After a heavy winter snow, a woman walks from her front door, down a winding drive, to her mailbox. Upon her return to the house, she notices the beautiful pattern of light and shadow that her footprints have left in the snow. She takes her camera and takes a series of pictures of the footprints, snow, shadow and light. She makes a large black and white print of her footprints. She studies this photo and takes charcoal and white conte and creates a mytical, lyrical drawing of the footprints.
What in this series of creations; footprints in the snow as she walked, black and white photo of her footprints, and drawing of her footprints in the snow is a work of art? If you decide that all are works of art, once the snow melts and the footprints disappear what happens to that art work? Does something have to be permenant to be a work of art?
Is there a hierarchy to art? Are the results of some mediums better art work than other mediums. Is the drawing "better" art than the photo? Is the photo better art than the melting footprints in the snow? Who decides? Is it art work if the creator of it thinks it is or is it art work if the viewer thinks it is?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe all three are works of art- the footprints in the snow, the black and white photograph of the footprints, and the drawing of the footprints. I don't think that something has to be permanent to be a work of art. Just like the snow with the footprints melts, the photo and the drawing will also fade away over time. In my opinion, all three of these mediums of art are equal. Different kinds of people appreciate different kinds of mediums more than others. I believe that if anyone, whether that be the creator or the viewer, sees something as art then it is art. However, even if someone sees something as art that doesn't mean that it is an excellent work of art.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Steph that all three are works of art. I don't think that something has to be permanent to be a piece of art. Lots of times people will use people in the art shows, in different pieces, but the people won't always be there. That doesn't make it any less of a piece of art because of that. I also don't believe that there is a hierarchy to art. I think that a drawing is equal to any other medium including photography and painting. I think that it all just depends on someone's preference as to what they like better, but that doesn't mean that it would be the best option of art either. I think that if someone does something with intentions of it being art, it's art.
ReplyDeleteThese are points well made. If this point of view is taken, that everything can be art, does the intent with which the piece was made have any bearing? If, when the person who walked to the mailbox did not intend for the footprints to be an art work, is it art? And if you decide that it is, then what value does art have? If the dirt underneath your feet, the leaf that lands on your deck, the feather that falls from the nest is all art, does art have any value? If so, who decides what that value is? And if a piece of art work does not have to be permanent, and no record is made of the fleeting piece of art, does it stop being art when the image is no lonager viewable?
ReplyDeleteI also agree that all three are works of art. For those of us who take the time to look, we realize that art exists all around us. Everyone has their own opinion about what they perceive as a work art. I think permanent and existing works of art hold value and allow others to capture its purpose/meaning, but I don't think that art has to be permanent to be remembered. In addition, I don't believe that there is a hierarchy to art. I think that all mediums capture a certain purpose and/or meaning. Specific mediums are used to better represent a meaning of a work of art. Overall, I believe that art has a deeper meaning than most people realize.
ReplyDeleteI've always shied away from the question of what is or isn't art on the grounds that, in my opinion, the worst thing you can do to art is place boundaries around it, it needs true freedom to flourish. That being said, I have to say that art should be something created, deliberately. Even you're just capturing something natural or accidental on film or physically placing it in a different context. It's the process of interpretation that a human can perform, noticing the footprints, framing them in certain lighting, that at the least makes it art. The footprints can be beautiful but I wouldn't call them art in and of themselves.
ReplyDeleteAh... an opposing view. Very good. The question of the act of creating art is a point worth debating. If you determine that the footprints in the snow are art, and we know that they were created by the person walking, but not deliberately, are they still art? I hear Sonny as weighing in on the side that might say since they were not deliberate, they aren't art. I hear Stephanie, Monica and Danielle saying that even though the footprints were not deliberate, they are still art as they exist in the snow. Anyone else have an opinion?
ReplyDeleteArt is like any other form of communication, sometimes it is intentional and other times it is unintentional. Either way, it expresses a specific message. That being said, all of these examples are forms of art. The footprints in the snow may be made unintentionally, but they can still convey a message to someone observing it. There is something beautiful about art that is not lasting. Like any other thing in life, we tend to appreciate those things that we can't have all the time. There is no regulated hierarchy in art. I feel that it all depends on the viewer and what they bring to a certain piece.
ReplyDeleteSo .... I go back to the one question about this that bothers me ... if all three of these objects; unintentional or intentional, permanent or temporary, viewer driven or artist driven are art, then what value does art have? It seems to me that just the melting footprints temporarally and without thought in the snow are valueless except for the beautiful memory that the women who walked to her mail box held. And it seems to me that the black and white photo of these footprints hold more value, monetarily and aesthetically than the snow prints.
ReplyDeleteThere is a long held arguement amongst artists that place architects and sculptors at the top of the ladder when it comes to the value of art because they are creating space. Painters are next because they are creating light. And ceramics, fiber art, commercial art, any art that is functional last because it has a purpose other than existing as art.
If this holds true, than would you respond to this questions differently?
that's a good point about art being communication, and it's true that the footprints are also communicating something. But isn't there a fundamental difference between these two forms of communication? Something beautiful may or may not be art, just as art may or may not be beautiful. In the same way, art is communication but is all communication art? and I'm not trying to sound like a Confucius ;)
ReplyDeleteI believe all the above mentioned are forms of art. It is all in the eye of the beholder and may or may not be beautiful but more appealing to the eye. Even if art disappears and is not longer there it is still valuable and may be considered even more valuable since it cannot be reproduced the exact same way. I think that photography might be one of the greatest forms of art because we use it everyday. In our minds when we see something memorable we take a "photographic" picture to keep with us. I don't think you can really say which form of art is higher than the other on the ladder due to that they are all used to express the feelings of someone in communication towards the outside world. The artist always thinks their art is beautiful no matter what their critics say, so we can't really put it upon the rest of us to define what art is and if it is actually beautiful.
ReplyDelete