Who's to say what's art and what's not? My two year old could scribble on a piece of paper and I could sell it for ten thousand dollars!
My first response to this would be, "Okay, why don't you give it a try." I can guarantee you wouldn't get very far.
For some reason, the rules and presumptions that form perceptions about other professions do not seem to apply when people think about art. Why is this? I think it's partially because of the portrayal of artists in the media. There are asumptions that artists are free-living, wild, crazy people who don't have to work very hard to make a huge amount of money. The truth is that most artists are very normal people who work very hard in order to make a living. As well, many of the most controversial artists draw the most media attention with art that is designed to shock the public. Another common stereotype is that artists are snobs because of the exclusive nature of the art world. But as with discourse within other professions, discourse in the art world is best understood by artists or those who make their living in art. I don't see how it is different than physicists talking about physics.
Not just anyone can become an artist - it is not just about natural talent. Like any profession, one must get training and education in order to practice their trade. One could go to art school, or be mentored or take part in an aprenticeship. Not only do artists recieve training, they must also gain experience; build a resume, etc. Art has become so mystified because of a lack of education, that the public believes that art is either very easy because you don't need to really work at it or recieve training; or that art is infinitely difficult because it relies entirely on god-given talent.
But isn't art just about self-expression?
The idea of "self-expression" is relatively new. Throughout history (including most artist today today), artists made their living by commission - by working for the government, institutions, or individuals. Very few artists make their living purely by self-expression. "Self-expression" is marketable in our individualistic society; the perception of self-expression is more important that actually expressing oneself honestly.
This one hits me close to home when I think about art and the evangelical church. It seems the view evangelical Christians have taken on visual arts in the church is that it is just self-expression (often confused with WORSHIP). I think of the artist standing up at the front of the church creating something inspirational while someone plays a chorus in the background. There is probably a time or a place for such a spectacle - but it totally disregards the rich history and the important roles that the visual arts have played in the past. If art is just self-expression than viewers cannot possibly take part.
But who defines what art is? Who is responsible for passing judgment on art?
Well, many try to avoid judgment by using "self-expression" as a crutch (who can judge your art invalid when you are just expressing yourself). But as in any profession there are perameters to define what is good practice and what is bad (there is such a thing as good and bad dentistry, good and bad business administration etc). The rules defining art are known as the elements and principles of art: Balance, rhythm, symetry, line, colour, value.... There are these rules, there is also a history to look back on and a community of discourse to judge the value of art.
As with other fields, people do not always get the credit they deserve. Many great scientists were never recognized until they were long dead. Still others have taken credit for inovations they did not discover. This happens in the art world as well - but it does not illegitimize the art community.
There are different levels of artistic achievement - Paintings hanging in a coffee shop in Waldheim will probably not be as good as paintings hanging in the Mendel. But this does not make any level of art cease to be art. Indeed, an artist must start somewhere, but he or she must always work within the perameters of the elements and principles of art and must take part in the art community.
On another note, art is (or should be) governned by ethics (that may or may not surprise you). Artists have roles to play in society. They are visionaries, watchdogs, and cultural mouthpieces. Aesthetics and the role of images are becoming increasingly important to our highly visual culture - the role of ethics cannot be diminished, but I will save that discussion for another day.
Isn't art about the viewer? Shouldn't art be accessable and enjoyable for everyone?
Yes it should. The visual arts could not exist without the viewer. I'd like to compare art with literature. Books are meant to be read. But you must learn to read first if you want to enjoy a book. There are also books that are for specific audiences. A two year old will not enjoy War and Peace. But this doesn't mean that Goodnight Moon is less valid than War and Peace, it means that Goodnight Moon is valid to the two year old, but hopefully at some point later in life, she may also enjoy more difficult and challenging books.
We have forgotten to teach ourselves to read art. Art is often one of the first subjects to be cut out of the school curriculem at the slightest sign of financial strain. Suddenly, when we come into contact with art that does not look "real" or that we cannot understand, we question the validity of art alltogether. We are a society that has forgotten how to evaluate images, thus we are more likely to be manipulated by images.
