“Perception of art, as influenced by Pop Art.”
art is not
the possession of the artist
for art possesses
art is not
solid or rigid
art is
pliable
liquid
vaporous
art does not exist
out there
art exists
within
as limitless
as those who behold it
art is not
physical manifestation
art is
metaphysical
art is not
the thing
art is
the experience
art is the source
and destination
art is the consumer
and the consumed
art is the query
and the response
art is the coming
and the going
art is the beginning
and the end
art is the light
and the darkness
art is the sorrow
and the joy
art is the fact
and the fiction
art is the pain
and the pleasure
art is the madness
and the reason
is a soup can art?
as art is
art is
Andy Warhol’s soup cans.
rob kistner © 2019
Hear ye, hear ye! I really like this expansive, inclusive expounding on that which is art — as in the eye of the beholder.
Yes, and that is precisely what it is Lisa — no more, no less. You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows!
Dude, wow, did you create the Star Wars can? Art is…opens a consummate can of words, and you found some great ones.
I dug the last batch, with art as madness and reason. ART is one of the big words. I also dug it being the /consumer and the consumed/.
Thank you Glenn. As Lisa astutely pointed out here, this is actually a very short cliché poem — art is truly in the eye of the beholder.
Yes. Art is in the eye of the beholder, to put it simply.
But who wants to put it simply when one can have fun with words Toni? 🙂
Wowser. I’m damned near speechless. You didn’t answer — did you create that stupendous Star Wars can???
No Bev, that’s all Campbell’s doin’ — they featured several Star Wars characters. I just thought it carried the whole “pop art” thing even further.
So enjoyed your straightforward thoughts on art and your fun with words. This is so true:
art does not exist
out there
art exists
within
as limitless
as those who behold it
And poetry is art.
Glad this resonated with you Victoria.
Perfection! At least now I know more than one definition of art. Very well done!
Thank you Viv! The definition of art is as varied as those who define it.
I love this!
Thank you Mary! 🙂
Wonderful, fully explored, simple concept, now THAT is art. 😉
Thank you JP, very kind! 🙂
You really laid this one out very well. So true. Art is not the possession of the one who creates it…. How profound.
Love your Post!
Thank you so much Dwight. Once the art is created, it belongs to everyone who sees it — because art is the experience we have personally with the creation. Someone may possess the “thing” — but they don’t possess that which makes it art to one who beholds it.
I especially like art being the madness and the reason.
It certainly is both isn’t it Frank… 🙂
I like this one a lot, Rob
Thank you Judy… 🙂
An interesting philosophic pondering on art and the soup can, Rob! Art does possess, it’s not the possession of the artist, which is also true of written art, and art is most certainly an experience! And, although we might not like it, ‘art is the consumer and the consumed’, which is proved by the ridiculous money exchanged in the art world.
I absolutely agree with you, including that art is the consumer “and” the consumed — that is why I wrote it. And I have no personal feelings about someone paying an exorbitant amount of money for a piece of art. If they think it’s worth it, and they can afford it — then bless them and the artist they made rich. i may not even want to hang it on my wall… but hey, it’s in the eye of the beholder after all Kim.
Can I play devil’s advocate and say that the soup can itself isn’t art, it becomes are when someone paints it or photographs it and puts it in a frame?
You are not playing devil’s advocate Jane, you are agreeing precisely with what I was attempting, perhaps confusingly, to state. Art is not the thing, it is the personal metaphysical experience of the act of creation. I did this long involved explanation, as a parody of art critics, and their banally sacred long=windedness.
I really like what you said here about art being the personal metaphysical (meta and physical) acr of creation. Perfect summation. Also liked the way you unpacked it in the poem. Love the manhole pic.
Thank you Christine! 🙂 Great pic isn’t it, great expression of the era!
Nicely done! Love the Lou Reed video, too. Nice touch & very cool.
Thank you Susan… 🙂
Oh how we mythologize and sacradize the word “art”.
I wrote a piece on “what is a poem” here that addresses this tendency.
I enjoyed your spinning of contradictions here. For if 1=0, then all things is possible, and nothing has meaning.
For the word “art”, I think you could successfully substitute the long phrase of “ALL our works (our conversations, projects, labors and even dreams)” and still be accurate.
I think we agree on the point of my piece here Sabio. It was, in a landslide of words, to contradict all those, whether they consider themselves professional critics, or the “enlightened” amateur, who attempt to impose their definition of what art “is”. I could have simply written: “art is an experience, not a thing, and it is found exclusively in the mind of the beholder”. As far a putting anything in that definition — no, you can’t fit just any human endeavor under it. Plumbing, for example, is plumbing — no matter how you might want tp personally perceive it. The pipes will either stop leaking, or the toilet will flush. Those are absolutes that either exist or they don’t. If they don’t — NO PLUMBING!
As to your clever word play regarding “what is poetry” — you agree completely with my view regarding “what is art”. Art & poetry both being the “experience of” and not the “thing” — and being personal, they fall outside any other’s feeble attempt at defining them. But plumbing either is, or is not plumbing — not open to personal interpretation.
I thoroughly enjoyed this Rob, and the route you took to get to the point that yes, art is in the eye of the beholder. Wonderful!
Thank you Linda, glad you were willing to take my little ride with me… 🙂
a laid back lyrical litany, Rob…loved it…JIM
Thank you Jim!
I don’t know much about art (but I know what I like!!!!) – but my impression is that your poem is the set of questions and challenges that Warhol was making. New art forms ask and answer those same questions anew each time, which is why they are so challenging. And of course, you could change the word “art” for “poetry” and the poem would still work, because those questions and answers are the essential ones about creativity. I’m not sure it works for all creative forms. I don’t think you could use “novel” in there…I think “art” and poetry share the fact that they are a single, integrated experience that you can take in almost instantly initially, but then work over in your mind.
This piece is my vision of what constitutes art Sarah, and it all comes to the inevitable conclusion that any thing that is a personal statement by the creator is fair game for a personal evaluation by the observer — anything! I think popular music and fashion, which also are. Types of art forms in themselves, fall under this piece I wrote. A novel of fiction is more complex, but if you boil it down to its core, namely creative literature, then I believe it also falls squarely under this piece. Something you may call a novel I may consider drivel — so you would call it inspiring art, I would call it uninspiring pulp. It eventually boils down to inspiration. Did this act of pure creation inspire or not. And the answer to that question is owned by the individual who encounters it. A documentary or autobiography does not fall under the heading of art in my opinion, because their purpose is to present hard facts. However, these can certainly be judged by the individual as well written or poorly written. But they would still be a documentary or an autobiography. Goes back to what I commented about plumbing. If the pipes don’t leak and the toilet flushes — then it’s plumbing. You may not like the toilet style but the core of it is still plumbing — it is an absolute state. Anything that exists strictly to make an artistic statement, or encompasses such as its primary core, such as “fashion”, either succeeds as art or fails as art – based solely on the perspective of the observer. That is why I made that list of extremes. The artist is one side of the couplet, the art observer is the other. If the two sides are not in sync, then it is not art in the absolute in each instance of disconnect. It might be a sculpture, or it might be a painting, or whatever. But if the greater and the observer do not agree, then it is not inspiring — therefore not “art” which is an abstract, metaphysical descriptor. Only applies if the connection between maker and observer is made, if the circuit is closed. Purely sn individual case by case conclusion.
I really admire this, Rob. Art is only what the individual sees as such. Excellent poem. Also, thanks for Lou. I miss him so much.
Thank you Sara — and you are welcome…! 🙂
Ah…..what art is and what art is not……….a listing poem that stands tall! 🙂
Thank you Lillian! 🙂