kompik

A very thought-provoking topic, Mcspeed, thanks for posting it.

There's actually several ways to approach this story. First, can we accept that any single group of people have the authority to judge what is and is not "art?" I would suggest that yes, that is reasonable. It sounds elitist, but those who live and breath in the realm of aesthetics quite simply are better equiped than a plumber whose closest brush with the art world is watching American Idol to decide what does and what does not fall into the category of "artwork." Does that mean that every philanthropic organization that claims to support the arts has this authority? Almost certainly not. It's quite possible that this British Arts Council is simply more interested in paintings, photography and sculpture to have money to throw around for other artistic endevours. I'll let those more informed about this particular group hash this out.

Then there is the idea of "craft" vs. "art." For an excellent discussion of a more basic form of this argument, I'd suggest reading Martin Heidegger's "The Origin of the Work of Art" where he addresses what elevates "common things" to the prominance of "artwork." I feel that the truth of the matter is that most bonsai does fall into the realm of craft or hobby, with only a relative few worth of the title "artwork."

Speaking from my professional background, there is a difference between a meer building and an architectural masterpiece. We fondly refer to it as the difference between "architecture" and "capital 'A' Architecture." The vast majority of buildings are simply serving a function for human habitation. Some exhibit certain pleasing aesthetic qualities such as harmonic proportions or elegant forms, but still fall short of greatness. Even the most precisely crafted and flawless designs lack a certain quality that really makes them "sing." Then, there is that rare occasion when you encounter an ediface that speaks to the soul of man, elevates the spirit, and/or produces an indescribable response that, unlike the hundreds of buildings you passed along your way, makes you stop in your tracks and catch your breath. THIS is art. THIS is Architecture.

Now, it doesn't have to be elaborate, convoluted, or require a Ph.D to appreciate. I believe it was Venturi who suggested that the first and most powerful Architecture was the unmarked tombstone in the forest. It produces a profound "man was here and marked his passing" sensation that so so many works of architecture fail to evoke.

How this informs the current discussion, I'm not certain. I was just hoping to share how this kind of debate courses through almost every form of human endeavour that's in the least bit concerned with beauty, elegance, or the sublime. It's relatively easy to become a proficient technician and master techniques to produce a variety of wondrous effects, but it is another thing entirely to become an artist. Everyone who tries to do something "artistic" gets their ego wrapped up in the notion that they *are* artists and produce at least some works of art. I would gently suggest that that is seldom the case.

All in all, I would guess that there are plenty of things funded by the British Arts Council that only barely scrape at the surface of "art," and that there are plenty of "capital 'B' bonsai" that are more worthy of their funding, but throwing suspicion on the practice as a whole is an easy way for them to spend money on what they want to spend money on without much worry about being accused of nepotism. (Oh, wait, I said I'd leave that kind of talk to others. Oops.)

__________________
- this space for rent -