Can works that deviate from representing the natural world be works of art?

Question

Can works that deviate from representing the natural world be works of art?

Answer 1

To some, I prefer to know what I am looking at.

I would not give you a wooden nickle for a Picasso

Answer 2

If the artist says it's Art--then it is Art.

You don't have to approve of it for it to be art..

There was an artist named Marcel Duchamp who felt some artist's work was picked on because it was not according to some people's taste..so for this particular show-he entered a urinal (!) called it "Fountain" signed it with the pseudonym "R. Mutt". It was rejected from that show--but ALL the other artists banded together and wrote a letter admonishing the show judging panel..

Now this "fountain" was just a plain old urinal purchased from a store that sells bathroom fixtures..nothing exotic was done to it-except it was signed "R. Mutt."  However. The statement it made was to have people recognize they had too narrow a view of art...Art-is art-because the artists says it is! The artist-at that moment -had that particular point of view-and reflected-and made THAT piece.

There was an exhibit in Chicago-30 years ago..all classically done portraits. Beautiful works..then people realized the portraits were all of Murderers...of course-there was a big huge national "To-Do" about it -everyone was up in arms because federal funding had been spent on this work-of murderers.

Even Picasso--he,Braque and Duchamp were sitting around talking-and just wondered-WHAT IF? What if you could paint all the planes and angles in a person--Cubism developed (Look up "Nude Descending a Staircase"  by Duchamp). It was never meant as Museum work..it was just doodling--supposition-and what if--and for the most part-painted on cardboard. Who knew? Course-like any good artist-they saw what side the bread was buttered on-and they went with it-and there you have it.

AS  for that big ruckus about those portraits of murderers--that was the EXACT response artist wanted..she wanted revulsion-and draw attention to how murders may look just like you or I..may even clean up and look handsome or cultured..she wanted to produce this horrible disquieting effect about these subjects.

She did.

The artist, Wassily Kandinsky didn't want to make representational art..for instance-he didn't want to paint a horse-or a flower..he wanted to depict&paint the EMOTION of thinking about those things..An accredited Art Therapist actually uses this premise to unlock a patient's underlying stress and give direction to healing.

Art takes many forms-many theories- and many uses. Form Follows Function!

And-sad to say--in art-like MANY fields: Medicine-Music-Sports,etc. there are different levels of talent--and this is where it gets sticky--different levels of common sense, personal taste, and integrity. Just because art is art--doesn't mean you have to like it-or hang it in your living room. To make people stop making "bad" art--who would judge of what bad-or good is? Judging an artshow can be effected by whether or not the judge is short tempered and needs new underwear or a weather change and needs a Sudefed-what one person sees as beautifu-and other discounts-it's arbitrary.

And discounting Art because someone judged it as NOT art--well-that's Censorship-like happened in Russia during Stalin-Germany during Hitler-Cambodia during Pol Pot--or NOW-in China in Tibet. At all costs we need to push the envelope and protect ourselves from all forms of censorship.

Realistic and representational art, or wildly avant guard works like Constructivism..it's all art. You just have to figure the perspective from where it came. Or not. Up to you, the viewer. You can chose to like it-or not. But it's all art.

I will suggest art made by an elephant-a horse or a chimpanzee--may be clever-but perhaps not art. In the eyes of an animal-it's just the direct route for getting a treat. They could care less about expression..just hurry up and fork over the apple.