What is art anyway? And who says it so? And when one calls oneself an artist, is there a criteria that must be met before they’re allowed this title?
I’ve recently had a number of discussions around this topic. Ranging from “art must be meaningful” to “art is frivolous, and can be meaningless and yet still be considered art”. The debate has been raging for eons, with no conclusive outcome.
Art is what it is.
The artist is the the facilitator of the thing considered to be art.
Websters definition of an artist is below:
Definition of artist
1a: one who professes and practices an imaginative art
b: a person skilled in one of the fine arts
2: a skilled performerespecially : ARTISTE
3: one who is adept at something con artiststrikeout artist
4aobsolete : one skilled or versed in learned arts
barchaic : PHYSICIAN
carchaic : ARTISAN sense 1
Therefore and by definition, I am an artist on the basis of 1a. And so I present to you my latest piece of art.
At once both meaningful and meaningless, I created this work on the basis of an imaginative musing. Inspired by colour, light and reflection - not particularly surprising qualities a photographer might be drawn to. I wanted to create a scene of peace, hope and reflection and a return to life in colour after a time experimenting with low light and dark tonality.
This is my first work I am offering as a print for purchase.
And I’m terrified.
What if it is meaningless? Does that make it less valid as a contribution to the world? And what if it is meaningful? And someone ascribes value to a thing I made that hasn’t earned that?
These are not my questions to answer. Instead it it my duty to make the thing, accept it in all its ambiguity and offer it to you.
If you would like to order a print I am offering a limited run of ten A2, signed and unframed fine art prints at $150.00 AUD plus shipping each on a first in, first served basis.
Visit the shop to purchase.