I have been hearing and reading a lot of art chatter lately and one recurring theme is the theory that art isn't art until it is seen and received by another. The assumption is that art requires a dialogue between the piece and the public, transcending the embryonic sphere of conception and creation, born into the world- seen. I disagree. The theory negates the process and the journey of art. Often I find that creativity is one of the few acts that almost requires the doer to dissolve into the doing and the process becomes primary to the product. Watching the creative process can be more inspiring than the end result. It troubles me that we might define art solely in terms of a product. When a piece of art is born into the public sphere, it begins a new journey, independent of it's union with the artist and takes on a life of its own. That new creation is art, when seen it generates a relationship, uniting subject and object in ongoing dialogue (especially when it has something to say). I agree that a piece of art buried beneath a bed and left unseen is no longer dynamic. That needn't blind us to the power of the process or limit our definition of art, even if it is unseen, unheard and unnoticed. It is art. And art has the power to transform us even when no one else is looking. Here is an example taken from this mornings exploration of art with Bodhi:
Bodhi began with a little paint on a brush, then on fingers, then on hands. In no time he was folding paper, making prints and drawing with pastels, chalk and pencil or scoring with fingernails and the ends of brushes. After a while it wasn't enough to simply sit. He climbed on the table to get closer to his work, all the while I stood by, in rapture.
The journey is ART.
Comments