I thought I might get things rolling here with something that interests me. As I'm sure all are aware, school budget cuts in the area of the "arts" have been prevalent over the past decade. Why funding to public schools would be cut at all is perhaps another discussion. But for now, I have to wonder why art programs are singled out. Having just returned from Florence, I was surrounded by a city that once fostered the attitude that art was a reflection of its own image, and helped the artisan transition to the artist. I think the crisis today lies in our iconic image of what art is. I struggle to define it myself. Form seems to have deteriorated. I see this everyday in my own field of architecture. There was once a way, or a medium, and now (for example) the demands of a contemporary art museum are nearly boundless, as the pieces on display may not even be materialistic. While I personally feel that in theory this lack of "form", as we will call it, opens new avenues and possibilities of exploration, I still feel that it has to be weighted with some sense of reality in the end, or the average person will meet it only with sharp skepticism. Hence, perhaps budget cuts? If art is still the reflection of our time, what is the nature of our age? Collective and directional? Aimless and personal?
You bring up many great points in your post. It truly is unforutnate that the "arts" have to suffer budget cuts in the public school systems unfortunately, that has been and continues to be the nature of the beast. Consider high school athletics in comparison to high scholl music programs and art programs. Atheltics, although not exempt form cuts, seem to survive for one reason or another. My guess is that the competitive nature of sports programs and the inclusion in district, state and regional divisions help to provide more revenue for the schools than does the "arts" programs. Does that mean that this is right? Of course not but history has proven time and again that money talks. I also agree that we are in a kind of bind because in order for the "average" person to understand "art" and to see why continued funding of these programs is necessary, we need to create limits and boundaries in order to define what should be limitless and without boundaries (art). In a perfect world, art would not need to be defined and would not have boundaries. Imposing these sorts of boundaries only works towards limiting "artists" creativity and vision. However, it is not surpirsing to me that this difference in art appreciation exists when comparing the culture of the United States and the culture you found in Italy. There is a long tradition and history of fine art in Italy that does not exist in the United States.
I mostly agree with what you've written. It's interesting that you say "money talks", because I feel that these said limitations have already been imposed to some degree, and for this very reason. If you look at the difference between commercial art design and "free lance" art, it's striking. I read today an article about the top ten growing career fields between 2004 and 2014. Most are all related to computer science. The money being spent for graphic design and web design, on the global scale, has to far exceed that parcelled out for independent comissions. Hence, we no longer have the canvas as our medium of visual art. We have the jpeg.
I guess this opens the much discussed issue of defining art in this digital age. As a photographic traditionalist for years I have had to slowly become part of the digital world. I can remember when the digital photo was scorned at and debated and debased as something less than an honest photographic effort. I rarely see this dialogue occuring now that digital has "taken over". I must however drag out this topic as one still must question whether digital manipulation which is now called digital art is in the same league as the painful and meticulous manipulations that an Ansel Adams performed in producing a final print. This is without taking into account the painstaking work done with measuring exposure, composing and capturing an image. Now most people set their digitals on program and shoot away. The new mantra is " I just take a thousand pictures until I get a good one because I can just erase the losers and start all over again". Then if your picture is not quite right you can take it into a photo editor and crop it and lighten, darken, sharpen or even change it into a painting. Somehow I think the thought process and the attention to fine detail in capturing an image is,in many cases, being forsaken for the convenience snd forgiving nature of digital capture. Digital is here to stay so to argue to abandon this would be pure folly. Rather I stress that this form of image capture be held to a high standard and that the thought process not be abandoned and that one should use that thought process to capture the most accurate and well composed image before resorting to photoprocessing software.
Albus Rex
I believe that art is in the eye of the beholder. By this, I mean that what I think of as art, you may think of as trash, not that you would because if nothing else, you respect other people's visions and perceptions, but someone may view it as trash. Sure there are technical skills that one can learn and practice that may make them a more competent or consistent artist, but just like in music, there are one hit wonders. Their work music is no less enjoyable or artistic than others, however they may not possess the skills to consistently put out new work of art. By stating this I'm in no way insinuatating that taking a digital photograph is a sign of incompetence. The point I'm trying to make is that every creative work that any individual produces should be considered a work of art, regardless of its appeal to to the individual viewing it.
Well, as if you didn't see this coming, I think it should stand beside the work of one who's work is more advanced. This work is still your creation. It came from your mind and from your heart. It will evoke emotions in some viewers and no emotions in others. Art shouldn't have requirements such as amount of work or skill level, associated with it. Art is purely expression. In my opinion, any work of art should stand next to any other work of art. Although some works may earn seemingly immortal reputaions, other works should not be dismissed as a work of art and ignored just becuase they have not captured the attention of the majority. Chances are, someone out hter appreciates that work and considers it a "work of art."
I agree that art is in the eye of the beholder. Something that is an expression of oneself, no matter how it has been produced, can still be appreciated as art, most definetely. But I do think, having studied music most of my life, that something produced from pure talent is something to really be respected and appreciated. Anyone can digitally enhance a picture, but how many people can really put all the work and skill into producing a quality piece of art without the help of modern technology. Similarly, anyone can sing a sontg and perfect it with some computer program (or whatever is used to do that!), but how many people out there can really sing? We have software out there to put the music we play straight onto sheet music, but how many people actually know how to write? There's something more to be appreciated when art has been created through real talent. At least I think so.
I would argue that it is difficult to separate production from product in the case of art. While today's technology may facilitate the production aspect to a degree, the product itself I believe is the piece of analysis. There are "cheap" ways to arrive at a seemingly masterful product, to be sure. In the world of the professional arts, however, time is nearly always the driving factor. So we work now in a period of stasis, using technology to create pre-existing mediums of expression in less time and by less skilled artists. The revolution, I believe, will come when our software, our technology, is used to create a new medium, something that would otherwise have been impossible to create by conventional means. At that point, the software used becomes a simple tool through which the artist can express emotion (or rationale) in a way that few others can, much in the way the paint brush once was used.
I think that using programs, machines, etc. to perfect a work or enhance a product does not necessarily mean that the product is less worthy of being considered "art". Creating in photoshop, or adobe pagemaker, not to mention some of the higher end programs Dave showed me, still takes creativity and inspiration. Using these programs, or music software to digitally enhance a song, is the eqivalent of using a paintbrush instead of your finger, or drumsticks instead of the palms of your hands. The "art" and creativity is still present, its just that the tools used in creation were less traditional. I could write a hit song using nothing but my computer, with pre-loaded sounds and recording software. The only difference is that my instrument of choice would have been my computer rather than a guitar. Would this indicate that I am less of a musician? I don't think so.
I agree with your position, more or less. My only point is that the proper use of contemporary technology, to create a "masterpiece", should be to advance art in a way that it otherwise could not have been. I think music is a good example because of the evolution of musical instruments, or perhaps more appropriately, musical technology. Advances in musical genres have followed closely with the progression of its technology (i.e. the violin, the drum kit, the synthesizer)... The advent of the violin was groundbreaking, but if it had only been used to imitate its predecessors, the full orchestra may have never come to realization. My point is, that in the art world, software and technology can be used to create valid works of art in shorter time than one who had been using traditional methods of production. The effort and time put into creating the piece of art does not take away its art status (let's not forget that the argument has been made already that art need not take any time to make at all, in the case of the "ready-mades", such as
Duchamp's "Fountain"). Contemporary methods, however, will only be appreciated, when they take us to a medium, a work, that is so far reaching that it is beyond our time... which is entirely possible.