Monday, December 3, 2007

There isn't much to say

Sissy's first choir performance. I am really proud of her.

I spent the evening listening to my daughters first ever choir performance. They were very good. Considering they had only had eight practices and one of those was actually just a pizza party, they did very well. They knew several songs and sounded very good.

I spent my day finishing up grant work for a charter school. After tomorrow I will refocus my work and get some things for me done.

I think in the mean time, I will pose the question "what definition for art do you use?" And honestly this is a question with no true answer. But I wonder what other people think art means. I believe that art is primarly the act of creating, using raw materials, to create a new different an unique form that has a meaning to the creator and that can convay some meaning to the viewer. It doesn't need to have a specific function, the important thing, for me is the creation. There was a discussion in one of my art history classes ( I have had several, one class away from a minor, yet one more useless thing I have done with my college career) about whether or not the process of an artist can be considered art.
We had this discussion because one the students in the class was using food in his art to discuss his food addictions. I remember thinking, well sure that process is art if I get to be part of that process. Otherwise he is just slapping chedder on a peice of paper and has no context. Context is important, especially when the artist is expressing a point of view that may be unique to that artist.
And I quess that could easily lead to another question. Is art art without a viewer? Please feel free to leave me your comments and we can start a discussion on this very subject.

No comments: