What Is Art?

Many artists will say that they live and breathe art.  I find this a near impossible feat.  Art is a lot of work.  Art takes energy that most people only exert for special occasions and major life events.  I simply can't imagine any person living every moment in this way.  I would say that art lives when the artist creates and art dies when the audience forgets.  Art inhales the artist and consumes the viewer.  Art only releases either when it is finished with them. 

I have heard it said that only an artist knows when their work is finished, yet it seems to me that there is always more to be done, always a greater goal to be achieved with any work.  No work is finished in the artist's mind, yet art is not about the artist alone.  Only an audience can say if art is complete, good or relevant.  In this way visual art is not static art.  The foundation of a piece of visual art is subject to societal values and ideas during the time it is created and the concept of any piece of art is also subject to change due to current day standards or ideals.  Yet art can only be understood or appreciated by the individual viewing it.  If that individual deems that the work is unfinished, they have a choice to complete it.  This can be done, for example, by adding their own details to the piece (physically) or to make public comment on the incompleteness of the work and leave physical completion up to somebody else.  On the other hand, if an individual viewer deems a work complete they may then feel free to criticize for good or ill, they may wish to purchase or actually purchase the piece, they may steal the piece or, finally, they may dismiss it all together.

Art is creation yet art is where one finds it.  The question can never be: "Is it art?"  The question is: "Is it good art?"  The answer lies through another question: "Do you like it?"  A simple yes or no is sufficient.  The question of meaning has more relevance to art historians and critics than to the individual viewer.  The discussion of meaning among those who are not in one of the above-mentioned professions tends to disintegrate into base intellectual competition for dominance.  Because of this, many outside of the "art world" feel that they cannot judge a work of art on visual aspects alone but instead they must "understand it in the right way".  Unfortunately, this has caused many potential art viewers to be too timid to seek out art they like.  This causes the art itself to lose its power and eventually it becomes meaningless all together.

The question of meaning is a subject beyond the work itself.  If asking this question helps a viewer appreciate the work, that is their right to ask it.  However, understanding the meaning of a work of art is not necessary to the appreciation of it.  Discussions of the meaning of art should never be about who is more intelligent.  They should be about the work itself, and the simple statement of "I just like it, I don't know why" should never be discounted.  If the question "Why?" could be truly and fully answered in any subject in life it would cause that subject to lose all purpose and be ignored until all who remember the meaning are gone and the question is once again asked in ignorance. 

So I say: don't ruin visual art by insisting that it be understood by anybody other than the artist who, by default, cannot be their own audience.  Enjoy the art you enjoy and dislike the art you dislike.  Leave the question of why to those who get paid to ask it.