So I was sitting at home today, I made a cup of tea and took an apple then put them side by side. I lean to the laptop (of course) and for a moment I looked down. And it struck me as beautiful.
I mean the view from the above on the objects, the dark color of the tea, the greenness of the apple, the proportions of their shapes etc. This led me to think that if I just took a camera right now and got a picture it’d turn out beautiful. Now imagine that such photo would be considered art. If you find it hard to trust my layman’s eyes, it’s not a problem for the idea itself. Just think of some artistic photography took by a famous photographer and imagine the moment he is looking at the scene, just before he takes the photo. Suppose no filters, computer enhancement is made, he frames exactly what he sees with his eyes. I’m not an expert on photography but I’m quite sure it’s possible to take a ‘natural’ photo or something indistinctly similar to it. That’s the start.
Now look closer. What is the difference between the photo and the fragment of reality seen by the photographer just before he took it. At what point the ‘art’ is ‘born’? Does it have to be translated into some solid material? I can see two options here.
a) You can see some part of reality as ‘art’ without taking pictures, panting or telling about it. The problem is that there is no way to communicate what you see. Therefore it’s your private piece of art, only possible to grab for a second and only for your eyes. Maybe ‘ar’t is everywhere in the world, it’s like air, ready to be grabbed by anyone who is willing. In this case the artist is one who is best capable of materializing art, catching it, filming it, showing it to others. Art is everywhere, it’s easy to encounter and it only takes good intentions to feel it. The difficult problem is communicating, transmitting art, for only gifted individuals can write captivating descriptions of their experience, fears or fantasies.
b) The alternative is that art comes into being when the photo is taken. When the fragment of the world is caught, turned into letters or graphics and made available for everyone to see or feel in as a readymade version. The magic happens when the ink dries, so to speak. Or to use another metaphor you put some feelings into oven, bake them and take out an art cake. With this idea comes the conclusion that art needs an artist to create it from raw experience or thoughts. A normal person cannot touch it in its natural environment it’s only available as prepared by artist and showed to people. There is no easy translating here, the art itself happens ‘inside’ the mind of an artist. It’s probably close to a romantic vision of a genius poet etc.
I feel guilty for over theorizing such a touchy subject. The only thing I can do now is to refrain from any suggestions and evaluations. I won’t try to persuade you that one of the two is better or more reasonable.
But, well, after all, how can I deny that every person should be entitled to his/her own art?