Colin Lewis wrote:
Ana Veler wrote:
Challenging definitions of art is a respectable trade these days, in some places...
Indeed so. And about as productive as trying to catch morning mist in a butterfly net.
'Talk is cheap' was not coined by an art critic ...
Can only agree that it is not easy to get something out of that morning mist. It's been taken too seriously for too long.
Even trying to pin down who is assigned the task of deciding what art is, is quite a task these days. Among the whole mess, reshaped trees sounds like one more exercise - one that happens to have a tradition behind, longer then most definitions of art last, as of late. All that must add up to something.
I cannot think of anything that has not been tried [that's why I am not an artist!]
'Interactive art' [picked to fit the given type characteristics of 'mobility of appearance and the need for successive artists to accommodate changes brought about by the trees natural growth'] is a fairly notorious play of words -
Tate Intermedia calls for it: '
"Artworks may be created with newer or older networked and time-based media [...].
The programme will also address [...] practices that challenge traditional ideas of the art object; including work that is process-driven, participatory or interactive." Those points are reached neatly:
-
'time-based media' / what else?,
-
'networked' / what isn't,
-
'chalenge traditional ideas...'/ considering that Tate never cared
for immemorial Asian arts, and elsewhere this is challenging, yes, sir!
-
'process-driven' / kidding?
-
'participatory' / touche!
-
'interactive' / OK ... ;)
Sounds a bit like a joke, but that's about as official as a definition of 'Art' gets these wretched networked, interactive days, and I am trying to see what the corresponding boxes look like being ticked away. Not sure they are meant to - possibly why Tate is not expecting trees in pots to show up on the doorstep [and I am not an artist] ...
No idea where's this going. There it was - Intermedia, and your comments, and this place. I wonder what bonsai defined would look like in that context - possibly starting with the quirks of the medium, rather then any given utopia of aesthetics [that's what I like to think they were, as long as they were anything].
Colin Lewis wrote:
Ana Veler wrote:
What should a successful connection with another form of art accomplish?
I'm not sure it
should achieve anything specific, but there are things it
could achieve. It might help define bonsai to others, ...
I am surprised to find that some artists find the idea of bonsai - possibly in parallel, possibly by old-fashioned reference. So far the list is awfully short [two], but that was just the first page of Google. Who knows what's out there? ...