The Definition of Art

Been awhile since I last posted something. I haven't forgotten. No. Rather I believe I am suffering from a malady that I liken to writer's block. I will call it blogger's barrier. I've been slightly paralyzed as I contemplate what I should include here, what to digress upon. It is so sad particularly when I know that, at a maximum, there may be five people who ever read what I post. I wonder if the great writers of our time (or before our time) ever faced this type of paralysis? My guess is "yes" but they had the real pressure of publishers, adoring fans, accolades and literary awards looming over their heads. Me? Not so much.

So, last week I flew to our nation's capital to partake in a little consumer research. While this was officially sanctioned company research, I did find a few moments to break away from work and experience a little fun in Alexandria, VA. If you've never been to Alexandria, I would recommend it. We stayed in the Old Town section which boasted a wealth of cute little shops and restaurants all in a very manageable walking distance from nearby hotels. Since my brother lives in DC, he hopped the Metro and stopped in for a visit, some chili and a little Olympics watchin. Jealous? Thought so :)

Before flying out, I was lucky enough to enjoy a nice Sunday morning breakfast with one of my new colleagues and her family who lives in the area. There was a lot of great conversation as we devoured our omelets and french toast. One topic that I was particularly intrigued by revolved around art and how it is defined. My colleagues father defined art by saying, "If I can do it, it's not art." This opened up a whole discussion on what it takes to be considered an artist, how much does being original and creative play in our definition of art, are those who copy the work of great artists (tribute bands, forgers, etc.) considered artists? On the latter point, there arose this distinction between those who may be technically skilled in a particular artistic venture but lack the originality that is indicative of a true artist. This really got me thinking. If you are a someone who can draw really well or you sing like an angel or you can knit . . well, you might be a craftsman or a hobbyist but not an artist. I believe art has to have an element of inspiration complicated by a revolutionary spirit or, at the very least, a "do your own thing," challenge the status quo, avaunt guard kinda mojo. On top of all of this, there has to be some aspect of beauty in the artistic work or act. Art needs to provoke and give pleasure -- it might be a sick and perverse, demented and sad type of pleasure, but a pure pleasure must be present nonetheless. When defined in this way, it is a wonder that anyone can be classified as truly artistic.

I'm not sure what this all means, but it has forced me to consider where and how I experience art in my own life. I would say 99.9% of the television I watch is not art. Reality tv does not classify as art. Nope. I'm not sure the books I read are art. They entertain. They allow me to escape to a different place and time, but most are not revolutionary. They don't provoke and give me pure pleasure. Some of the music I listen to might be considered artistic, but not necessarily inspirational or very original. So, where does that leave me? I suppose my art can be found in simple moments of reflection and interaction with those around me. Waking up in the comfort of my bed and greeting the day with Mr. Oz, the rising sun as it kisses the purple, orange and yellow glow of the skyline, scratching the fuzzy head of my cat, slowing down and easing into the evening hours . . . these are all small pieces of inspiration, revolution and pleasure. I know it seems sappy, but it makes me happy to think that I am surrounded by art of the everyday and by participating in it and observing it, I too am an artist of sorts.