What constitutes art? Which are the intrinsic qualities in a work of art? Itis not my intention to give an answer, just a hint (which - off course -reflects my own personal standpoint, but then humans as well as the arts arevery subjective): art constitutes itself, not through qualities like theartist's skill or through a will of the artist to come closer to the people,make them "understand" art works, mix up art with a posteriorisciences, oh no, even if some so called artists likes to think that it is theanswer to my questions (and it's often the same artists that tries to explaineverything they create - in some way or another - which makes their approach toart even more silly).
Art is art because it is art, someone in the art world has made a statementthat it is art and some of the other agents has recognized it as art. No oneoutside the art world can decide what is art and what isn't.
No one can tell if a work of art is good or bad, if someone does he/she isfor sure either a verbalist, a hypocrite, or just another poor looser who wantsto impress on the nubiles. Not even the agents in the art world can tell; theonly thing they can do is decide if it's art or not. Was Rembrandt a betterpainter than Victor Brauner? Was Joseph Beuys' performances closer to art thanFrank Wedekind's? Are the paintings by Soutine art and the pseudo-pornographicphotographs by Richard Kern not? I don't think so!!!
In the contemporary art you 'll find new and for art very strangetendencies; the romantic idea of the artists autonomy, his subjectivity and hisright to embody the metaphysical isn't in fashion any longer, instead theartist has turned into a strange kind of scientist whose aims are to explaindifferent kinds of scientific experiments in an "artistic" way ,there is no room for a totally subjective mind, the work of art is intended tobe understood - at least in some sense - by everyone. We'll find a big paradoxhere, the artist wants to be a scientist, OK, he'll do some kinda research, butthere will be no conclusions (in all sciences,even philosophy, the aim is tofind a conclusion), it's up to the artworks receivers to find the answers tothe artists questions, and as a questioner the artist are back in the oldromantic swamp again, unable to defend his oeuvre. And at the same time as hewants to be an scientist the artist wanna be the romantic artist, 'cause if hewasn't there would be no raison d'être for him, he would be as useless asa rusty razorblade. Still he wants to declare that he's something very special,because he is an artist. Gee, it's so boring! I just wanna cry out loud!Help!!!
