One of the greatest challenges to any of us working in any capacity in the arts, especially contemporary, is explaining to non-art folks what it is that we deal with, and, with much more difficulty, why. A few months ago, I conversed with a software designer sitting next to me on plane who was interested in approaching contemporary art (he was from Seattle, and though I have never been there, I understand it would be a terrific place to do so), but had no idea where to start. In an almost sinful over-simplification, I encouraged him to look at works of contemporary art as punch lines, maybe even to jokes he had not been actively aware of; to find the simplest possible “aha!” moment and then allow questions to arise from that point.
In an age when art need not be aesthetic or formal, it is difficult to define it as anything other than what it is. So I took it as a challenge when I got a note from my father yesterday essentially asking whether or not an object was art.
He sent me a magazine clipping from the design section of Fast Company, a business oriented publication. It featured ceramic urns by French designer Mathieu Lehanneur that “capture demographic data in enameled ceramic, with 99-year-olds at the top and newborns at the bottom.” The designer expressed that he “wanted to transform demographic data into a more emotional object.”
My father wrote:
“I find these urns aesthetically pleasing. But is it inspired art, craft, or a 3D PowerPoint?”
Of course, these are created as commodities, you can buy one for yourself or a loved one, customized by year and country, for a measly $9,000. But art and commodity are not mutually exclusive. Just because art enjoys the prestige of the gallery does not mean it is not a commodity, and if one asserted that objects not intended for gallery or museum display are not art, they would come under a good deal of fire from anyone who appreciates so-called Outsider Art or art objects from non-Western cultures that does not function within our system of understanding of art history.
And yes, urns, even particularly beautiful ones, are considered to be the work of craftsmen or artisans. I would argue that this is primarily because urns serve a purpose in the praxis life, while art objects do not.
The comparison to a PowerPoint presentation seems very apt, these pieces convey information, concrete numerical data. Yet I do not think they stop there. The marriage of art and data is nothing new, in this instance it is the execution, the eloquence with which the artist conveys the data, that holds the highest importance. The elocution has an elegance unlikely to be found in a PowerPoint presentation and provides an association of ideas that provokes thought in the viewer. The demographic rings provide a tangible and yet novel understanding of history and the object’s essential form and function associates it with sentimental memory.
Is it art? I don’t really care. It was well worth looking at.
