Accidental Art?

So, who defines "art?" The creator or the viewer?

When a critic sees "mature art" and "emotional expression" in something created by a playful child, is it art? When an adult creates a work of meaningful personal expression that is not received well by the critical community, is it still "art?"

When a child creates something that perfectly captures the playfulness of a child, is that worth celebrating? I wonder if the AMPAS would award an Oscar to an actor who played an English king with a speech impediment if he actually WAS an English king with a speech impediment?
Interesting.

http://shine.yahoo.com/event/momentsofmotherhood/4-year-old-aelita-andre-gets...

Posted via email from duaneco's posterous

Comments

[Sean McMains]

It's an interesting conversation, isn't it? In general, I tend to give the modernists attention only after they've learned and demonstrated some mastery in the more realistic, representative forms. Otherwise, it just looks too much like taking a lazy shortcut. (Which probably means I'm a closed-minded anti-aesthete.)

[duane]

Yes, it is absolutely fascinating! John Dewey has some useful insight in "Art as Experience," which suggests that art is primarily the experience of the recipient. Of course, he would also suggest that the creation of the work of art plays a part in that experience, which in my mind would exclude the playful color-splashing of a 4-year-old.

The discussion takes a different tack when you start talking about the performing arts, and specifically of interest to me, music. And for the record, I think we avoid this kind of discussion all too often in our undergraduate programs!