this case, we can say that every human being is artistic. So next time around, say to your frustrated friend, "Everything will be all right, pal. Every person has artistic ability, and soon you will find your proper audience." (And then, both of you ended up on a tour of different mental institutions.)
Though art tells something about how the artist sees the world at a certain point in time, it is indeed something that we don't really understand. In this case, if we don't understand one another, at least we can give a compliment; well, depending on the degree of misunderstanding, e.g. "You are such a (great) piece of artwork."
Art has something to do with personal connection, e.g. between the artist and the prospective viewers. In this case, whether the artist recognizes it or not, there is responsibility involved, especially when presented to a wider audience. (What if the whole world finds the work offensive? You bet, the outer space is the place to be.) Now, this is where the responsible and the not-so-responsible artwork enters, and then the boring and the not-so-boring. Would it be great if we have the not-so-boring and at the same time responsible art pieces scattered around? (But hey, aren't the responsible ones considered *boring* these days?)
Let's face it; there are mediocre art pieces and then the excellent ones. (You gotta be kidding me; those stereotypes are subjective too!). In the case of the so-called excellent ones - well, like diamonds - they are kind of rare and endured the test of time. They are considered interesting pieces of work. Hmm, define interesting? Interesting means that the work gives greater possibilities for interpretation. (Now, I'm getting more convinced that a piece of dirt on a white paper is one of the most interesting pieces of art ever.)
Think about the Bible. As the time went on, it has become more and more interesting, and then it endured the test of time, and even more. From a religious perspective, it has a divine origin; so in that respect, it is a special kind of "art work". Although it did not dramatically fall from the sky in its current whole form to attest its divine origin, it came from a chorus of several inspired "artists", all of them fallible entities of nature. By taking the religious perspective, they are fallible entities that came up with extraordinary harmony of gist (you bet; that's the divine part). Since it is by nature a religious piece of "art work", we should meet the "artists" of the Bible halfway first, meaning it is best to talk to all of them if ever any of them is still alive. (Oh, sorry; I think there's none. So the unbroken lineage of descendants should work.) And then if one has done that, then it would be apt to find that subjective connection to the work as a whole.
Now going back to those walls that we have here, we should ask the artists first why the walls are so boring, and why draw a big mess on top of them. Then, we form that subjective connection to the walls, oh sorry, to the big mess on top of them; oh sorry again, I mean, to the art work drawn on them. (Kidding aside, I find these graffiti works cool.)
