My thoughts on the depreciation of the word art, its use, and application. I believe we are seeing the widespread devaluation of original art as a result. Is this appropriate?
Although art’s supposed proliferation brings one to ask… What is art and its boundaries anyway?!
I was speaking to a gallery visitor from Brisbane today which prompted me to write this blog post. I discovered she was an artist, previously a graphic designer for the Courier Mail, Brisbane, part of the Fairfax Group. I was given her insight into how art was applied and incorporated within the printed media these days and how art is perceived generally, as well as her opinions. She spoke of the changes to art and artist relationship and its role within print media.
Firstly, for some time now the paper has not employed artists, graphic artists as such, and has made them redundant. Traditional art design, the creative process involving skills, years of development, and acumen has been replaced by electronic digital crafts persons. The loss of the creativity of an original design seems to be the future. And in many instances as a result of globalisation newspaper art design is outsourced to our Asian neighbours at a cheaper cost. The point here is the creative process of art development versus technician proficiency!
We spoke further about the loss and devaluation of the art development process itself. This then led to a discussion about public confusion as to what original art actually is. We both recognised and agreed that we are seeing the devaluation of the word art, and also gallery!
The definition of art and its application has broadened and is now days applied to almost anything including: a card on the wall, a kids painting, my photo being mounted onto canvas… items perhaps produced by a 24hr art expert or a first year art student. It is further degraded by an uneducated person claiming to have experience with the arts who might use the tag:
“I’m an artist”
The title or label of an artist is one I believe that needs to be earned through the investment of time, learning, development of skills, working with masters, refinement, a process which takes years and allows one to develop one’s own art signature.
It cannot be a label applied simply by one without proper process!
What happened to the process of learning via a private or academic training in order to develop the basics of art education before lunging into art and publicly announcing ones artist status?
Painting as an amateur is fine in all manner of speaking but the line to cross is to promote oneself as an artist publicly when the title has not been earned! This is my point of question!
As far as the word gallery is concerned, its name has been relegated to any shop featuring knick knacks, a picture library online, and a name that one may want to use that has some social value or possibly implied prestige!
Has the proprietor or business earned the right to use this label?
This is the question! I realise this can be subjective I know, but clearly standard or appropriate emphasis needs to be adhered to and as such not to debase or denigrate the gallery name or that of the word and definition of “art” for that matter!
What is art to you?