Well, at least these are a few of millions and billions of “issues” and arguments that surround art. I would consider myself not extremely well informed about what all goes on in the “art community”, mostly because I have no idea where news like that gets posted. It all seems like some sort of underground operation in which you only get the news if you’re “part of the club.”
That’s fine with me I guess. I don’t really want to be wrapped up with the snooty-tooty, rich, snobby art people that I imagine are who make up the “art community.” They only glance at the most beautiful works of art, like pieces from the masters (Da Vinci, Van Gogh, Picasso, etc.) That’s the type of art I think is only really pondered about in the esteemed art community. As an artist, I do not identify with the traditional artist category as it really just isn’t my style. I prefer anime/mange style, it’s what I can do, or rather it is what I am comfortable doing and is what I believe I am best at.
I found a blog post that brought up a question that gets to me a lot: why don’t people consider anime/manga style artwork… real artwork? Just because we aren’t painting the insides of church ceilings with angels and depictions of Jesus or using traditional mediums like acrylic paints and fresco for our work doesn’t mean we aren’t creating art. This blogger, Meimi132 no Itonami (WordPress blog, fyi), is bringing up an age old question regarding anime/mange style artwork and why many people in the art world, particularly art teachers, do not consider anime/manga to be a style of art. This argument really ties into the bigger picture of why isn’t cartooning/comic book illustration/any sort of art that involves a cartoonish style, why these are not considered art forms or highly regarded as a style?
Honestly, this argument has existed since the creation of cartooning. And while Meimi132 definitely got their opinion out there about how anime/manga is its own beautiful art style and created discussion on their blog post with comments from their readers, I do not believe this is an issue that will ever really be resolved because it involves the opinions of many different people. There probably won’t ever be a compromise to this debate, just two different sides to the coin where people can decide where they sit on that coin and ignore the other.
Back to the traditional master pieces, I have nothing against the works of the past. There are countless pieces that I think are absolutely magnificent and they literally take my breath away (seeing them in person, of course) and I respect their existence because they are the god-father’s of art. I believe that all works of art should be respected, especially the ones from our past. Which is why this news article I found about how France is wanting to try to sell pieces like the Mona Lisa to help pay off their debts breaks my heart. It never occurred to me that this sort of topic would ever come up in reality because I’ve always just assumed that art is respected by the public and kept safe in museums so that people from all around the world can observe pieces in person (takes the breath away).
The writer of this article, Ian Sparks for Mailonline, is shedding light to this new “epidemic” of countries selling off their priceless works of art to get themselves out of their debt. I had no idea that this concept of selling off artwork to pay off a countries debt was even a thing until I stumbled upon this article. Sparks is trying to give third-party readers (basically people outside of France) an idea of what could happen if the Mona Lisa could be sold and what other countries have already done to raise money to repay their debt. Obviously, not everyone in France agrees with selling the Mona Lisa, like Paris City Hall’s Head of Culture, Bruno Julliard. And thank goodness for that. This is all just a proposal, an idea floating around right now because there is a law in France that states artwork is considered a national treasure and belongs to the public (because it is displayed in museums) and therefore cannot be sold. So not only are there people that oppose this idea, the law forbids it.
I would say that showing examples of what other countries have sold off to help pay their debt has shown that, even though some countries have bit the bullet, they’re debt is still tremendously high and now their national treasures are lost to them; basically, nobody wins. Debt is such a sticky situation and I never feel comfortable or even really understand talks about how countries are debt. I’m always asking the question of, “How is a country in debt and who the heck are they in debt to?” (A whole different argument, one that I do not wish to get into, so I will just leave it at that.)
After reading that article, it got my brain thinking about the future of art and if one day we will just end up without paintings and sculptures to fill the walls and spaces of museums? A very sad thought for an artist, really… The future of art and where it is going is something I think about whenever it is brought up and really question what art is now, in our world today. Would you consider nude pictures of celebrities, that were leaked onto the internet without their consent, taken and blown up on canvases to hang in a gallery art? I wouldn’t! But apparently, it’s a thing. Yep. The last article I found talked about the recent incident where celebrity nudes, one of those celebrities being Jennifer Lawrence (my girl!), were leaked on the internet.
Some “artist” by the name of XVALA said that these nude pictures of the celebrities classify as art, even though these photographs were leaked to the Internet, the public, without the women’s permission or awareness. Bull. This guy didn’t create anything, he just took images, went down to his local Costco with the images and got them blown up on canvases. This argument is just another Lego block to be added to the structure of the continuing argument about appropriation art, the taking over, into a work of art, of a real object or even an existing work of art, and about the on going argument about if it is actually art. I personally do not see this as art because I believe art is created and an artist needs to create in order to keep his/her “title”.
Again, I think this is just another never ending argument between too many people with too many different opinions. Such is the way of art, I suppose. Art can really be defined as anything because art is just a matter of opinion. I believe when opinions are involved (at least with art), there isn’t ever a right or wrong, only what you choose to believe.
– – –
Meimi132 no Itonami (April, 2010). Why don’t art teachers really acknowledge anime/manga style artwork?. Retrieved from http://meimi132.wordpress.com/2010/04/17/why-dont-art-teachers-really-acknowledge-animemanga-style-artwork/.
Sparks, Ian (September 3, 2014). Could France sell off the Mona Lisa to pay its debt? ‘Priceless’ Da Vinci painting could make a dent in vast deficit. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2741952/Could-France-sell-Mona-Lisa-pay-debt-Priceless-Da-Vinci-painting-make-dent-vast-deficit.html.
Frank, Priscilla (September 4, 2014). Artist To Exhibit Jennifer Lawrence’s Leaked Nudes As Art Because The World Is A Dark Place. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/04/jennifer-lawrence-nudes-art-_n_5766972.html.
– – –
Week 2 Blog Assignment