The Name of Art

Art as such is not magic. A piece of art may be a piece of s… for assigning that name to it will never add to its value. There is good art and bad art.

Any human creation is art. If I draw a stickman on a scrap of paper, that is art right there, but since I am lousy at drawing, that skinny character will be a rotten piece of art.

There’s art all around me, but most of it is crap. Any small combination of color and form, sounds and rhymes, words and whims, must qualify as art, although the really interesting bits are far between.

Great art is wonderful and that’s why I insist on this broad definition of the subject. Unfortunately, there is a common perception that art is something outside of the normal human circulation. It belongs in exhibitions and art schools, but once it has reached these confinements, it is automatically elevated to something higher. Any educated individual is then expected to show a broadminded admiration for everything that is thus given the magical name of art.

Such a sweeping tolerance for everything that the so-called art world has arbitrarily chosen to admit, obscures the idea of greatness. The true wonders of human creation can be found both inside and outside of galleries and trash is also likely to appear in both places.

If something is given a label, that shouldn’t affect our judgment of it. The official art world has profited from the obscurity of the concept to grant the name of art as an exclusive honor demanding acceptance or rejection according to it arbitrary verdict.

Art is everywhere, but great art is scarce. Look around you. It appears where it is not expected, and it is absent where it’s supposed to be.