Art & Artist

The confusion between art and artist is very common. Who makes art is artist! But is this so simple?
If we ask what art is, we must ask what an artist is!
The confusion is higher when someone defines the Great Artists. Who are these great artists?
The site artfact.net shows the position of two hundred eighty-six thousand and twenty-five artists. In the first position is Andy Warhol, in the ninety-ninth position is Richard Long and Loris Gréaud, (Palais de Tokyo, 2008 and Biennale de Veneza, 2011) takes the position one thousand four hundred and fifty-three. Are these the Great Artists? And the others? Are they Great Artist too? When I will finish writing these notes many dozens of Great Artists were born.
The confusion between art and artist results of the confusion between an objective and an adjective.
The objective is the substance that constitutes the essential in building the human values, whatever form that man can however acquire in the logic of Darwin's evolutionary framework.
The adjective is just a degree qualification, which is often applied in a pejorative way to accept what in fact has not been learned yet. The value of this adjective undulates, oscillates or fluctuates in accord with each of us, can not be deliberated by anyone.
When we only see the adjective, we see the artist higher than art. This confusion is not right and can be danger! If persists, will persist also the faith or the belief in dehumanization or the individual against the collective.
Recently were wroten critic words about the work that Susan Philipsz presented in Tate Gallery and that make her the winner of the Turner Prize 2010: It’s not art! It’s music! But nobody critiqued Susan Philipsz like musician. Everybody see her like an Artist that makes something: this something will be art. This is true? I am afraid is not!
So, it is urgent the construction of silos of humanity because we will need their food. Without the food of these silos we will be slaves in the future!

No comments: