What the Heck is Art: Quote Response

"The point is, that every piece of art changes your whole perception of the rest of the world for the rest of your life.
And it's not a joke! And if it doesn't, then it's not art, it's a commodity."
- Lawrence Weiner responding to a question from Liam Gillick in "Between Artists"
pg20


Without blinking an eye, or giving a second thought, I can say I disagree with this quote on a very basic level. I don’t believe in extremes when it comes to philosophy, and I don’t believe it is the truth to say never. Weiner does so in saying that art can never be art and a commodity. I disagree with the severity of his statement.

I also happen to disagree with the first part of the quote, which states that each piece of art must change your perception of life in order to gain the moniker of art. Once again, I must disagree with the severity of the point. I believe art is an experience, an experience for the creator and the viewer. And with all experiences in life, art’s impact varies from person to person for various reasons and factors whose list is too long to reasonably formulate. Some experiences shape a person, defining them for the rest of their lives; others are fleeting moments easily forgotten or tossed aside. Not every experience leaves a lasting mark, at least not an evident one. Because of this I cannot agree that art must change your perceptions to be art.

Can art be art and a commodity? Sure. Why not? Artists sell their work every day, as a necessity to live in a world that revolves around wealth. If an artist sells his work, does that make it a commodity? Can art be created separate from the need for monetary investment, only later to be turned into a cash-making device? If the answer is no, then the term working-artist seems a bit silly to me. Maybe I’m not delving into this deep enough.

What does it mean to be a working artist? To me, without any experience in being one, it means to be able to create art and simultaneously survive in a society that necessitates personal wealth. Sure, you could go off the grid, live life as a hermit, and be autonomous of the restraints of a capitalist society; creating art. But then I do not think one deserves the title of working artist, a title specifically tailored for that society the hermit shuns.

Since the Renaissance, artists have been shifting the artist’s identity from craftsmen to creator. Centuries ago, art was a pure commodity. The Church or other wealthy patrons commissioned artists to create works of art whose subject matter they often had little control over. The patrons knew what they wanted, and the artists knew they had to deliver. In this era, art was a pure commodity, as the artist did not create to create, but to get paid. This has changed over the centuries, and an artist no longer is a craftsmen hired to depict religious scenes. An artist is able to develop his own ideas, work on what has meaning to him, and establish his artistic vision for others to see. While this vision may not reach everyone, or affect everyone it touches, it is out there. Artists working to expand the mind and the world are something that was nonexistent centuries previous.

I believe an artist can create art that is both art, and something that makes money. While the art is less of a commodity than say, a bar of soap, but is nonetheless a commodity the artist relies on for moneymaking. Whether the art is created with profit in mind or a profit is made from a piece of art made for art’s sake is an important distinction. But I think both can still be called art. Who am I to say otherwise?

I don’t like the seriousness attributed with saying that art must change your perceptions of the world forever to earn the title of art. I don’t like the lack of humor. I don’t feel any laughter from the quote. You need laughter, in art, and well, everywhere.

And maybe Weiner is correct. The danger in his quote is that each human will perceive art in different ways. Some works may resonate heavily with one person (possibly even change some perceptions) while not even eliciting a blink of an eye from the next person. In that way, each person can develop what he considers art, or not art. What styles, eras and movements one person believes to be art another may dismiss as silly musings. Maybe Weiner is correct, that the only art in your life is the stuff that changes your world perceptions and opens your mind. My art may different than your art, but we definitely both have art. I could get behind that. But I like to think I can enjoy something for simpler reasons and still call it art.