art has different meanings to different people, or at least entails different things.  for a long time i think art was simply taken by what it is, not needing a name, easily recognized and understood; now people more and more like to “challenge” our definition of art.

art is hard to define, and harder still to have people agree upon that definition, this i think has greatly led to people destroying much of the meaning of the word altogether and has led it to being thrown around in description for absolutely “anything”, especially when people are trying to describe something as simply being at a masterful skill level.  in that sense people can argue that bagging groceries is an art, or that the gestures a factory worker performs is an art.  all i can say is that’s not my “art”, an artists touch will impact everything they do from how they decorate their house to how they make their waffles, but that doesn’t lend itself to mean every thing they touch or do is art.  i’m fine with people saying art is everywhere; i’m not fine with people saying everything is art.  nature is not art, but capturing a moment of it within a photograph is, and to me, every piece of art tells a story, even if the story is a lie, or tends to differ.

i personally segregate arts between what we commonly know as “fine arts” and pretty much “everything else”, even music for the most part.  there’s already definable words and explanations for what a person does or is, this person is a musician, a guitarist, a singer, a vocalist, a drummer, a designer, director, actor, engineer, dancer… and of course painters, sculptors, illustrators, and photographers~

what seperates things to me is what the end product is, what did you create?

what is a song? it’s music, a concept which is instantly understood around the world.
what is a blueprint? it’s a design, a no nonsense unembellished map of construction.
what is a mechanical construct? it’s a machine or utility, engineers solve problems of practicality, they don’t “make art”, they “make use”.

yet things like this people often relate or describe as being an art.

now what is a painting, a drawing, a sculpture? it’s art, and unlike the previous there’s simply no other way to explain it or describe it, which is why it’s called art all the time, not just when someone wants to boast about being an “ar-teest”.  these are the very things that the word “existed to describe” when coined, and is where the term art for art’s sake came from in the sense of explaining its differences from things which are not art and are created for specific uses or functions; which is of course indicative of “applied art” when people began implementing it into other things which are not art but benefit from it.

art isn’t by any defining purposes is not necessarily ever expected to, supposed to, and definitely not require to have a “use”, which is what separates it from everything else, and why music as well as photography is so easily added to the list of what people refer to as “arts”.

something that flat out pisses me off however is anyone and everyone at the drop of a dime being able to somehow feel justified in calling themselves an artist despite their proficiency, capability, or experience.  though i can’t win the argument in saying that they aren’t, i have issues with most people who will claim themselves to be an “ar-teest” when a lack of effort and passion is present nonetheless.  in retrospect i am at least afforded the right to critique something as being bad art and/or able to question any truth to their motives, i know many people are quick to defend that there is no such thing as bad art, my only question is how they are able to then say something is “good”.  if you want to see some bad art i don’t have to point fingers, i’ve made plenty of it myself over the years.  whether someone appreciates it is completely beside the point of “achieving the intent”.  taking snapshots with a disposable camera does not mean you’re a photographer, taking them with a six thousand dollar one doesn’t either; even getting a good shot means nothing without intent or understanding.  it’s the same logic one would use in saying it doesn’t matter if in shooting and killing 25 people, that one of them happened to be a criminal, what merit is added to your actions even if someone does admire the fact you killed someone they destested?

that’s not to say it is not a simple pleasure and convenience which people should be afforded to be able to take pictures of whatever captures their interest themselves, or that they should be the slightest bit concerned how someone else thinks they turn out, but how many people would you trust your wedding pictures to?  most likely it’s going to be a professional “photographer”, not your cousin bill and his 3 dollar disposables.  people are going to bring their cameras for their own interests, a photographer is such a case is going to be looking out for yours.  any photo will show a captured moment, but the purpose of taking your own photos is to capture your moments, but is it art?

i’m always reluctant and somewhat uneasy about claiming myself to be an artist, but art is what i make; if i made music i’m pretty sure i’d call myself a musician, if i drafted up blueprints i’d most assurdly call myself an architectural/mechanical designer.  so why are these things so often turned around and rather called art?  do people think it portrays what they do in a better light?  why is artist of the year a music award?  why isn’t it musician of the year, composer of the year, or songwriter of the year?  why does it even bother me i wonder.

some see art as being superflous and nothing special, essential, or of contribution to society, i see art as being more special than most talents or endeavors for the simple fact that unlike so many other things it is not essential, and i see no limit to what it gives people.  art is not about utility, use, or function; it’s meant for purposes of appreciation and expression.  take a glass sculpture compared to one of stone or metal, does it not make sense that among the very reasons the glass will by many be preferred and considered more precious by most, is because that it is fragile, and as such it must be appreciated, handled, treated, and looked upon differently because of it?  look at the old expression of a “glass cannon” in the aspects of art, and then in the aspects of design and engineering, see any differences yet between appreciation and expression, as compared to the simple and unmistakable utter failure in use, utility, and function?

there’s a big difference between the skill and how you use it, and a bigger difference between being an artist and producing art.  i’d look at my dentist as being an artist long before i would an engineer or drafter, and have compared and complimented their craft to that of an artist on more than one occasion.  as far as medium, and the unexistent limits of concepts go though, the true definition of art is simply in the deemed intention of the creator, which is why a toilet can be art, but your toilet is not.  the words art and artist gets thrown around so much that i think it easily rivals word “love” and how much its meaning has become depreciated.

but regardless of what art is, even if we never agree or find common ground to which we define it, there’s no mistaking that art exists to put color in our world, and sometimes does so by taking it out.  very simply… without art, and with the way we as humans are bound to continue shaping and molding the the planet we live on, we’d be living in a world very much like something a “machine” would create; bland and utterly devoid of interes.  so as a preservation to our humanity and to our identity, i see art, whatever it may be, as being absolutely necessary in our lives.

l j holbrook