Is art, really, in the eye of the beholder?
From literary arts, visual arts, performing arts, martial arts, and culinary arts, to healing, esoteric and other disciplines or activities, which have been or may be referred to as art, in fields not excluding religion, science and technology, art is all around us. So, we may ask, "what makes art real?"
During my routine contemplations of life, the universe and everything, inevitably lending to philosophical revisitings of quandaries on purpose and art, I found the opportunity to, gratuitously, link a current Bhai Landi art project to the age old discussion of what makes art "real."
Have you ever tried to imagine what the world would look like without art?
There are endless volumes of great literary works juxtaposing anthropological, elitist and other countless perspectives on art, and its authenticity. For many, the legitimacy of art is not so convoluted. It comes down to a matter of feelling.
For a long time, I thought of art, as bougeois, the bastard child of a lost age, anxt ridden, yet somehow, full of hope and naive wizdom. Now, it feels that art which has not followed this legacy into a new age of home decor, or become the slave of advertising is like the funky cousin of religion and politcs, which may evoke and provoke emotion, within certain perameters.
While, I value delving into complex subject matter, such as whether or not art must disrupt or steer popular thinking to be of substance or if real art is "allowed" to have another function, and I appreciate the lengths to which scholars and historians go, to try manage a context for art, overwhelmingly, I think of art as an opportunity to bridge perceptual gaps and I encourage others to consider doing the same. My sense is that contemplations and discussions about art are closer to the essence of art, as an entity, (in contact with the collective consciousness,) than more adversarial posturing and debate.
Simply, when I close my eyes and imagine a world without the artist spirit, I see all the colors and compositions of nature's art by day and by night, only the sillouette of natures glory under the moonlit sky. Without the vision, discipline and ingenuity of the early fire carriers, where would we be? Without the artisan spirit of creation and innovation, we would not have even basic tools or eating utincils. And fashion, our dwellings, our means of transportation, our communication, our gadgets and commerce as we know it would be but a space age, phychedelic fantasy.
To wrap it up, and tie in our current project, I won't go into all the ways that I am thrilled to experience an age, for better or for worse, where art is everywhere, accessible to everyone, or how I believe in the the marriage of timeless tradition of tribe artisanry and post impressionistic influences, as seen in our new hand/knife crafted Trip Sticks, walking sticks with a hypnotic twist. I will just point out the obvious that conflict is in our midst, and when we are enticed to argue what constitutes real art or stewardship or god, for that matter, we may feel good about allowing other's to enjoy what inspires them, just as we appreciate others respecting our own inspiration.
So, do I believe that art is in the eye the beholder?
Maybe, qualifications of art are best left to the critic and the art experience is best left to the "heart" of the beholder. What do you feel?
Thank you, grazie, gracias, danyavaad, merci... xoxoxo