Drawing the line in art.

Art is a form of expression, a means to extract emotions and find a voice amongst a crowd of passionate and soulless forms.

Soulless because the dreams they follow eat away at their hearts, yet the passion still burns within, a roaring flame that can never be extinguished except by death.

Grim as this may sound it is true of many artists in all mediums, The Poet, The Musician, The Sculptor, Painter,Photographer and the author all hold these traits in common it is what drives them much as any profession and it is within their creations that those who can not are fulfilled with joy and entertainment.

But where is the line to be drawn on what is distinguished as art, is Tracy Hemmings unmade bed as much art as say Van Gogh's Sunflowers or De Vinci's Mona Liza? can we caragorise them all as artists while including such innovations like Andy Warhol or even Banksy?

I will admit I used to have quite a closed mind when it came to art and my preferences leaned more toward classic art I like to see a clear representation of the subject, perhaps that is the Photographer in me, either way I found it difficult to appreciate other forms of expression especially in modern art.

One modern Artist with whom I found it most difficult to understand was the world renound (and local lad) Damien Hurst, when I first heard about him and saw some of his work my immediate reaction was "he is nothing more than a butcher, anyone could do that" and at the time I refused to think any other way ( I know I know I'm stubborn).

This was one artist who had caused many a night of heated discussion between myself and a good friend, now on the subject of my friend who is a very talented wood sculptor and is also a fantastic Photographer, our artistic tastes differ on many levels.

He appreciates a more raw style, something which pushes the boundaries beyond what others believe to be correct or in some cases morally right, and at one time I would disagree because I didn't understand that our ideals were both correct, Art has always pushed the boundaries, shocked and often appalled the public but it doesn't all have to be that way.

Which brings us back to Mr Damien Hurst, it wasn't until I saw an interview with him that I understood what he was doing and began to appreciate his work as art, he portrays death in his work, the cow and sheep cut in half, the diamond studded skull (for the love of god) are all representations of death and the complexity and sometimes beauty we often overlook.

Again though, where is the line drawn, another artist who's name I can not recall, sold a piece of work for a large sum of money, the piece? was simply a piece of crumpled paper with the names of several Greek gods written on it, is this art I ask? to me I think the line has to be drawn when the creativity isn't applied I don't believe it is for these "Art Critics" in the world of art to make judgement on what is considered art.

I do believe that a line must be drawn somewhere otherwise the value of art as a creative tool will decline even more than it already has, by all means push boundaries but keep within the one rule of art and that is creativity with imagination.