"Nonart is whatever has not yet been accepted as art but has caught an artist's attention with the possibility in mind."
"Art art's greatest challenge, in other words, has come from within its own heritage, from a hyperconsiousness about itself and its every-day surroundings. Art art has served as an instructional transition to its own elimination by life."
This was a pretty lengthy read. The first section is the one that resonates the most to me. Viewing things as nonart is something weird for me. I have always imaged myself an artist creating art in a new and intuitive way. So what is the real definition of new?
I am very interested by his notion of play and art. Experimentation is what keeps me interested in being an artist. Without it, it would be like work. "Serious practicalities, competition, money, and other sobering considerations get int he way... the result is not play; it is work." Why does it have to be categorized as play though? Why cant it just be another way to art? Why does art have to fit the mold of being art? Why cant it just be creation? All to often, I get the question, how did you think of that? Well it is through research and wanting to find something else to interest my time. It is nothing special or overly unique. It is just the unnerving desire to keep moving and experimenting. I feel alot of people view my work as nonart and I'm OK with that.
No comments:
Post a Comment